Sitting of 13 July 1998

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

  Prisons (Overcrowding)
  Mr. Robin Corbett: When he last visited a prison establishment to discuss overcrowding. [48393]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): We visit prisons to see for ourselves what is happening and to talk to staff, prisoners and members of boards of visitors about matters of concern to them. Issues relating to overcrowding and prison population pressures are frequently raised. Since the general election last year, Ministers in my Department, including me, have made 64 visits to prison establishments, of which I have made nine, the most recent being to the Wetherby young offenders institution on 30 April.
  Mr. Corbett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that putting non-violent offenders in prison is often neither the
  2
  most cost-effective option nor the most effective prevention of reoffending? How will the Crime and Disorder Bill inspire public confidence in the belief that punishment in the community is both cost-effective and at least as effective as prison in preventing reoffending?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to point out that community punishments are significantly less expensive than prison—the average cost of imprisonment is about £25,000 a year, whereas the average cost of a probation order is £2,000. Some so-called non-violent offenders have to be incarcerated because they are persistent offenders, but we are determined to improve the effectiveness of non-custodial sentences through, for example, a national roll-out of tagging and our many reforms to the youth justice system that will ensure that much more offending is nipped in the bud.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The Home Secretary was kind enough to visit the floating facility at Portland—I think that it was his first visit as Home Secretary. What is he doing to ensure that proper training and work programmes are carried out on such emergency facilities? What is he doing about the future of temporary facilities? Will the floating facility be rebuilt, or will it remain for more than the three years that were originally intended?
  Mr. Straw: I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the future of HMP Weare if that is convenient. I place on record my thanks for his support for the facility, despite some public opposition, much of which, I understand, has dissolved—people have accepted that the facility is not only good, but has created 200 or 300 extra jobs. We are committed to improving prison regimes. The House may be aware that we are spending £1.5 million on a pilot to ensure that welfare-to-work facilities are available in prisons before offenders leave.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that there have been too many suicides in prison,

  3
  particularly in Preston prison. Does he believe that one reason for that is overcrowding? If so, it is essential that we solve that problem as soon as possible.
  Mr. Straw: We are all profoundly concerned about the incidence of suicide in prison, which is significantly higher than in the equivalent age group outside prison. However, the number of suicides among young males is, sadly, rising in the population as a whole. I do not believe that there is evidence that overcrowding—prisoners being held two to a cell—is a cause of suicide. Indeed, many of those who are deemed to be at risk of committing suicide are put with another prisoner in the hope that the risk will be reduced. The Minister responsible for prisons, the Director General of the Prison Service and the whole of the service are taking every possible step to ensure—through counselling, for example—that the risk of suicide is reduced.

  Crimes Against the Person
  Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the level of crimes against the person in the United Kingdom. [48394]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): Not surprisingly, we regularly receive representations on the level of crimes against the person, often from Members of Parliament in relation to experience in their constituency, but as far as I am aware we have received none from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Amess: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the police and others on their efforts to detect and combat crime and in particular on their support for closed circuit television? If he will, how can it be right that, last year, Labour attacked the Conservative Government for not approving the CCTV bid in Southend, yet this year, when Southend borough council, which consists of the Labour party and its Liberal friends, put in a similar bid, the Labour Government rejected it?
  Mr. Michael: As I said in my first reply, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's new-found interest in the issue. The Government have got on with the task and given the weapons to the police, in partnership with local bodies, to enable them to tackle crime and disorder, including violence against the person. I hope that they will have the hon. Gentleman's support in that.
  Mr. David Winnick: Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the horrifying murders of three young children in Northern Ireland, who were done to death for no other reason than sectarianism? Will he take this opportunity to extend the sympathy of the whole House to the parents and the closest relatives of those who were murdered over the weekend? Is it not horrifying that, despite the Good Friday agreement, some people in Northern Ireland still want to use the terrible, murderous methods against innocent people, in this case young children, that were witnessed in the former Yugoslavia and elsewhere? Let us condemn these terrible murders and demonstrate the fact that we are on the side of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland, who also condemn what has occurred.
  Mr. Michael: Nothing is more effective than the death of children in concentrating people's minds on the horror
  4
  of violence, wherever it occurs. I certainly share my hon. Friend's view that it should give cause for thought to anyone who wants to continue the atmosphere of conflict. There is nothing in the situation of children of the ages of those who died that can possibly justify what has taken place. Everyone should pause for thought before doing anything that could encourage the continuation of such mindless violence.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I associate myself and my party entirely with what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the Minister said, but I want to ask about another specific area of crimes against the person: football hooliganism. Does the Minister agree that, if the world cup competition is to be, staged here, we need to convince everyone that everything possible is being done to eliminate hooliganism? Will the Home Office consider setting up an independent group to investigate what improvements can be made and whether any changes will require legislation?
  Mr. Michael: No one has taken more interest in that topic than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He has had the support of all parties in the House as well as the co-operation of the authorities in France in doing all that we can to tackle the problem and keep to a minimum any contribution that is made by English hooligans to the violence that has so disgraced us over recent months. I know that he intends to consider how to ensure that all possible measures are in place and that he wants to work with the Football Association to find the best way of making the maximum contribution, including through co-operation across the Floor of the House.

  Penal System
  Mr. Derek Wyatt: If he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the penal system. [48395]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Serious, dangerous and persistent offenders should be sent to prison and should be subject to constructive regimes in a secure and well managed environment. Prison may not, however, be the most effective option for less serious offenders. Our priorities are tough punishment in custody and in the community in ways that carry public confidence and reduce offending. We are looking at options for closer and more integrated working between the Prison Service and probation services.
  Mr. Wyatt: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that community punishment needs the confidence of the community?
  Mr. Straw: Yes.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Home Secretary agree that detection and prosecution of those who commit crimes is of paramount importance, along with deterrence? Can he assure the House that there will be the closest possible co-operation between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts in tackling crime?
  Mr. Straw: I would like to give that assurance, and to say that over the past 15 months, the Attorney-General,

  5
  the Lord Chancellor and I have worked hard to bring about closer collaboration between the police, the CPS and the courts and to set up joint planning arrangements. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General recently published the results of the Glidewell inquiry, which should ensure major reforms in how the CPS relates to the police, including the establishment of coterminous boundaries.

  Illegal Immigration (Smuggling)
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to tackle the international crime syndicates currently involved in smuggling illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom. [48396]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): People trafficking is getting more sophisticated, but so is the Government's response. We have set up the organised immigration crime section at the National Criminal Intelligence Service to tackle the problem. The unit targets the criminal networks involved and is helping in the development of a more proactive, intelligence-led approach to combating the problem. We are also creating better international co-operation with European and transatlantic partners. Several countries face this problem, and we need to work together on it.
  Mr. Sheerman: I understand that a report from the immigration service highlights the true number of illegal immigrants entering the country and suggests that immigration has accelerated in recent years. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is galling for constituents, who may wait for years for a loved member of their family to join them, to see illegal immigrants arriving and little action being taken? Does he agree that high levels of illegal immigration spawn crime and add to the cycle of exploitation?
  Mr. O'Brien: I agree with every word my hon. Friend said. Many people, particularly in ethnic minority communities, are outraged at abuse of the asylum system and illegal immigration. We are determined to tackle the people-traffickers who make vast amounts of money from illegal immigration. We will disrupt what they are doing and will prosecute wherever possible. Today, I have published a consultation paper on the appeals system, which we are trying to sort out. Shortly, we shall publish a White Paper showing how we can create a fairer, firmer and faster system of immigration control.
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: No one should underestimate the Minister's difficulty in trying to make the system more effective. Is he aware that many of those who work in the immigration service are appalled at being unable to cope with the rising tide of illegal immigration and at finding themselves having to let go people whom they know to be illegal immigrants who are never again found? Does he agree that this problem should be a first charge on the Government's time? Will he do all he can to bring order to the current chaos?
  Mr. O'Brien: I agree that the system that we inherited from the previous Government was a shambles. They did not put in place the resources or facilities necessary to
  6
  ensure proper immigration control. We want to put them in place. That is why we have had a complete review of how the immigration and asylum system operates. We will publish the outcome soon and deliver what the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member never delivered—firm and fair immigration controls.

  Restorative Justice
  Fiona Mactaggart: What progress has been made on extending restorative justice to new police areas. [48397]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): In recent weeks I have seen work demonstrating the value of restorative justice in Northampton, Gwent and the Thames valley, which has made young offenders face up to the injury they cause others. The reparation order and other measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill, with proposals for reform of the youth court, incorporate restorative justice principles, and will lead to a major extension of restorative justice.
  Fiona Mactaggart: My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of research from the system operating in the Thames valley that suggests that the reoffending rate among young people with whom it deals is about 3 per cent., compared with 30 per cent. nationally. However, my hon. Friend may not be aware of the anxiety expressed by several officers participating in the scheme that, if untrained officers use this robust method of forcing young people to confront their wrongdoing, it might be damaging and lead to quite frightening results in some areas. In the face of a large expansion of the scheme, what resources will be devoted to ensuring that every police area operates the scheme as excellently as it is being operated in the Thames valley?
  Mr. Michael: I agree with my hon. Friend that training and preparation are necessary. The benefits are obvious both to the victim, who often feels that he or she has been able to confront offenders with their damaging behaviour, and to young offenders, who often do not realise that they are damaging other people through their burglary, theft or car crime. We are offering guidance and support to ensure proper training and preparation locally and partnership and co-operation among a variety of organisations, not just the police.

  Refugees
  Mr. John Wilkinson: If he will list the proposed changes to the Dublin convention on the treatment of refugees which he has made to the European Union. [48398]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): On 29 May, member states agreed a series of measures—including a comprehensive programme of action put forward by the British presidency—designed to improve the practical operation of the Dublin convention. Our measures address

  7
  both the difficulties of establishing responsibility for asylum seekers who are undocumented and the need for better co-operation and liaison between member countries.
  Mr. Wilkinson: While it is laudable that the Government have followed the excellent example of the previous Conservative Administration and extended the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 to international train operators who run services through the channel tunnel, why have Her Majesty's Government not been able to prevail on the French—France is a signatory to the Schengen convention—to make the channel tunnel carriers' liability order apply to SNCF train services? The Belgians comply, so why not the French?
  Mr. O'Brien: Some legal defects in the treaty make it difficult to extend. However, we have had discussions with the French—and received much co-operation from the French Government as a result of the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—to ensure that we reduce the number of refugees who enter the country from Paris. It is correct to say that there are practical difficulties, but we are receiving the co-operation of the French in seeking to resolve them.
  Mr. James Clappison: The Minister chose to refer to the Government's review of asylum and immigration appeals in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). Can he tell us a little about the background to that review? Do the Government acknowledge the problem caused by the increased number of such cases? Does not the Government's proposed single right of appeal amount to an extension of the principle behind the so-called white list cases, which Labour opposed in opposition? Will the Minister say specifically whether, in initiating the review, the Government are paving the way for some form of general amnesty for asylum seekers?
  Mr. O'Brien: The white list has little or nothing to do with the Dublin convention or the other issues that we have discussed. We have made it perfectly clear that we do not intend to have a blanket amnesty; we have given that reassurance on many occasions. However, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the previous Government's actions in 1993, when more than 50 per cent. of exceptional leave to remain cases were granted the right to stay in a one-off process. It ill becomes the hon. Gentleman to start talking about amnesties now.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: Does my hon. Friend accept that there are 10,000 outstanding cases that predate the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993? We inherited that problem, the Dublin convention and the difficulties of dealing with undocumented asylum seekers. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will see what he can do to deal with that backlog, so that those who have waited for years may finally receive a fair decision on their cases?
  Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right; the Dublin convention and the pre-1993 backlog are another fine mess that the Conservatives left the country in. We will clean it up as fast as we can, but the Tories left us quite a mess.

  Minimum Sentences (Burglary)
  Mr. John Bercow: When resources will be available to implement mandatory minimum sentences for burglars convicted of a third offence as set out in section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. [48402]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): On the time scale set down by the Conservatives in government, when they passed this legislation with our support.
  Mr. Bercow: I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he confirm that the average sentence for someone convicted of a seventh burglary is less than 20 months? Does he find that acceptable? If not, will he say why he and the Government continue to oppose mandatory minimum sentences, given that the courts refuse to use the powers at their disposal to impose long enough sentences on repeat burglars?
  Mr. Michael: As usual, the hon. Gentleman constructs something to criticise while disregarding accuracy. The Government have not opposed mandatory minimum sentences; we have introduced two. He should ask why no date for implementation was set by the Conservative Government.
  Mr. Ross Cranston: Is not this point a bit rich coming from the Conservative party when burglary increased by more than 120 per cent. in the 18 years after 1979? It is a cardinal principle of our system that people should be subjected only to penalties that are commensurate with the circumstances of the crime, taking into account the victim's circumstances and the impact on the victim's family, for example. Should not we move away from that principle only where there are compelling circumstances, such as protection of the public?
  Mr. Michael: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. It is also a bit rich for Conservative Members to squander money that they did not provide for in their period in office, with all the irresponsibility that they seem to have adopted since the general election.

  Parliamentary Elections
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What assessment his Department has made of the benefits of the present system of elections to the House. [48403]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): In the debate on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, and more recently in the opposition day debate on 2 June initiated by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), I spelled out, among other things, the benefits of the present system. The independent commission on the voting system has been established to find the most suitable alternative to the current system. The characteristics of the present system are well known to all hon. Members, many of whom spoke eloquently about them in the 2 June debate. In view of that, it would be an impertinence for my Department to provide the House with a separate assessment.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Does the Home Secretary agree that at least half of hon. Members favour retaining the present

  9
  system of election to this House, that the system is both proportionate and representative, and that it is unfair that the commission under the auspices of Lord Jenkins of Hillhead does not properly represent the views of those in favour of retaining the first-past-the-post system?
  Mr. Straw: I cannot speak for the exact number of right hon. and hon. Members on either side of the House who support the current system, but it is certainly quite substantial. Given his support for first past the post, the hon. Gentleman makes a grave error in asserting that the first past the post should be put to the independent commission of inquiry. We have sought an independent inquiry into the alternatives. There will be a referendum in due course whereby the British people, as they should, will themselves have the right to decide between the present system and a very specific alternative.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would have far more confidence in that suggestion if it were clear that the first-past-the-post system were to be part of any referendum? I have to tell him that some of us might feel far happier if the work on the alternative system were not in the hands of someone who has always demonstrated his inability to do anything correct at any time.
  Mr. Straw: I give my hon. Friend the assurance she seeks: that first past the post will be one of the clear choices on any ballot paper in a referendum on voting systems.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Is it not the case that, without the assistance of the Home Office, it is fairly easy to obtain the details of how often the present electoral system has produced results that are wildly at variance with the votes cast? As that is not one of the primary objectives of an electoral system, is it not sensible of the Government to establish a commission to determine what alternative can be put up against the present system in a referendum? Can the Home Secretary understand why some hon. Members appear to be so worried by the possibility that the British people will be able to decide whether they prefer the present system or a proportional one?
  Mr. Straw: Home Office records also record the full-hearted support of the Liberal party for first past the post until 1923—when it slipped from being the second party with a prospect of power to a minority party.
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are barely a dozen Opposition Members who have the support of more than 50 per cent. of those who voted in their constituency on 1 May last year? A far higher proportion of Labour Members have the support of 50 per cent. of their electorate. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the commission will consider not only proportional representation, but other systems such as the alternative vote?
  Mr. Straw: The Jenkins commission's terms of reference have been widely drawn so that it can, if it wishes, consider the alternative vote. It became clear in the debate on 2 June that there is widespread feeling on both sides of the House that if the issue of proportionality
  10
  is to be properly examined, we should look not only at proportionality between votes cast and seats obtained, but at proportionality between votes cast, seats gained and power secured.
  Sir Norman Fowler: As one of those Members of Parliament with more than 50 per cent. of the vote, let me ask the Home Secretary whether it is becoming clear that more and more sensible people now support retaining the constituency system and first past the post? Liberal opposition only underlines my point. The right hon. Gentleman has to answer why the Jenkins commission was not asked to evaluate and to put the evidence on all electoral systems, including the present one, but was asked simply to try to find alternatives to the present system. Would it not have been much better to have an evaluation of all the systems, including the present one, which we know the right hon. Gentleman supports?
  Mr. Straw: We discussed that matter at great length in our debate on 2 June—
  Sir Norman Fowler: And we will again.
  Mr. Straw: —and we will again. However, from his position of strong support for first past the post, the right hon. Gentleman is making a grave error in suggesting that first past the post ought to go to the commission. We want—I should have thought that it would also be in his interests—the electorate to be offered a clear choice between the present system of first past the post and an alternative that will be drawn from the recommendations of the Jenkins commission. That seems to me to be the best way of—at long last—securing legitimacy either for the current system or for an alternative. All of us, whatever our point of view, ought to have confidence in the British people's ability to make the final choice.
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, when Lord Jenkins met Members of Parliament from all parties two weeks ago, both supporters and opponents of electoral reform united in agreeing the importance of a programme of public information in the run-up to a referendum? Whatever system Lord Jenkins and his colleagues come up with will require a programme of clear public information so that voters can make an informed choice in the referendum. What plans does the Home Office have to ensure that such a public information programme is organised?
  Mr. Straw: I accept that there will be a need for a public information programme, but already the word of our debates on the various alternatives that are on offer for European elections has travelled so far and so fast that in the centre of Blackburn I am frequently assailed about the divisors laid down under the d'Hondt and Sainte-Lague systems.

  Prisons (Drug Use)
  Mr. Howard Flight: If he will make a statement on the number of prisoners taking drugs. [48404]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Although mandatory drug testing cannot be a complete measure of the prevalence of drug misuse in prisons, it gives the best estimate of the number of prisoners using illegal drugs. In 1997–98, 20.8 per cent. of random samples tested positive for drugs.
  Mr. Flight: Does the Minister view that as a serious problem, and does he feel that there is a need for more than random sampling? What measures, if any, do the Government have to address the problem?
  Mr. Howarth: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that at Ford open prison, which is in his constituency, the figure decreased from 17 per cent. in 1996–97 to 10 per cent. in 1997–98, which reflects a great improvement.
  In April, the Prison Service issued a new strategy document, "Tackling Drug Misuse in Prisons", which advocates a new strategy in three areas: first, reducing the supply of drugs into prisons; secondly, reducing the demand for drugs and rehabilitating drug misusers; and thirdly, reducing the potential for damage to health. Drug misuse is a serious problem, which is why we conducted a review that led to the new strategy. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the problem very seriously and will continue to work hard to deal with it.
  Helen Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware, because he is my near neighbour, of the drug problem in north-west prisons. Will he join me in congratulating the officers and nurses at HMP Risley in my constituency on their work in setting up a detox unit in the prison which has finally received funding from the Prison Service? Does he agree that such initiatives are the way to tackle drugs in prisons and drug-related crime because they ensure that prisoners who enter prison addicted to drugs have at least some chance of being drug-free when they leave?
  Mr. Howarth: I congratulate the prison staff at Risley on their work. It is important that we understand that the problem is declining. In 1996–97, 24.4 per cent. of mandatory drug tests were positive. That figure fell to 20.8 per cent. in 1997–98. Prisons take a number of different approaches, including detox, and all of them have a part to play. We are determined that, over time, any reasonable approach should be tested and, where appropriate, applied in the prison system.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Nevertheless, does the Minister agree that we face a massive drugs problem in prisons? What extra measures is he taking to detect drug users and drug pushers in prisons? Above all, what is he doing to implement the chief inspector of prisons' proposals to prevent drugs getting into prisons in the first place?
  Mr. Howarth: There are a number of measures. One of the ways of detecting drugs going into prisons is increased use of sniffer dogs. That programme is being developed. There are also good examples of strong warnings being issued to visitors to prisons. Several measures are being taken across the Prison Service, but we are not being complacent. The right hon. Gentleman
  12
  shakes his head without having heard the answer. We recognise that the bulk of drugs that come into prisons are brought in by visitors. The police and the Prison Service work closely together to intercept such visitors and serious action is taken against them. We are doing a great deal, but more can be done and we shall take whatever action is necessary.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Tom Cox: What assessment he has made of the pilot tagging schemes. [48405]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Research into the first two years of the pilot schemes of curfew orders enforced by electronic monitoring under the Criminal Justice Act 1991 has been published as a Home Office research study. The study indicates that the technology works—which is just as well—and that over 80 per cent. of orders were successfully completed. Further, more detailed research is being undertaken.
  Mr. Cox: While I note my right hon. Friend's reply, does he agree that, as the scheme is developed and the proper supervision and safeguards are put in place, we should welcome it as an alternative to prison? At what age can a person be electronically tagged?
  Mr. Straw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome for the measure. It is certainly an appropriate alternative to prison for some offenders, not least because of the cost, which is less than £2,000 per order, compared with some £25,000 a year for a period of imprisonment. My hon. Friend asked at what age a person can be electronically tagged. We are piloting the use of electronic monitoring tags for 10 to 15-year-olds and, so far, 10 orders have been issued in respect of juveniles.
  Miss Julie Kirkbride: I was struck by the Home Secretary's comment that 80 per cent. of cases were deemed to be successful. Can he explain what happened in the other 20 per cent. of cases, so that the House might know what went wrong?
  Mr. Straw: They were unsuccessful. Since the hon. Lady asks, of 973 sentences that were completed, 163 were revoked. If an offender breaks the conditions of the electronic monitoring, he or she is taken back to court and, typically, will be sent to prison.

  Arrested Suspects (Drug Use)
  Mr. Ken Purchase: What proportion of people arrested by the police are addicted to heroin and other opiates. [48406]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): The information that my hon. Friend seeks is not centrally available. However, a recent Home Office study on drug misuse by samples of people arrested in five cities showed that 18 per cent. tested positive for opiates; 11 per cent. admitted dependency on heroin; and a further six per cent. admitted dependency on methadone.
  Mr. Purchase: Those are alarming figures, despite the fact that they are not as highly refined as the Minister

  13
  would like them to be. Will he undertake to oppose the legalisation of heroin and other opiates, not least because that might encourage international profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies to divert production into ever more expensive, highly addictive designer drugs, and those with personality disorders may be pushed into crime in order to afford the ever escalating cost of their fixes?
  Mr. Howarth: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The only certain result of legalising—or, rather, decriminalising—currently illegal drugs is that more people would use them. My hon. Friend is right to say that the companies that manufacture such drugs would inevitably spend large sums in aggressively marketing them and targeting a younger audience.
  My hon. Friend is also right about so-called "designer drugs". I wish to make a simple point with which the whole House will agree: young people should not be deceived into believing that something labelled a designer drug is safe. All the evidence is that the results of individual cases are totally unpredictable. We have seen far too many examples of young people believing that it is safe to take one designer drug or another, sometimes with tragic consequences. No drug is safe. The only safe way to proceed is not to take drugs.
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: Does the Minister accept that at least 50 per cent. of those who appear in court charged with domestic burglary are drug addicts who burgle to feed their habit? Does not that figure show that it is a critical problem in our criminal justice system, which is why it is important to ensure that firm treatment is available to deal with those people, particularly in prison? Will he couple that with his aim to make prisons drug-free zones?
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman raised his latter point ingeniously on the back of the question, but it is a fair point. The statistics that he quoted—court figures, showing that about 55 per cent. of those convicted of certain types of offences had committed the offence in circumstances that were drug-related—broadly bear out the Home Office research I mentioned, which shows that about two thirds of arrestees for acquisitive crimes are found to have been involved in drugs.
  The links between drugs and, especially, acquisitive crime are now so firm that no one can doubt them. It is important that we act as decisively as possible; that is why, in the Crime and Disorder Bill, we are giving the courts the option of making a drug testing and treatment order. That will not be a soft option, but it will give courts the ability to catch those cases and, in suitable instances, to say to the offender, "You need treatment, but we shall not let you pretend that that is happening when it is not, so there will need to be proper testing to ensure that the treatment is going ahead." That is a good step forward, which has widespread support. I believe that it shows how determined we are to tackle that serious problem.

  Fire and Police Service Pensions
  Mr. Nigel Beard: What plans he has to change fire and police pension arrangements. [48408]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): On 31 March, we published consultation documents on the police and fire service pension schemes. We have invited comments on those consultation documents by the end of July. We shall listen carefully to the comments that we receive, in considering changes to the pension arrangements for new entrants to the police and fire services and to medical retirement procedures.
  Mr. Beard: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recall that proposals for closing Shooters Hill fire station, which covers part of my constituency, arose out of difficulties in financing the London fire brigade's pension funds? Will he ensure that, in any future arrangements that are made, pension fund arrangements do not influence the strength or disposition of fire services or police services in any part of London?
  Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a serious point, and I can understand the difficulty that confronts people when local decisions have an impact on the local community. However, there is no magic wand for dealing with the burden of pensions. It would cost about £30 billion to provide a fully funded pension scheme for the police and the fire service, and I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the House would have other priorities for such sums of money.
  There are vast variations in the extent to which ill health retirement pensions act as a drain on the resources of both the police and the fire service. That problem will not go away; it requires good management of the available resources and careful consideration of the options set out in our consultation papers.
  Mr. John Greenway: Does the Minister agree with the Police Federation and the Fire Brigades Union that it would be unacceptable for two police officers or firefighters, together killed or seriously injured in the line of duty, to have different entitlements to injury benefit, or for the widow and family of one to be paid less pension and other benefits than the family of the other? Notwithstanding the need to review the police and fire service pension schemes, that view is common to both sides of the House, and there is cross-party agreement, especially on the need to eliminate abuse in the area of ill health, which the Minister mentioned.
  Does the Minister agree that the dangers faced every day by policemen and firefighters demand and deserve special consideration? The public would find it very difficult to understand it if, when such a tragedy occurred, the widow or family of one had less benefit entitlement than the other. Will he please bear that in mind in his review?
  Mr. Michael: I shall certainly bear in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman makes when we consider the outcome of the review. I believe that all hon. Members would accept that police officers and firefighters place themselves in danger in order to protect the public; that is why their schemes are more generous than other pension schemes. I make the point gently, however, that, after the Sheehy report was published, it was the Conservative party that started the differentials between people serving together in different areas. Those differentials are among the difficult issues that must be tackled. If changes are desirable, they cannot be made for those already serving.

  15
  Consequently, if one were to accept the logic of what the hon. Gentleman says, one might be trapped in a situation where no changes were ever made.
  Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in areas such as North Yorkshire, where both the police authority and the fire authority have particular problems of sparsity because of the large geographical area and the limited manpower available to them, special consideration must be given to the management problems that those authorities face, to which my hon. Friend referred earlier?
  Mr. Michael: The impact on individual forces is set out and considered in the formula that applies to police forces and the fire service. Sparsity is identified as a major complication by police forces and fire services covering rural areas. That is why I have commissioned research into the impact of sparsity, to see whether that can be evaluated. We may have more to say when we see the outcome of that research.

  Community Safety Audits
  Angela Smith: What assessment he has made of the community safety audits undertaken to date by local authorities. [48409]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The extent to which that work is already under way varies significantly around the country, and we have not so far made any formal assessment, although the results of local authority association surveys have been published and are a useful guide. We are aware of many examples of good practice around the country. The Crime and Disorder Bill will ensure that the benefits of an audit-based approach to tackling local crime problems are available to communities throughout the country.
  Angela Smith: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that much work on audit and other aspects has already been done by local authorities, including my own in Basildon, without any support or encouragement from the previous Government. The support, encouragement and legislation from this Government have been widely welcomed. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the work already undertaken is used as an example of best practice by local authorities that are just getting off the starting blocks?
  Ms Quin: Indeed, we want to build on the good work that has been done in various parts of the country. I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work done in her area, Basildon. I should also mention the geographic information system developed by the safer Merseyside partnership and Salford's community safety profiles scheme. The point of our legislation is to support local authorities in such work. My hon. Friend is right to say that the previous Government set their face against requiring local authorities to undertake those responsibilities.

  Tote
  Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on his policy in relation to the future of the Tote. [48411]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): A review of the scope for greater private sector involvement in the Tote is already under way. Before any final decisions are arrived at, we will take full account of a recent internal review undertaken by its chairman, as well as the likely commercial impact of any changes on the Tote, the needs of gambling regulation and the health of horse racing.
  Mr. Heath: Before the annual meeting of the Tote tomorrow, and in view of the statements of some privateers and the Treasury, can the Minister explain to the House, first, how the Government will sell something that they arguably do not own; secondly, how he will maintain the integrity of pool betting; and thirdly, how he will ensure that the essential revenue coming from the Tote is maintained, given the parlous state of the horse racing industry?
  Mr. Howarth: All the hon. Gentleman's questions fall within the scope of my earlier point that we are concerned about the health of the horse racing industry. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will speak at the Tote lunch tomorrow. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can curb his enthusiasm and wait to hear what my right hon. Friend says. The terms of reference of the review are sufficiently wide to take properly into account the hon. Gentleman's concerns, which we should all share.

  Lighter Refill Sales (Young People)
  Mr. David Hanson: When he expects to reach a conclusion following the consultation on the banning of butane gas lighter refill sales to under 16-year-olds.[48412]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Depending on the results of the consultation, which we are currently undertaking, we hope to be able to reach a decision in principle at the end of the summer.
  Mr. Hanson: How many young people die as a result of the misuse of butane gas lighter refills? Does my hon. Friend accept that there is widespread support among local authorities, trading standards departments, charities, parents and many others for the banning of the sale of butane gas lighter refills to under 16-year-olds, which would be a positive move by the Government?
  Mr. O'Brien: The latest figures come from data collected by St. George's Hospital medical school for the Department of Health. They show that 75 deaths in the United Kingdom in 1996 were associated with volatile substance misuse. Gas fuels, usually in the form of gas lighter refills, were involved in 60 per cent. of those deaths. I do not want to prejudge the results of the consultation, but, as my hon. Friend said, there is widespread concern in the country about this issue, and I pay tribute to him for his work in raising and seeking to tackle it.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Would the Minister support a move to introduce voluntary identity cards to enable retailers to judge whether people are aged under 16? Following my local campaign, such cards have the support of North Yorkshire county council.
  Mr. O'Brien: The Portman group is already putting forward its proposals, and we have broadly accepted them in a certain context. The issue is whether we can extend them to deal with those matters to tackle the sale of such substances in shops.

  Metropolitan Police
  Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on the latest manpower and funding levels of the Metropolitan police. [48413]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The 1998–99 settlement for the Metropolitan police service provides a spending capacity of £1.775 billion, in line with the national average for police authorities in England and Wales. Police strength in the Metropolitan police at May 1998 was 26,585 officers. The Commissioner tells me that it is recruiting and plans to end the financial year with about 26,750 officers and 13,377 civilians.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: Although I appreciate the modest increases in the funding and the manpower of the Metropolitan police, does the Home Secretary agree that they are almost being negated because the alarming and increasing amount that is being apportioned to police pensions—a matter which was taken up by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard)—has to be met? Does he also agree that that alarming increase is affecting the provision of services at the sharp end? I understand absolutely that this is a long-standing problem which certainly cannot be laid at the door of this Government, but will the Minister look to some way, especially in the review and consultation, of disentangling the cost of police pensions from the provision of services at the sharp end of the Metropolitan police?
  Mr. Straw: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the impact of the cost of the police pension scheme on police services generally. That point also applies to the fire service. Part of the problem has been the unacceptably high proportion of officers whom chief officers of police have allowed to retire early on grounds that are not acceptable, as the Audit Commission and hon. Members on both sides of the House accept.
  The variation is extraordinary: at one end of the scale, only 17 per cent. of officers have been allowed to retire early in Kent constabulary; at the other end, 77 per cent. of officers in Merseyside have been retiring early. That suggests a lack of effective management control of the numbers who are retiring early. We have increased police budgets this year, nationally and also for the Metropolitan police, of 3.7 per cent. We look to chief officers of police
  18
  to make the same kind of efficiencies as other sectors of the public services, which were subjected to such efficiencies relentlessly—and, in my judgment, quite rightly—by the previous Government.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my right hon. Friend, who has referred to the resources given to the Metropolitan police, explain a situation that develops in some of the regions? Is there the same effect on the Metropolitan police as there is in some of the regions? Band D taxes meant that we had a reduction of £6 million for police services in West Yorkshire. Does the same apply right across the board, and does that include the Metropolitan police?
  Mr. Straw: The system by which police authorities set a precept is broadly similar across the country and has, for the current year, as for many previous years, been the subject of capping. Within totals of grant and standard spending assessment, which are set by central Government, each police authority has a fair degree of flexibility about the overall amount that it desires to set and to spend on its police service.

  Hooliganism (World Cup)
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: What further sanctions people convicted of causing trouble at this year's world cup face under British law. [48415]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): An Order in Council came into effect on 1 June which allows the courts in England and Wales to impose restriction orders on those convicted of football-related offences in France. We shall examine the circumstances of each conviction to see whether there are lessons to be learnt in respect of restriction orders.
  Mr. Pike: Is it not important that we take every possible step to ensure that the small minority of hooligans who do such damage to the name of football and to the name of England are not allowed ever to get away with it again?
  Mr. Michael: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, although as a Welshman perhaps I should not say too much about the name of England. It is greatly to be welcomed that agreement was reached with France before the world cup finals, so that the order could come into effect on 1 June. The restriction order power is operable if we have an agreement with the country and an order has been made under the Football Spectators Act 1989.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: How many of the people who were arrested in France have been charged with an offence?
  Mr. Michael: None so far, because, so far as I am aware, none have been released. The matter will have to be considered on their return to this country.

Opposition Day
[17TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Manufacturing and Industrial Relations
Madam Speaker: We now come to the Opposition motion on manufacturing and industrial relations. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.30 pm
Mr. John Redwood: I beg to move,
That this House views with alarm the Government's creation of a boom and bust economy in the UK, with industry being badly damaged by high sterling and rising interest rates whilst wage and price inflation accelerates; expresses concern at the growth of industrial unrest in several sectors of the economy; and urges the Government to rethink its approach both to manufacturing and employee relations before more damage is done.
"Business confidence hits five-year low": today's business headline in the Financial Times and other leading newspapers says it all. The Government are creating a them and us economy: a booming economy for the Government, their advisers and their lobbyists; a bust economy for people who dare to make things or try to sell abroad.
The Government proudly tell us that they have been elected to stop the trade cycle. The President of the Board of Trade is as likely to stop the trade cycle as I am to find a regular tube service on the Central line today. The Government stand Canute-like on the edge of a manufacturing recession claiming that the tide of lost jobs and closed factories is not coming in or has nothing to do with them, while the rest of us see the waves that they have generated enveloping British industry in closures and depression.
When we last debated these matters, the President of the Board of Trade told the House that the Government were to establish a competitive and stable exchange rate. She refused to recognise that, with the pound at its present level, it cannot be both. I confess that there has been more stability recently, but stability of the pound at around DM3 means more stability in the level of pain to manufacturers; more stability in the level of pain and difficulty for those seeking to export; and more stability in the terrible loss of jobs and loss of orders that now afflict our manufacturing heartlands.
It has certainly meant more job losses announced in steel, engineering and textiles. It has meant more job losses in the manufacturing heartlands of the north and the midlands. I hope that Labour Members will, for once, speak up about the fears and worries of their constituents. Many Labour Members represent those heartlands.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Redwood: I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) will confirm what I have said about the difficulties facing manufacturers in his constituency.
Mr. Sheerman: The right hon. Gentleman is right. Labour Members are concerned when times get tougher
20
rather than easier, and they are not as easy as they could be at the moment. I must respond to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. Between 1979 and 1997, under the previous Administration, 2.6 million jobs were lost in manufacturing. Blame for the basic state of our manufacturing industry should be laid at the door of Thatcher, Major and the Administrations of which the right hon. Gentleman was a part.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman should have referred to my right hon. Friend as the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
Mr. Sheerman: I am sorry.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Leader of the Opposition and I have, on several occasions—often at the behest of Labour Members, but sometimes voluntarily—confessed that mistakes were made in the early 1990s when we were in the exchange rate mechanism. Conservative Members regret that: we have been over this matter many times before, and we have apologised to the nation. I am waiting for an apology from Labour Members. Why will they not apologise for supporting that policy? It was the only economic policy of the Conservative Administration that they ever supported, and it was the one that went wrong and did damage.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the measured way in which he responded to that fatuous intervention.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, companies that have done extraordinarily well in the past few years are now under great and increasing pressure? As of the last few weeks, there is a risk of numerous manufacturing redundancies in the south-east. How does that put the remarks of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) into context?
Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right. There is a threat to manufacturing jobs in all parts of the country, including his constituency and those of other Conservative Members in the south of England, as well as the areas in the north and the midlands to which I have referred.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield began by agreeing that times are difficult, and I was grateful for that. What he and his right hon. and hon. Friends do not appreciate is this. The present Government now purport to be in control. They have been on watch for more than a year, and they have made many changes in economic policy. It is their tax rates that are now determining our economic future; their interest rates, through the Bank of England, that are determining the future of manufacturing; their sterling rate policy, or lack of one, that is doing the damage. I would have accepted, after a month or two of Labour Government, that what Conservatives had done had had more impact than what Labour was doing. Our case today, however, is that it is Labour's policies that are coming home to roost, and Labour's policies that are doing the damage. If Labour had stuck with our policies, fewer factories would have closed.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What would the right hon. Gentleman do to reduce the exchange rate? Would he reduce interest rates? Is that the policy that he would pursue?
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking advice from the Opposition in these parlous times

21
for the Government. If he will restrain his impatience, I will set out later in my speech six measures which I think will help a great deal; but I will give him one easy answer to start with. I believe that the Chancellor should promote savings rather than taxing them. If he promoted savings, the Bank would not need to drive interest rates so high. It has driven them so high because it despairs of the low savings rate in this country, and of excess consumption.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman exactly the same question? Would he reduce interest rates—yes or no?
Mr. Redwood: I am saying that the Opposition would follow policies that would produce lower interest rates, even from a so-called independent Bank of England. I will set out at some length the way in which we think the Government, even now, should do that.
Why does the hon. Gentleman not understand that, if the Government reversed their policies on the taxing of savings, more money would be saved and less would therefore be spent? The Bank would then be less worried about inflation taking off in the shops and the service sector, and would not need to panic about interest rates as it has to now, given the awful policies followed by the present Government.
Mr. Denis MacShane: I read in the papers this morning that the right hon. Gentleman's party was about to embark on an apology tour of the country. I hope that he will be leading those in sackcloth and ashes.
The right hon. Gentleman has blamed the early 1990s. Is he aware that the collapse of profits—not yet jobs—in the steel industry arises directly from the increase in sterling that took place in the last year of Conservative Government? Between May 1996 and May 1997, sterling rose by 70 per cent. against European currencies; since then, it has risen by 9 per cent. The former Chancellor is responsible for the 70 per cent., and we are responsible for the 9 per cent. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning the former Chancellor as a useless has-been who has nothing more to say on current economics?
Mr. Redwood: The last Chancellor of the Exchequer did a great deal more good to British industry than the present Government have done in their first year.
The hon. Gentleman should check his facts. There is no way that sterling appreciated by 70 per cent. against the European currencies in a single year—our last year in office. That is complete nonsense. What is true is that the level of sterling when we left office was high but just about bearable for those manufacturers; and it is the further turn of the screw over the past year under Labour that has done the real damage and led to all those announcements of further job losses.
Mr. Sheerman: May I try to be helpful on that point?
Mr. Redwood: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will be helpful, but I give way.
Mr. Sheerman: I am seeking to be helpful. The Library has given me a list of interest rates over the past
22
40 years, which clearly show that the previous Chancellor was not the only person responsible for high interest rates and what happened to our country. From 1979 until the most recent terrible recession, Conservative Governments almost without exception were persistently high-interest Governments, who made a competitive disadvantage the bedrock on which our industry had to build. That is the truth. If the right hon. Gentleman wants me to pass the figures to him, he can read them out.
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman should look at the real interest rate and understand that we inherited very high inflation from the outgoing Labour Government in 1979. Interest rates in nominal terms had to stay high for quite a time to cure that, but, in the 1980s, with much help from the private sector, the Conservative Government rebuilt, for example, the motor industry, which had been gravely damaged in the 1970s by the Labour Government. Now a new Labour Government, after only just over a year in office, are beginning to do the same sort of damage to those industries that they did in the 1970s—back to the past; back to the problems. There have been more job losses in all the crucial industries and in manufacturing heartlands throughout the country.
Meanwhile, where the Government can make a difference—where the Board of Trade could do something to help business—business is left in doubt about the Government's intentions, as the Government prove unable to make up their mind. We need to know: are the Government willing and able to save the pits, or will coal jobs go the way of those many other jobs in exporting industries that are being lost?
We need to know why we were treated to a non-statement on energy, with all the detail left out and left over for a later date. Why have we been drifting without an energy policy for a whole year? Does the President of the Board of Trade plan to announce a proper policy to the House before it rises? [Interruption.] The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry comes in on cue, saying, "Not again." I will go on asking those questions until there is a proper energy policy that we can understand and that the country can either support or criticise.
Does the President of the Board of Trade plan to announce this proper policy before the House rises, or is the intention to leak it to the press during the recess, when we are not able to scrutinise it properly in the House? The right hon. Lady has had over a year to produce a sensible policy and there is still nothing: no detail, no reassurance for coal or for gas, everyone left in the dark. At least the lights are still on, because we have a privatised industry; if Labour was running it, I doubt whether that would be true.
When will the President of the Board of Trade have a policy for the nuclear industry? Has she yet decided how to phase the rundown of Dounreay? Will she tell us if she is satisfied that all the other nuclear facilities that are currently working are safe and have a safe future under her stewardship at the Department of Trade and Industry? How long is she going to hold up gas power station applications? Is she sure that it is legal to do so? When will she realise that, if she wishes to be greener, she has to be friendly to gas?
When will the DTI have a policy for the Post Office? The Royal Mail is being held up by Government delays. The management would like to do some deals with private

23
sector companies throughout the world. The Post Office understands that it is a fast-moving global marketplace and wishes to join in, but, obviously, it cannot do so with a full Treasury guarantee and the current ownership structure. Will the President of the Board of Trade let the Post Office develop as a global corporation doing well for Britain? Is she brave enough to convert the Post Office into a public limited company and introduce private capital?
Mr. Ian Bruce: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is being somewhat unfair to the President of the Board of Trade. Surely, all those issues are going to be decided by No. 10, the Treasury and the magic circle—and we all know that she is not part of that.
Mr. Redwood: It is true that some lobbyists have put around that slur on the reputation of the President of the Board of Trade, but, for once, I am being fairer to her than my hon. Friend. I am assuming that, in future, she will have some influence on these matters and will at some point use her high office of state to try to do some good for British industry. I confess—my hon. Friend is right—that there is no evidence so far, but I live in hope that she will one day come up with a policy and that that policy may do a little good. Why will we have to wait for a year and a half before the Government can answer simple questions on the future of the Post Office?
I ask the President of the Board of Trade—if she has finished talking to her colleagues on the Treasury Bench—why the Chancellor is lecturing us all on the need to keep wage increases down if we wish to preserve jobs while she is busily legislating to put wages up.
Has the right hon. Lady had any more thoughts about her minimum wage legislation? Does she not understand that our worry about it is primarily that it will lead to all sorts of pay rises for those on rather higher pay who wish to keep their differentials? I have heard no convincing argument from her that that is unlikely to happen. I also find it extraordinary that her Department—in this time of open government, which we know and love so well—is not prepared to give us the figures and forecasts and tell us the truth about how many jobs will be lost and by how much wages will rise as a result of her policy, which is pulling in exactly the opposite direction to that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. As he is dealing with the wages problem, would he care to tell the House how much he is being paid as a consultant by Murray Financial to undermine building societies and mutual insurance firms?
Mr. Redwood: I am a director of that company, which is not out to undermine building societies. Although I do not wish to spend the debate answering for that company rather than dealing with matters of public policy, I am quite happy to declare that I receive from that company a director's fee of £12,000 a year, which is a modest one. The company has no intention of raiding building societies that do not wish to talk to it.
I do wish that Labour Members would get away from trying to cast slurs on those who are pursuing a decent occupation, and would get on with understanding the grave problems that the Government face and the
24
Government's relationships with lobby companies. When we come to the real issues at the bottom of this debate, I doubt whether I will receive from Labour Members any answers as straight and honest as the one that I have just given.
Why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer for ever lecturing us on the need for prudence, only then to announce a rapid expansion of public spending? I wonder whether we will even have to come to the House to hear an announcement, as I am sure that we will read all about it in the newspapers well in advance of the event.
Why is so much of the spending to go on welfare when the Government, when in opposition, said that they would spend less on what they then called "economic failure".
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way before he moves too far away from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). The right hon. Gentleman has said that he wants to encourage saving and to keep inflation and interest rates down. Does he not understand that windfalls for the few were one of the main inflationary pressures that led to interest rate rises; that the windfalls were already affecting the economy when the Government came to power; and that he—by joining Murray Financial—will continue them in future?
Mr. Redwood: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman thinks that Murray will be so successful that—from being such a small company—it will have an impact on the United Kingdom money supply. However, I think that it is better if I speak for the Opposition and not for the company, which he is dragging me into doing.
When will the President of the Board of Trade get around to making some decisions on how the new competition policy is meant to work? Does she not realise that the Competition Bill—her Bill—is weak on monopolies and services of general economic interest? Does she not worry that it is so badly drafted that pubs and brewers, newsagents and publishers, oil companies and filling stations still do not know where they will stand when it comes into effect?
It has been a very wet June, and July has been even wetter. The weather has been cold enough to leave people diving for pullovers rather than swimsuits. England was ejected from the world cup competition amid controversy about the conduct of one of the star players, and with relief that a small band of hooligan supporters would return home early. The cricket team has not done well in the tests. I remember Labour saying that things would be better if it was elected. It has not worked out like that this summer.
I do not blame the Government for the deterioration in the weather or for the sporting disasters—although doubtless they would have claimed credit if things had turned out differently—but I do blame them for changing the business climate for the worse. I do hold them responsible for playing the economy so badly that manufacturing is already in recession. I do hold them responsible for disrupting our hard-won trade union settlement with their half-baked reforms. Let us make no mistake about it—Labour is taking us back to the bad old days and the bad old ways of the 1960s and 1970s.
The Government inherited the best strike record of any country in Europe. Last week, there was a firefighters' strike in Essex, today there is a tube strike, and soon there

25
will be rail strikes. I fear that other public service workers will also go on strike as they watch the private sector wage explosion that the Government have triggered while their own pay falls far behind.
The Government inherited low business taxes. They have already increased them by £25 billion during this Parliament and are planning more tax raids on success and enterprise. It would be helpful to the oil industry if the President of the Board of Trade could tell us something about the Government's intention to raid the oil companies, but I expect that that will be another issue that they will leave until the recess, when Parliament is not here to cross-examine them on another set of tax increases.
The Government inherited low inflation. Wages are now rising at a rate of 5.9 per cent. a year in the private sector, and inflation is well above the outgoing Government's target or the current Government's target. It is not just City bonuses; wage inflation is setting in thanks to Government policies. They inherited a respectable level of savings and they said that the country needed to save more. I agree. That would have been the right response to the gathering momentum in the economy. Instead, according to Red Book figures, the country will save 1 per cent, less of our national income this year—around £8.5 billion less savings—thanks primarily to the taxes that the Government imposed on pension funds and the replacement of personal equity plans and tax-exempt savings accounts with something less generous.
The Government inherited low interest rates. Now, six rate rises later, and with more threatened and likely, things are not nearly so easy for business borrowers. Perhaps the Government foolishly believed one of Labour's five promises: that interest rates would be kept as low as possible. Perhaps the Government will have the gall to say that they honoured their promise, since for them it is not possible to keep rates very low.
The Government inherited a high, but just manageable, level of sterling. They have increased it to a level at which exporting is either impossible or unprofitable for many firms. In place of the success that we were generating, Labour offers strikes, more laws and higher taxes. In place of financial prudence, Labour offers higher public spending.
Mr. John Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government are most certainly to be held to account for foolishly giving up for determination by qualified majority voting within the European Union an increasing range of domestic working practices which should properly be the responsibility of elected parliamentarians and the British legislature? Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when challenged on that point by John Humphrys on the BBC programme "On the Record" on 9 November 1997 as to what she would do if the European Commission proceeded with plans for national works councils, the President of the Board of Trade feebly responded, "Well, er, we shall see how things go"? It is not encouraging, is it?
Mr. Redwood: Indeed it is not. The President of the Board of Trade has suddenly discovered two things: first, the proposal is not popular, and, secondly, she may not be able to block it because it may be wanted on the continent. They never explained that to her at No. 10 when they were setting out the joys of the social chapter.
26
The Wall Street Journal Europe summed it up rather well, in respect of just such a proposal and just such difficulties, when it stated:
"the only thing "new" about New Labour seems to be an old-fashioned failure—European corporatism".
The Government are busily disguising the true cost of their social security and welfare-to-work programmes, embarrassed as they are about the fact that their spending is soaring well above our totals in the interest of paying for what they always used to call economic failure. In the place of common sense to control wage inflation, Labour has decided to give powers to shop stewards and to Brussels, making it more difficult to preserve good labour relations and inflation-free wage increases.
Mr. Sheerman: Just to be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman, if things are so bad—[Interruption.]
Mr. Redwood: I was about to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I wonder whether I should do so now, in view of his impatience.
Mr. Sheerman: Before anyone panics at the right hon. Gentleman's tale of decline—if a few people somewhere are still able to listen to the proceedings of the House of Commons—may I refer hon. Members to Mr. Adair Turner's foreword to the July-August edition of CBI News? Mr. Turner represents a large section of British business and is very warm about the Labour Government; he is not ringing any alarm bells. He says:
"The Fairness at Work White Paper finally came out in May. As expected, it was a mixture of good and bad news. It certainly represented a shift towards employee rights, but it was by no means as dramatic as might have been feared, and it leaves intact much of the industrial relations legislation of the 80's".
If even Mr. Adair Turner is not worried about what we are doing, why is the right hon. Gentleman so full of doom and gloom?
Mr. Redwood: The Confederation of British Industry is very worried about the social chapter, as it believes that further damaging policies could emerge about which we could do nothing. The quotation that the hon. Gentleman read said that the only good thing about the Government was that they had not wrecked all the 1980s legislation. Surely the answer is to retain the 1980s legislation and to do something else more profitable for British enterprise and jobs.
Labour is creating an economy fit for lobbyists to thrive in. The refusal of the Department of Trade and Industry to spell out an energy policy has encouraged some to try to write that policy by hiring lobbyists. The uncertainty of the Department of Health about tobacco advertising made the Government prone to changing their mind when the right pressure was applied. As manufacturers suffer, lobbyists thrive.
Does the President of the Board of Trade think that that is a healthy state of affairs? Does modernising the economy mean closing down steelworks and textile mills, so that the only growth is in the behind-closed-doors influence business for former Labour advisers, who are now dining out in style? Are we to rest content with a crony economy in which even the Audit Commission needs a lobby firm to do its research? What has happened to all those old-fashioned values that the Chancellor and

27
the President of the Board of Trade espoused in opposition, to sustain an industrial economy in which firms went from strength to strength by making things and selling them abroad?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Hear, hear.
Mr. Redwood: I am delighted that at least one old Labour Member remembers those promises. Unfortunately, as he knows, Labour Front Benchers are not delivering on those beliefs; they are failing to live up to those genuine sentiments that some Labour Members hold.
Today, I ask the President of the Board of Trade to promise a new set of rules to govern lobby companies. Will she reassure us that we shall always be able to know who the directors are, who the principal shareholders are, how much the directors are paid and how much income and expenditure the business enjoys? That is not asking too much, as I am sure Labour Members will agree. Surely the public should be able to know such simple things about a business that sets out to lobby the British Government and to influence public policy.
Mr. James Gray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Association of Public Policy Consultants—the body that looks after lobbying companies—is strongly in favour of precisely the registration that he describes?
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What he says makes it much easier for the President of the Board of Trade to throw the weight of her office behind such proposals.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Redwood: May I give way at the minute of my choosing? I want to develop the argument a little.
Members of Parliament are paid to lobby the Government in the interests of their constituents. Rightly, we are expected to declare our sources of income and any directorships that we may hold. I decided to discover what I could find out about two of the lobby companies that have recently been much in the news.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: What has that got to do with the motion?
Mr. Redwood: It has a lot to do with the motion. I am arguing that there are two economies. It seems that the only way in which the manufacturing companies, which are in serious distress, can get their message to the Government is by spending even more money on hiring lobbyists to make their case for them, as the Government are bypassing Parliament and not listening to the many representations that we are making. I wanted to know who owned GPC Market Access. I was told—
Madam Speaker: Order. In the past five or 10 minutes, the right hon. Gentleman seems to have strayed a long
28
way from the motion to which he should be speaking. I urge him and other hon. Members to speak to the motion and the amendment.
Mr. Redwood: I will, of course, speak to the motion, Madam Speaker, but part of our case is that, to have more successful Government policies for the industrial economy, we need to change our arrangements for lobbying, and, with your consent, I would like to develop that a little further.
I asked who owned GPC Market Access Group Ltd., and I discovered that it is owned by Countrywide Porter Novelli Ltd.—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have examined the motion and the amendment carefully, and I cannot see how what the right hon. Gentleman is saying relates to them. Could you clarify the matter, because it seems to me that he is totally out of order?
Madam Speaker: I have already made my views known to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that I have a sense of humour, and I enjoy a little bit of knockabout as much as anybody else in the House, but I think that he should now deal with manufacturing and industrial relations.
Mr. Redwood: As I was saying, Madam Speaker, I believe that we need to know more about how the lobby groups work to see whether they are the right way for manufacturing industry to make its case. I discovered that Diversified Agency Services Ltd. and GPC International Holdings of Ottawa—
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman is simply ignoring what you are saying.
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman will not defy me for much longer. I will give him two more minutes to return to manufacturing and speak to the motion.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful, Madam Speaker.
I want the House to know that a company such as LLM is 40 per cent. owned by Robert Stevens Holdings, which in turn is owned by trustees in Jersey. Bedell and Cristin Trustees is owned by Premier Circle Ltd. and Second Circle Ltd., which is owned by Premier Circle Ltd. and Third Circle Ltd., which is owned by Premier Circle Ltd. and Second Circle Ltd.
Why does a lobbying company, set up by former Labour advisers to pursue the interests of, say, manufacturing industry, have such a complicated shareholding structure? What is the role of the Jersey trusts? Why are there three Circle companies, and why do any reasonable inquiries about them go round in circles? Why is one of the companies called Premier Circle? Could there be some mistake over the exacting meaning of Premier in this context?
What do the Government think about the use of Jersey trusts and companies to control shares in other companies owned by former Labour advisers? Did not those same advisers help the Chancellor of the Exchequer when,

29
as an Opposition spokesman, he made speeches condemning the use of offshore vehicles? Do the Government believe—
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In my constituency, there are many manufacturing units in very real trouble. I had hoped that we would be debating that today. Lobby companies are not known for manufacturing a great deal, except rather more heat than light.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that the House has examined the motion carefully, but we should also look at the amendment, which
"welcomes the new culture of partnership…developing within the framework of measures and proposals the Government is taking forward".
That is clearly germane to the partnership that the Government now have with the lobbyists and the cronies.
Madam Speaker: I accept that that is mentioned, but the debate has been going on for 32 minutes and we have not yet heard about manufacturing. I represent a vast area that is closely interested in manufacturing. My black country towns will be very interested in this debate. I shall see that my manufacturers have a copy of the Hansard report.
Mr. Redwood: I think that I have asked the questions that I wanted to ask about that group of companies, but the Government must answer them, given the width of their amendment and the fact that, like it or not, lobbying is now part of our business culture. Businesses need to be told, fair and square from the Dispatch Box, that the Government intend to go back to the old system: if business has a problem, it lobbies its Member of Parliament, who lobbies the Minister. That is how it should be done. It should not be done through the back door via exotic companies and strange holdings, including Jersey trusts. I hope that the President of the Board of Trade agrees that that is an odd way to behave. The old parliamentary way is the best.
Mr. MacShane: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a firm has the third option of hiring an hon. Member from the Tory Front Bench, just as Murray Financial has done in his own case? Nineteen other Tory Front Benchers have extensive outside interests. That is the real sleaze and corruption that worries the people of this country.
Mr. Redwood: Madam Speaker, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his disgraceful allegation.
Madam Speaker: Order. I was distracted, and did not hear all that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said. Would he repeat it precisely so that I can make a judgment?
Mr. MacShane: I said that what worries people outside the House is the record of Conservative hon. Members in government and in opposition being hired by outside firms to represent their interests. That sleaze and corruption—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard enough. The debate should be about policies and principles, not about
30
individuals. The sooner we get on to the policies and principles of manufacturing and industry, the better it will be for the House. The way this debate is turning out is a disgrace.
Mr. Redwood: Labour Members should understand that there is nothing wrong with a Member who is not in the Government holding a directorship that is properly declared, so long as the House is not used to further the interests of the company concerned. If the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) is suggesting that any of my right hon. and hon. Friends has done otherwise, he should make a proper allegation, giving them the right to reply. I can assure him that it is not so. He is just trying to put up a smokescreen to hide the dreadful business culture that the Government are encouraging or allowing to occur.
I turn now to positive conclusions on what we should do to help manufacturing industry.
Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are getting to the heart of a principle important to a debating chamber such as Parliament. When someone speaks here, does he or she speak for his or her constituents, or does he or she speak for a particular interest that probably pays more than a parliamentary salary? It is important that—
Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is speaking on behalf of the Opposition. He has just announced that he is getting to the substance of what he has to say.
Mr. Redwood: I want to make six points about how to help industry out of the terrible position it is in while services and other companies are booming.
First, the Government should promote savings, not tax them. They should change their minds on taxing pension funds, and on replacing personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts with something that is less satisfactory and generous. They should think up new policies to promote savings. It is better to save more than to put manufacturing and exporting into a vice.
Secondly, there is social legislation. We all want people to have decent conditions at work and good health and safety protection. However, does not some of the Government's legislation go too far? It will destroy jobs, and remove opportunities for the young and unskilled people who most desperately need a first step on the ladder. That is not kindness; it is callousness of the first order.
Thirdly, we need stable policies, and statements from the Government of their policies on crucial industries and nationalised companies. We need a policy on financing the tube network, and a resolution of the strikes. We need a policy on energy, so that the gas and coal industries know where they stand. We need a policy on the Post Office, so that it can grow and expand abroad to improve its competitive position there and at home. We need a policy on water competition—we have been waiting for that for a long time—which could generate new jobs and new business. We need a proper policy on competition after a sham of a Bill that is full of holes and errors. The Government have been unwilling to tell companies where they stand.

31
Fourthly, we need a monetary policy that makes sense. The experiment of handing policy to the Bank of England has led to a monthly debate being leaked and discussed in the newspapers. It is a kind of soap opera, with the Government looking on and saying that it is nothing to do with them. They should take some responsibility for our interest rates. They should at least have the courtesy to back the Bank of England, rather than going occasionally around the back to brief against the Bank.
Fifthly, we need to know the truth about the Government's wish to enter economic and monetary union. Will they confess that all the other countries are going in at their exchange rate mechanism mid-rates? Does the President agree that no separate deal was negotiated for Britain, which must mean that what the Prime Minister brought home for British business was entry at DM2.95, our ERM mid-rate? Will the Government devalue the rate or negotiate a special deal? Will the Government tell business the truth: they let business down on this, as on everything else, and it has the opportunity only to enter EMU at a crippling rate?
Sixthly, will the Government set out proper, fair rules of disclosure for lobbying companies? Will they return to the old system, whereby the House speaks for manufacturing and exporting? The Government have a duty to listen, for a change, to what the House is saying. We do not want a culture whereby one must know someone or pay someone in order to make one's point. People must speak through their Members of Parliament and, above all, the Government must take the House of Commons seriously.
4.9 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the measures the Government has taken to build an economy which is healthy and sustainable in the long term, including placing the control of interest rates with the independent Bank of England; notes that over the last 12 months investment has grown by 7 per cent., 14,000 manufacturing jobs have been created and the public finances have been put in order; welcomes the new culture of partnership in industrial relations which is developing within the framework of measures and proposals the Government is taking forward; urges the Government to continue its own productive partnership with both business and employees; and condemns the Opposition for its own record in government of allowing manufacturing to decline within a boom and bust economy of unprecedented proportions and actively and sustainedly destroying partnership and democracy in the workplace."
From the outset, I must say that I fear that I am likely to disappoint the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who asked me a string of questions about a string of issues—about which he has raised questions and made speeches elsewhere—that are not related to the subject of today's debate. Unfortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, I plan to speak about the subject of the debate, which the Opposition called. I got the distinct impression from the right hon. Gentleman's speech that, after he called it, he thought better of it, because he did not say much about the subject.
The motion tabled by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends creates the impression that they think that this is somehow year zero. They talk about the
32
Government's creating a "boom and bust economy" and about the "growth of industrial unrest". I suspect that the second charge is thrown in just to make up the numbers, so it might be wise to deal with and dispose of it first.
Mention has been made of today's London Underground strike and a couple of other minor industrial disputes, which, of course, we regret very much. However, far from being a signal that the Government's policy is creating unprecedented unrest, tube and rail strikes were not only common under the previous Government but a feature of their last year in office. The denial of investment in rail and underground and the neglect of public transport as a whole eroded morale and trust, and that erosion is part of our inheritance from the previous Government.
We have already taken steps to reverse that investment backlog. In March, the Deputy Prime Minister announced radical and innovative proposals for a public-private partnership for the underground in which it will remain in public ownership but will benefit from the investment so long denied it. The fact that there is still concern about the long-term implications of the programme says more about that inheritance of mistrust and insecurity than it does about any flaws in the policies that the Government are pursuing.
The motion does not refer to the tube strike as such; instead, it expresses
"concern at the growth of industrial unrest in several sectors of the economy".
In roughly the last year before Labour came to office, 1.3 million days were lost through industrial action. In the first full year of this Government, 183,000 days were lost through industrial action. That is seven times lower than the figure for the last year of the previous Government and about 40 times lower than the annual average for the 1980s. That is a record—in fact, it is the lowest figure ever recorded for days lost in industrial action, and the records go back to 1891. I will repeat that in order to avoid doubt: the records date back not to 1991, but to 1891.
Of course, it is perfectly legitimate for the Opposition to comment on and, if they can, make political capital from any industrial relations problems. However, it is a bit damn silly to talk about the growth of industrial unrest in what has been the best year of industrial peace for more than 100 years.
Mr. Gray rose—
Mr. Tim Boswell rose—
Mr. Gray: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way to me, rather than to my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). If the right hon. Lady has available a wealth of statistics stretching back to 1881, perhaps she would care to enlighten the House regarding the number of days lost through strikes in 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979?
Mrs. Beckett: There were not as many as in the 1980s. As I have said, none of those issues in any way alters the fact that the Opposition tabled a motion deploring the "growth of industrial unrest" at a time when there is no evidence whatsoever to back up that claim. Indeed, that is typical of the motion as a whole.
Mr. Boswell: I am sure that the right hon. Lady would not seek to mislead the House, but, taking the years that I

33
think were cited—I round the figures—the number of days lost was 6 million in 1975, 3.2 million in 1976, 10.1 million in 1977, 9.4 million in 1978, and 29.4 million in 1979. There is no figure comparable with that in the 1980s except for the 27 million days lost in 1984 with the miners' strike. I do not find her figures sustainable.
Mrs. Beckett: It would be superfluous to comment on that. The hon. Gentleman has shot himself in the foot by citing those statistics.
The motion talks of the Government creating a "boom and bust economy". Of course, the Conservatives are the experts. No one has ever been better qualified to talk about boom and bust than they: 18 years in power, unprecedented billions of pounds of windfall profits from the North sea—and they delivered the two biggest post-war recessions, separated by an unsustainable boom.
The motion also talks about the damage to manufacturing from the economic instability that the Opposition claim that we have introduced through
"high sterling and rising interest rates".
Short-term interest rates are below the level at which they were held for the first 13 years of the previous Government's tenure of office.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham admitted, with even more clarity than previously, that the previous Government made mistakes in the 1990s when they entered the exchange rate mechanism. He commented that entry into the ERM was supported by Labour in opposition, although no one ever suggested that we should go in at the rate we did, which was the achievement of the former Prime Minister.
Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady give way on that point?
Mrs. Beckett: No.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham was careful to say that the Opposition apologised for that, and that only, as if it was the only mistake to which the Conservative party is owning up. Although he chose to concentrate solely on that period, during their tenure of office interest rates reached 17 per cent. in the early 1980s. At one point in that intensely difficult period, manufacturing output had fallen by nearly 20 per cent. In 1981 alone, 650,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. Between 1979 and 1983, a total of 1.25 million manufacturing jobs disappeared. That was in the early 1980s.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, interest rates reached 15 per cent., manufacturing output fell by more than 5 per cent. and, in 1991 alone, another 400,000 manufacturing jobs were lost. When the Conservatives left office, manufacturing output had increased on average by only 0.5 per cent. in each of their 18 years; so, too, had manufacturing investment.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: Not for a second.
Britain had its first ever deficit on trade in manufactures—at least the first since the industrial revolution when manufacturing was invented in this
34
country. As for jobs in manufacturing, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) pointed out that, when the Conservatives left office, there were 2.5 million fewer jobs than when they came into office. As for the level of sterling, not only did interest rates under the Conservatives reach levels twice as high as they are today, but sterling was at a higher level against the deutschmark than it is today. That was during the period when the shadow Secretary of State was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. Gray: As we are getting such a wealth of historical information, perhaps the right hon. Lady will comment on average interest and inflation rates under the last Labour Government. If she is unable to, I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) will be happy to enlighten her.
Mrs. Beckett: I would not exactly call this history. After all, the Government have been in office for only 15 months. We are talking about the whole period of office during which the Conservative party was in power. As for the levels of interest rates and sterling, under this Government they are not at anything like the levels that they reached under the Conservative party.
The shadow Secretary of State claims that he acknowledges that and that he and his party have said, "Whoops, sorry," although it was not so full an apology that anyone but he can remember it. He says that we should put behind us their catastrophic record as stewards of manufacturing industry. No chance, I am afraid.
There is no doubt that we can dismiss with contempt most Conservatives' pretensions to speak on behalf of British manufacturing, but that does not mean for a second that I do not fully recognise and acknowledge the genuine concern felt and expressed by British manufacturers at what they see as the current erosion of their competitive position and the sharp anxiety that many feel about their order books, their export prospects and—if the worst comes to the worst—the consequences for employment. At every level, the Government are fully aware both of the importance of the contribution that manufacturing makes to our economy and of the pressures that some manufacturers are presently experiencing. I know that manufacturers' concerns are also heard and heeded by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Back Benches.
Dr. Ladyman: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case that the Opposition have had some sort of vision on the road to Damascus and are now supporting manufacturing. Does she, like me, recollect that, either when he was an adviser to Mrs. Thatcher, shortly before being elected to the House, or shortly thereafter, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) appeared on television and, when asked about the balance of trade and manufacturing industry, replied, "It really isn't important; it really, really does not matter," and repeated those comments in respect of the balance of trade?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I had not remembered that interview—at that time, I was not hanging on the right hon. Gentleman's every word as I do today. I can well believe that the remark can be

35
attributed to him, because I am well aware that, at that time, that was the view not only held, but expressed, by the Conservatives.
Miss McIntosh: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, because she asked first.
Miss McIntosh: Can the Secretary of State give me some guidance? If a manufacturing company in the Vale of York wished to approach either her or a fellow Minister, would her door be open to receive a visit from that manufacturer—the Secretary of State for International Development has suggested that such a contact must come directly from a manufacturing company that is worried, perhaps about the minimum wage or about jobs being lost because of the recession—or would she insist that the company went through a lobbying company before being granted access?
Mr. Winnick rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the Secretary of State to respond to the hon. Lady before I call another hon. Member.
Mrs. Beckett: I beg your pardon, Madam Speaker. I sought to curtail matters for the convenience of the House. I would say to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) that, although I cannot undertake to accept every single invitation and request, my door is very much open to manufacturing industry—indeed, I do not wait for manufacturers to come to me; I go to them.
Mr. Winnick: There is indeed concern in the west midlands about the current state of manufacturing industry and we do not attempt to disguise that. However, is it not right to recall that when, under the previous Government, we twice went into recession, it was the west midlands which bore the brunt? From 1980 to 1982, large parts of the manufacturing areas of the west midlands were absolutely devastated, yet the Tory protest at the time was, to say the least, minimal. There are hardly any lessons to be taken from a party that caused so much damage to so many people in the west midlands, the heartland of manufacturing industry.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I confess that my attitude toward those Conservatives who, at that time, spoke up on behalf of manufacturing industry is rather different from my attitude toward those who did not.
Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman being one of those who spoke up, so, if he will forgive me, I shall get on with my speech.
36
It is only fair to recall that many people, whether in manufacturing or elsewhere in the economy, recognise that a range of factors contribute to present circumstances. Those factors include the unaddressed inflationary pressures that we inherited from the Conservatives. In the context of the debate, it is important not to forget that, from December 1996, the Bank of England pressed the then Chancellor to raise interest rates and thus ease the inflationary pressures that the Bank saw building up. There is also the Asian crisis, with its inevitable impact on growth and exports; and the anxieties about the run-up to the euro.
All those factors contribute to the pressure on sterling; all those pressures contribute to the circumstances in which manufacturing industry finds itself; but none of them is the "creation", to use the word in the Opposition motion, of the Labour Government. The fact that what is happening to sterling is, in all likelihood, the result of a complex interaction of those factors means that dealing with that problem is not, as so many Opposition Members try to pretend, simply a matter of taking back interest rate control from the Bank of England or, indeed, of lowering interest rates. It is possible that if interest rates were lowered without regard for the consequences for inflation, as some Opposition Members appear to be demanding, we would increase inflationary pressure without necessarily achieving a lower exchange rate.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Might not that be a clear indication that we should not even contemplate entering the euro until we are sure that it is in our interests?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will be aware that that is the Government's policy. We take the view that it is in Britain's interests to contribute, in so far as we can—as we sought to do during our presidency of the European Union—to a stable development of economic and monetary union and the euro, in case that is one of the factors that are putting pressure on sterling. However, we believe that, if the Government decided to recommend entry, which we would do only if we believed that it was in Britain's national interest, that decision should be put to Parliament and the British people.
Mr. Bercow: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the statement by the president of the Bundesbank, Mr. Tietmeyer, that, within a single European currency,
"it is an illusion to think that states can hold on to their autonomy over direct taxation policies"?
Does the right hon. Lady agree with that statement, which is obviously important because of its implications for manufacturing industry? If she thinks that it might be vindicated, would the cession of sovereignty over direct taxation constitute for her a constitutional bar to Britain entering the European single currency? Yes or no?
Mrs. Beckett: It is rather silly to ask such a question and then ask, "Yes or no?" I was not aware of the statement that the hon. Gentleman attributes to the president of the Bundesbank, but if that is the view that he has expressed, I strongly, indeed violently, disagree. What is more, I suspect that the German Government disagree. That is their problem, not ours.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: My question is pursuant to that asked by my hon. Friend the Member

37
for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), with whom I usually agree about everything in life. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, as we represent Motorola and the paper industry, which are desperate to enter a single currency, there are two views in the party on that subject?
Mrs. Dunwoody: At the very least.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend anticipates me. I was about to say that there are at least two views. I understand that there are particular industries where there is urgent pressure and a great desire for Britain to be an early participant in the euro and that, in other industries, the pressure exists without the same force. I can only repeat to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), which is that the Government believe that the decision should be made by Parliament and the British people, only when it is believed to be in Britain's interests to enter a developing euro.
Dr. Ladyman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whether or not we ultimately enter the European currency, our motivation for economic policy should be the same? Our need for a stable competitive currency rate and stable low interest and inflation rates will be identical, whether or not we intend ultimately to enter the euro.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right—those factors are in the interests of the British economy, and they are policies that the Government seek sustainably to pursue.
Before we embarked on an interesting diversion, I was talking about the possibility of lower interest rates and how they might impinge on sterling. Before I leave that point, it is right to remind the House that two thirds of the increase in sterling against the deutschmark occurred before the general election. That means that it was in no way the responsibility of this Government, and that it took place before interest rates had begun their recent rise, so it calls into question the suggestion that present exchange rates are fuelled solely by interest rate levels. The lesson, under Governments of either party, of politically driven exchange rate interventions is that it can have an effect, but that it is not necessarily or solely the one wanted or imagined.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham said that the problem was the pressure on savings, and talked as though an unprecedented decline in savings was exacerbating the problem. As I am sure he knows, that is nonsense. The savings ratio is running at some 9 per cent., which is near its long-run average and nowhere near the levels to which it fell under the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member in 1988, when savings fell to 6 per cent. That is not relevant to the difficulties that some sections of manufacturing—it is not universal—may be facing.
The Government are not prepared to run risks or play games with the economy. We put control of interest rates in the hands of the Bank of England to signal that. Little could be more damaging to confidence than to reverse that policy, as some Conservative Members appear to demand.
38
Our extensive consultations with the business community before the election and since have produced a short but heartfelt list of what it feels is needed from the Government. That list is headed by a demand for stability in the management of economic policy, which the business community believes will contribute to economic stability. It also calls for consistency in overall policy making and for investment in skills, transport infrastructure and our science and engineering base. All that was heard, and none of it was heeded, by the Conservative party when in government.
However, in the 15 months during which this Government have been in power, not only the interest rate decision but the decision to set a sound framework for prudent, consistent and long-term reform of public expenditure have laid the basis for the policy stability that the business community seeks. The evidence that that is the right course lies in the fact that long-term interest rates today stand at 5.75 per cent.—the lowest level for 33 years.
Sir Peter Tapsell: I am genuinely puzzled by the fact that Ministers repeatedly point to historically relatively low long-term interest rates as a sign of optimism, because most commentators regard them as a sign of anxiety that we are heading towards a recession. That is why long-term interest rates in Japan are only 2.5 per cent. and why, in the past six weeks, the yield from the long-term bond in America has fallen by 0.5 per cent., reflecting fears that the Asian crisis will have a knock-on effect. Low long-term interest rates are what happens when the markets think that a recession is coming.
Mrs. Beckett: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am not prepared to get into a great debate with him about the indications of low or high long-term interest rates. It is strange for him to complain that low interest rates are not a good sign, given that the motion tabled by the Conservative party complains about the threat to manufacturing as a result of the level of sterling, which, it claims, results from the level of interest rates.
Sir Peter Tapsell: I am talking about long-term interest rates.
Mrs. Beckett: Yes, I know.
As I was saying, the windfall tax, which the Conservative party opposed, has funded the start of the new deal for employment. The legislative changes being pushed through by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and his team should foster not just more investment but higher standards from the nursery years through to higher education, which is the push to quality that Britain needs.
We are on the brink of an announcement about the outcome of the comprehensive spending review—the establishment of a three-year framework within which the Government will begin to deal with the backlog of under-investment and decay not only in education or the transport infrastructure, but in our science and engineering base. In each of those areas, an innovative approach to public-private partnership lays the foundation for modernisation and reform, which should deliver not only increased resources but better value for the investment made.

39
Earlier today, I announced a step change in science funding, to meet the challenge of a potential step change in scientific discovery and understanding. We believe that the human genome project has the capacity to bring about another giant change, not only in understanding, but in the implications for the quality of life, for our approach to health care and for industrial exploitation, which can flow from using the knowledge that that project will deliver.
Today, we have announced a £1.1 billion package secured over the next three years. There will be a £600 million fund for university laboratories, equipment and infrastructure, funded equally by Government and the Wellcome trust, £400 million in capital and current costs for research councils' new project funding, and a further £100 million from Wellcome towards the cost of a new high-intensity X-ray machine, not only to help keep the United Kingdom at the forefront of human genome research, but to contribute to many other research projects.
I do not suggest for a second that that money will ease the day-to-day problems that confront manufacturing companies in Britain, but it is a hugely important signal that, under the present Government, we shall not neglect that seedcorn investment on which, ultimately, our whole economy—and manufacturing in particular—depends.
Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Beckett: Certainly. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can tell us that a Conservative Government would not seek to abolish such a fund.
Mr. Redwood: Has the Minister some advice for a manufacturer who, today, is looking at the figures and saying to himself, "If sterling and interest rates stay at this level or go higher for the whole of the next six months, I must close my factory, but, if there is relief in sight—if there is to be some improvement—it is worth clinging on"? Would she advise that manufacturer to cling on—or will her Government do absolutely nothing to help him?
Mrs. Beckett: Such a manufacturer will find no answer in the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, most of which have no relevance whatever to him or her.
I am slightly sorry that the right hon. Gentleman could not find it in himself to be generous enough to welcome the £1.1 billion package that I have just announced for the science and engineering base. I would not attempt to second-guess the decisions that any manufacturer or industrialist must take over the next few months; all I can say to him is that, in terms of economic policy and supply side investment, the Government are laying the foundations for the type of long-term prosperity that can alone secure our economy and our manufacturing base, the neglect of which was such a feature of the Conservative party's record in office.
Mr. MacShane: Perhaps the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has not welcomed that remarkable new statement—which, alas, there is no one in the Press Gallery to hear—for the following reason.
40
At page 10 of the latest Library research paper on the economy we read that, in 1997, investment in our country, expressed in gross domestic fixed capital formation,
"was still 2.1 per cent. below the peak reached in 1989"—
so the period when the right hon. Gentleman sat in government was the period in which we invested nothing in our economy.
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That was a feature of the Conservative party's entire time in office.
The announcement that I have made today is not the only sign that the Government have given that where we can work in partnership with manufacturing, we shall. Immediately after the general election, we set up the export forum to consider what steps lay within our power as a Government to help and support Britain's exporters, especially small and medium businesses. We reinstated specific support for trade fairs and seminars threatened by the Government who left office last year. Earlier this month, we established the national exporters database. We have introduced the export explorer service, to give small firms first-hand experience of export markets. Later in the year, we shall launch the new sales leads service, which nearly 1,300 companies have already applied to join.
Moreover, directly in manufacturing, in the past 15 months we have pledged £323 million of supportive investment into Britain's aerospace industry—substantially more than the amount that flowed from the previous Government over seven whole years.
We have secured inward investment in pharmaceuticals from Pfizer, with 1,000 more scientific research jobs in Kent, and from Jaguar, Vauxhall, LDV and Honda. In all those cases, investment is bringing more quality and skilled jobs to various parts of the UK. In addition, we have seen investment in jobs in IT, particularly in the east Midlands and Glasgow. All those investments are the fruits of partnership with this Government which look to secure our economy and our employment prospects in the longer term.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mrs. Beckett: I will, but, if my hon. Friend and the House will forgive me, it will be the last time, as I am almost at the end of my remarks.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful. Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at the Export Credits Guarantee Department? I know that it is a difficult area where, because of past problems with particular countries, some contracts are being lost. I understand the difficulty and the reinsurance problems, but will she undertake over a longer period to examine closely what is happening in ECGD?
Mrs. Beckett: We are taking a careful look at the scope of the operations of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. As my hon. Friend knows, it is a high-quality operation which has had great successes. I recognise that there are those who would like it to stretch its wings a little more sometimes, and I shall bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind.
It is only natural, when people are facing particular difficulties, for them to begin to blame the Government of the day—although not, I hope, for the weather or our

41
sporting record, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham suggested. It is only natural for them to want the Government to do something, even though the specific action for which they call may neither identify nor address the underlying problems that they face.
It is right for a Government to take those concerns seriously and never to ignore or dismiss them, but it is also right for a Government not to take their eye off the fundamental long-term changes that, in the end are the only basis for sustainable and secure economic prosperity. That is what this Government are determined to do.
The petulance and fury displayed by the Conservative Opposition, trying to fire on all cylinders and certainly firing in all directions, adds nothing to the serious analysis or the resolution of Britain's long-term problems. They had the greatest investment opportunity in our long and sometimes glorious history, and they frittered it away buying short-term popularity at the price of continuing long-term decline. We and the House need no lectures from them. What we need is to continue to work to develop a new understanding and a new approach to making Britain more competitive. It is a task from which we will not be deflected, because it is a task in which the future of Britain requires us to succeed.
4.42 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: I am glad that the Conservative Opposition tabled the motion. It seems that they have finally recognised that creating a boom-bust economic cycle of high interest rates and wage and price inflation is not good for the economy. They are right to point out the damage being done to manufacturing industry by an unvirtuous cycle. However, rather predictably, they have begun to lose their way in addressing the problem.
I am sure the House would agree that the present Government did not cause the situation: they inherited it. However, that is no excuse for not recognising the problems visited on manufacturing industry and for not acting to correct them. Having given the Government some credit, perhaps I am now allowed to chide them a little.
It is clear that the Government are in danger of mismanaging the economic situation that they inherited. They have yet to send a clear message to the international community that they mean business when it comes to creating stability and investing for the long term. When they presented last year's Budget, they had the opportunity to dampen consumer spending through taxation—to damp down the side of the economy that was and is overheating. That would have removed the need for the interest rate rises that have increased the cost burden of debt management right across industry.
The pound, which is proving so attractive to overseas investors because of high interest rates, and whose strength is doing to much to damage the export sector, would be lower and would be pitched at a realistic rate.
Dr. Ladyman rose—
Mr. Chidgey: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Dr. Ladysmith.
Mr. Bercow: Dr. Ladyman.
Dr. Ladyman: Thank you. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) for giving way—to someone.
42
My understanding was that the Liberal party campaigned in the general election on the notion of putting 2p on income tax for various good works. Presumably the hon. Gentleman is arguing that that 2p on income tax would have dampened consumer demand sufficiently to make a significant rise in interest rates unnecessary. I would be surprised if any serious economist suggested that that would have saved more than half a percentage point on interest rates. How would the hon. Gentleman have dealt with that situation? Would he have carried on putting income tax up, beyond the 2p?
Mr. Chidgey: I share with the hon. Gentleman the problem of the mispronunciation of one's name. I often suffer from a similar problem, but I hope that he does not feel too flushed by the mispronunciation of his.
Mr. MacShane: Get on with the answer.
Mr. Chidgey: I shall indeed answer the question, as was so accurately said from a sedentary position.
The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) is wrong on several counts. He has not got his figures right with regard to our manifesto. He may not be aware of, or he may have ignored, a fully costed alternative Budget that we proposed when the Government proposed theirs. I recommend it to the hon. Gentleman. It will make interesting reading, and he may learn quite a bit from it.
The Government should have made an early commitment to join the EMU, which would have encouraged interest rates to fall, accompanied by a fall in the value of the pound. Instead, a combination of inflammatory rhetoric from the Conservative Opposition and indecision from the Government have led the pound to rise even higher.
The Government should not have adopted the self-imposed economic straitjacket of the Conservative spending limits. Taxes on consumer spending could have provided the levels of investment that are desperately needed to repair the damage that has been done to investment in education and training. The billions of pounds in surpluses that the Chancellor is building up in his war chest over the life of this Parliament could have begun the process of reskilling the work force and closing the skills gap that is doing so much to encourage wage inflation in the industrial base.
Mr. Bercow: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer the question that the President of the Board of Trade ducked a few moments ago. If Dr. Tietmeyer, the president of the Bundesbank, proves to be correct, and entering the single European currency entails the cession of sovereignty over direct taxation policies, would that, for the hon. Gentleman and his party, represent a constitutional bar to joining the single currency?
Mr. Chidgey: It is the same question, and the same answer. That is a matter for the Germans to worry about. Clearly it is not the policy that we are pursuing.
Before I develop the policies for which we have long argued, I shall define the disease that is gnawing at the heart and vitals of British industry—the disease that the Conservatives failed to diagnose, let alone cure. It is widespread. It afflicts much of the British manufacturing sector. Recent announcements by some of our major

43
manufacturers—Rover and Vauxhall—have merely served to highlight it. It is important to reflect on the views that they put forward in the press recently.
Both companies said that they were looking to move their components subcontracting from the United Kingdom to continental suppliers, because productivity is not high enough in the UK. Subcontracting is a misnomer, because, as many hon. Members who represent manufacturing-based constituencies know, the subcontracting part of the motor industry is the major part. Press comment that our major manufacturers are to seek supplies elsewhere has a fundamental effect on the economy of those towns and those industries.
Vauxhall and Rover are seeking to move their subcontracting to continental suppliers because productivity is not high enough in the United Kingdom—compared to that of German manufacturers, who have been prepared to take a long-term view of investment in tools and machinery. British firms still seem to be more inclined to rest on their laurels in economic good times and not invest in the future. They will lose if they do not take radical action now.
Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Chidgey: I shall continue, if I may. The fewer interventions there are, the more opportunities there will be for other hon. Members to speak. Hon. Members should take that on board, as this is a short debate.
Even more worrying, at the time of its announcement and since, Vauxhall has made it clear that the high value of the pound was only one element in the package. Low productivity, which is the result of industrial short-termism and unwillingness to invest, was a more serious issue. For a Government who claim that the punishingly high value of the pound and high interest rates are a result of their preparedness to pursue a long-term anti-inflationary policy, the charge of short-termism in industry is serious; for a Government who have consistently set out a vision of developing a high-skill, high-wage economy—which I agree with, and which my hon. Friends support—losing valuable jobs to continental firms is hardly an auspicious start.
The culture in Britain has to change towards investment, or more jobs will be lost and more industries will join those that were killed off by previous Conservative Governments who sat on the Treasury Bench for those long years. That change requires a long-term strategy. If Ministers were listening to what I am saying, they might reply that they have been in office for only a year and have 18 years of Tory misrule to put right. I am not blaming the Government for the culture that they have inherited, but it is clearly their responsibility to introduce policies to change it. I listened with great interest to the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade. They were encouraging, but far more needs to be done if we are to put our manufacturing industry back on a sound base.
Liberal Democrat Members have long argued that making Britain competitive is not about economic dumbing down and competing on price in world markets. We cannot do that, and neither should we want to. We share the Government's view that we should aim to
44
compete on quality, with the best in the world. For that reason, I look forward to the White Paper on competitiveness. I hope that it will propose realistic solutions to some of the most ingrained problems, which the Government have been elected to tackle.
It is perhaps symbolic that the Conservative Opposition decided to initiate the debate only two days before the announcement of the comprehensive spending review. The President of the Board of Trade gave us a little insight by putting her hand into the sweetie jar and pulling out a few interesting issues for us to suck on, but there is much more that we need to know. We can but hope that this long-awaited review will include a significant shift towards long-term planning in the industrial sector. The Liberal Democrats will judge the review on how much increased investment in education and training is provided. I know the battles that go on.
Mr. Brian Cotter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Engineering Employers Federation recently announced that engineers were having severe problems in meeting—and, indeed, quoting for—contracts, because of the lack of skilled personnel?
Mr. Chidgey: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. Lack of skills is a major problem in industry, and I shall set out what we need to do if we are to give industry opportunities to compete effectively.
There must be much greater investment in education and training. The minimum must be the right to two days a week in education or training for everyone aged between 16 and 18, and there must be an entitlement for everyone to have a period in education or retraining to reskill, at some stage in their lives: as industry develops, technology changes and skill requirements change, so we must change our work force to fit those requirements and to ensure that we do not have another skills shortage looming over us all the time.
We need to expand our higher and further education system, and we must repair the damage that was done under the previous Administration, but that means investment in quality education, not paying lip service to it by increasing numbers for inferior courses. We need a clear commitment to invest in training. If we achieved that, we could start to tackle the skills shortage and do more to calm wage inflation than would any proposal from the Conservative Opposition. Although taking the initiative on training would help to ameliorate upward pressures on wage inflation in the medium term, the Government must also act to remove some of the short-term pressure for further rises in interest rates.
There has been an interesting discussion between Labour and Conservative Members about how important or unimportant it might be for us to join the European single currency; however, let us consider the facts and what is happening in manufacturing industry. Hon. Members really must do something: the most recent survey by the Engineering Employers Federation suggested that, in the second quarter, the balance of engineering output declined to minus 7 per cent., the first time in five years that a negative has been recorded. That is the sharpest adverse quarter-on-quarter change ever recorded. Over the same period, the balance of export orders fell for the sixth consecutive quarter, to minus 25 per cent. The balance of domestic orders fell from plus

45
11 per cent. in the previous quarter to minus 12 per cent. this quarter. At the same time, employment in the sector fell by 12,000, and capital spending plans are weakening sharply, with a positive balance of only 4 per cent.
To add more information and to emphasise the point, the Institute of Directors business opinion survey for June showed that weak overseas markets are now considered by 42 per cent. of manufacturing industry to be a factor in the limiting of output, and 57 per cent. of directors cited a lack of orders and sales as the main problem. Optimism in manufacturing industry is running at minus 8 per cent., compared to plus 42 per cent. last time.
There are short-term actions that the Government can take to remove some of the pressure for further rises in interest rates. To reinforce the point, the principal action would be to dampen inflation by taxation of consumer spending to release investment for education and training.
The Conservative Opposition's motion raises concerns about industrial unrest and employee relations policy. Not only did the previous Government have some of the highest ever interest rates and inflation rates; towards the end of their term, as the President of the Board of Trade said, the trend in stoppages of work was spiralling upwards. According to Government figures, produced by the House of Commons Library, from the July labour market trends survey, 278,000 working days were lost in 1994, 415,000 were lost in 1995 and 1.3 million were lost in 1996. That compares to 235,000 days in 1997 and only 72,000 in the first quarter of this year. We know where the fault and the blame should lie.
Liberal Democrat Members believe in a constructive and engaged approach to industrial relations—from employers and employees—overseen by a Government without dogmatic attraction to one side or the other. I shall leave it to Labour Members to decide whether the Government have a dogmatic position or dogmatic attraction to one side or the other. Perhaps we shall find out in due time. Nevertheless, the Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the White Paper "Fairness at Work". We believe that the proposals offer a start to rectifying some of the wrongs done to industrial relations policy under the previous Administration. The White Paper must be developed, and we intend to focus on extending the Government's as yet unrealised promise of industrial democracy to all those at work in this country
Above all, the Government must tackle the crisis in manufacturing industry. They must give a clear commitment to the United Kingdom's entry into economic and monetary union and act to dampen down consumer spending. They must also release resources from their multi-billion pound war chest to provide the investment that is essential to closing the skills gap and to enabling industry to produce the best and compete on quality in the global marketplace.
4.58 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), because he is a chartered engineer, and is one of those rare beings in the House who has got his hands dirty in manufacturing.
Mr. Chidgey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early. On a point of information, not only am I a chartered civil engineer and mechanical engineer—
46
I have got my brains and hands dirty—but my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) runs a manufacturing company. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not aware that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches speak with a great deal of experience.
Mr. MacShane: Even if I were not aware of that, I sense that, as so often, the only effective opposition in the House is coming not from the two Conservative Members sitting on the Back Benches, but from hon. Members from parties below the Gangway.
As a lifelong supporter of manufacturing, I am delighted that this motion has been tabled. It allows me and any other hon. Members with a shred of intellectual honesty to place in front of the House the sorry record of the Conservative Government, who undermined, weakened and scorned the needs of manufacturing. By sheer chance, on Friday night I spent three hours with a group of representative employers from my constituency, which lies at the heart of the traditional manufacturing sector in the United Kingdom economy. It was a good discussion, and I shall put some of their points and comments on the record, because I want Ministers to consider what they had to say.
This debate will continue: it is not a fixed announcement of policy. There is a crisis about what kind of a nation we want to be. The fall in the manufacturing sector of our economy, which has been accelerating in the past 20 years, needs to come to a stop and, where possible, to be reversed. We have gone through the years in which, as the former Chancellor Lord Lawson said, it did not matter how people made a pound—whether it was by trading a pound or making a product. We have gone through the years when all that counted was the weightless economy. Just look at the contents of our homes, what is on sale in our shops, and the number of cars we drive. We live in an economy that is more weighty than ever.
I hope that Britain will start to make a little more of what we and the rest of the world consume. To achieve that end, we shall need a significant change in policy.
Mr. Boswell: Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment on events since May last year? Have the Government shown a greater sympathy towards manufacturing industry or the service sector? Which of those sectors has done better during that time?
Mr. MacShane: A culture inimical to manufacturing existed not just during the 18 Tory years, but for longer. Under the present Government, 14,000 new manufacturing jobs have been created in the United Kingdom. In my constituency, British Steel is taking people on, but it cannot make a decent profit because of the value of the pound. I shall come on to that, because these points need to be raised. But the difference is that only in Britain has it been the fixed and focused policy of the Government, when in the hands of the Tories, to do down the UK-owned and managed manufacturing sector.
Manufacturing may be different from the service economy, because, perhaps more than any other sector, it requires stability to plan for the future. Last week, I went to Bournemouth. I got up early, picked up some papers at the House of Commons and walked across Westminster bridge. I had not had breakfast, so I went into a typical

47
part of the service sector: a cafe underneath Waterloo station. I asked for a bacon sandwich with brown bread. Two young girls were smoking and examining their fingernails. One of them eventually got up and told me that she did not have any brown bread.
I went next door to make the same request, but there was no one behind the counter—that is the service economy that the Tories created. Someone finally arrived, but there was no brown bread—bacon, yes; tea, yes; but no brown bread. I like my brown-bread bacon sandwiches.
I went into Waterloo station, where I saw a bagel stand. Three young men and women were sweating like dogs. They had six different types of bagel and a dozen different types of fillings, from Marmite to marmalade. They were working hard to produce what customers wanted. That is the service sector that Labour should be backing, and we should abolish the old Tory sector that could not provide clients with what they wanted.
Bacon sandwiches apart, cafes and bagel stands may come and go, but manufacturing requires stability in three areas: first, in the cost of its inputs and the price of its outputs; secondly, in the availability and cost of skilled labour; and thirdly, in the prospects for its markets. In the past years, we have known nothing but chronic, enduring instability in all three areas. Virtually all the present problems facing manufacturing—I do not deny that there are real problems—arise directly from the previous Government's irresponsible handling of the economy.
We may exclude the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), because he was not part of the previous Government during their last one or two years. However, before he became a Member of Parliament, he was one of the chief advisers to Mrs. Thatcher, and he participated in the culture of hostility to manufacturing that developed so strongly in the 1980s.
Mr. Redwood: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. I had no hostility to manufacturing then, and I do not have any now. I have been a model of consistency on this issue. The advice I gave included advice that would help manufacturing.
Mr. MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me of the general who reported back to the Roman emperor, who then said, "They created a desert and called it peace." The wipe-out of manufacturing in the 1980s—when the right hon. Gentleman was not an MP, but was an adviser to Mrs. Thatcher—is one of the industrial crimes of the century.
The real culprit, however, is not the right hon. Gentleman: it is the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who is not present. I think that it was the poet W. H. Auden who said that history sometimes forgets, but it never pardons. I do not know whether history will forget the previous Chancellor, but his party will certainly never forgive him. His flippant and irresponsible stewardship of the economy led to the Tory wipe-out at the last election.
As my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said in her excellent speech, 70 per cent. of the rise in sterling since May 1996 occurred under the Tories. The increase in the rate of money supply nearly doubled in the
48
last year of Tory government. Interest rates were held down deliberately to maintain a pre-election boom. Fat use that did them, because the British people are much wiser than the Conservative party. There was no serious, sustained investment in manufacturing.
Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacShane: May I finish my point first? The right hon. Gentleman was more than courteous in giving way to Labour Members, so I shall repay his courtesy.
As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, under the Tories there was no investment in training. There was a decrease in the amount of fixed capital formation—an absence of investment essential to any successful manufacturing economy. Short-termism was rampant: dividend payments were maintained at all costs, even at the expense of investment, training and jobs.
Mr. Redwood: For the sake of accuracy, I should point out that the money supply did not double in the last year of the Conservative Administration, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. Indeed, it did not double even in the last five years of that Administration.
Mr. MacShane: I am terribly sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman did not listen to me. I said that the rate of increase in the money supply nearly doubled. If he wants to check the facts, I refer him to an excellent House of Commons publication on GDP indicators.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacShane: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would let me make a little more progress.
I want to refer to the talks that I had with employers in Rotherham last Friday. It was a varied group of men and women. Rotherham has a combined chamber of commerce and training and enterprise council, which is also associated with the business link. One organisation represents about 75 per cent. of the employed people in Rotherham. I commend that model to other parts of the country, because it concentrates the voice of employers.
At what was, in effect, a seminar—I hope that similar meetings take place in the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and, indeed, the counsels of the Opposition parties—the question was asked, should we raise taxes? I think that the hon. Member for Eastleigh suggested that we should. In fact, a number of taxes on consumption, such as insurance premium taxes and the tax on cigarettes, have gone up; but the response of those selling goods in Rotherham was, "Hang on a second: we need to maintain demand."
What about interest rates? My good friend Brett Ainsworth, who runs a metal company that has been successful on both the domestic and the international scene, said that the Chancellor, or rather the Monetary Policy Committee, should lower them by a quarter of 1 per cent. I must say that I am not entirely sure that a quarter of 1 per cent. is all that significant.
As inflation remains a worry for the men and women to whom I spoke, I asked them about the minimum wage. "We welcome it," said one hotel keeper. "It will solve the problem of the low-wage competition that has been undermining us."

49
One issue that bubbled up surprised me, because I do not associate South Yorkshire with the keenest of views on Europe. There was a feeling that Britain was not being clear enough, as a nation—no blame was attached to any particular Minister or party—about European monetary union. Those people respect and appreciate our Government's view that ultimate democratic control rests in the hands of the people through a referendum—and, having raised the issue in my maiden speech four years ago and subsequently written an article in The Times arguing in favour of such a course, I am wholly behind it.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, on that point?
Mr. MacShane: On that point, yes.
Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman, who has been present throughout the debate, will know that I have twice asked a simple question, to which I have not received an answer. He has a well-deserved reputation for clarity and consistency, and also for being strongly in favour of a single currency. If, as Dr. Tietmeyer believes, the single currency involves the cession of sovereignty over direct taxation policies, is that objectionable or acceptable to the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. MacShane: If the hon. Gentleman sends me the quotation from the good Professor Tietmeyer—
Mr. Bercow: Doctor.
Mr. MacShane: All professors are doctors in Germany. It is not possible to get such a job without a doctorate.
If the hon. Gentleman sends me the quotation from the good Professor Herr Doktor Tietmeyer in the original, I will check it and send him a reply in English, if that would be helpful.
What, then, needs to be done to secure the stability that was the primary demand of the employers in manufacturing and other sectors to whom I spoke in Rotherham? I believe that the Chancellor was right to set up the Monetary Policy Committee, and I said so before the election. I think it remarkable that our country did not adopt such a course years ago, because—for social democratic Netherlands, or capitalist United States—independence for the central bank is a given. The fact that, when in power, the Opposition baulked at that decision shows their lackadaisical approach to policy making.
I would, however, like the Monetary Policy Committee to be more representative of the nation as a whole, and in particular of industry. I do not doubt the intellectual ability of its members, or their desire to serve the national interest as they vote each month on the setting of interest rates; but I see no face and hear no voice from industry, and observe little representation from the country in general outside the golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and Islington.
The MPC might like to hold some of its meetings in other parts of the country. It might like to come and meet the employers to whom I talked last week. Having done so, it might of course hold to its decisions—that is its affair—but those who make the decisions in the Bundesbank and the American Federal Reserve are
50
located in the regions and far-flung corners of those two countries, at least, and report back faithfully. I do not think that the needs of manufacturing have been reflected in the MPC' s decision.
It may well be necessary to look again at the MPC's mandates. The United States Federal Reserve is charged, under the appropriate Act of Congress, with developing a monetary policy
"commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, to promote the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates".
That is a heck of a package to discharge, but it certainly involves a bit more than the bearing down on inflation which—judging by its minutes—is the MPC's main obsession.
One reason why the American economy has been so strong in the last 10 or 12 years is the stability of interest rates, money supply and much of the value of the dollar—although it has been zig-zagging as a result, for instance, of the Asian crisis. American manufacturers have been able to borrow and sell, knowing what they will get back in a year or two—knowing the price of the money that they borrow in order to invest.
By contrast, under the Conservatives—and, frankly, Governments of the 1970s: I am sick and tired of this absurd game of ping-pong—we had a yo-yo economy. Interest rates, the value of the pound, capital formation and prices went up and down, up and down. We have been living in an Alton Towers rollercoaster economy, in which it was impossible for manufacturers to invest.
We have a real problem with pay. You were not in the Chamber at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but earlier I had some fun at the expense of the shadow President of the Board of Trade and his new job with Murray Financial. He was honest, and revealed to the House that he is earning £12,000 a year in that job.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that Madam Speaker made a ruling on that. We must keep to the subject of the debate.
Mr. MacShane: I was actually praising the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no need to praise; just keep to the subject.
Mr. MacShane: It is the first time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I expect it to be the last—but, if I cannot even praise where praise is due, I will pass on.
Large pay increases awarded to themselves by those with the power to do so are having a very negative impact on pay pressure within the economy. It is impossible to open a newspaper, the Daily Mirror, The Times or The Guardian, without reading about someone somewhere—I will not go through the list—awarding themselves large pay increases detached from productivity, unit labour costs and unit prices. Until that problem is tackled, instability will continue.
I was delighted by my right hon. Friend's announcement of a £1.1 billion investment in science. I hope that lifelong learning, the university of industry and the tax incentives for research and development, which are under review, will come to fruition.

51
It is crucial, if we are to make a success of the manufacturing economy, never to be in the position of a Labour Chancellor some 50 years ago. When the Government of national unity collapsed in 1931, different decisions were made. Philip Snowden said, "No one ever told us we could do that." I urge Ministers to bear that in mind. We must be flexible. The last Government were not flexible, and the official Opposition have offered nothing today. I am still waiting for one speech from them that contributes anything positive to the debate.
Mr. Redwood: There were six points.
Mr. MacShane: None of those points was relevant to my constituency, or to the needs of the manufacturing economy.
I wish Ministers well. This is a huge subject. We will have to come back to it, but, if our country does not reverse the Tory years of anti-manufacturing economic policy, heaven help us all.
5.19 pm
Sir David Madel: That was a very interesting speech. In fact, I prefer the speeches of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) to his interventions. I particularly noted his comment that, if the Monetary Policy Committee had different people on it, it might come to different decisions. Conservative Members would be less agitated if it did come to different decisions. My short speech will contain something about what the committee should do, but I could not resist starting my remarks in that way.
The motion is in two parts, and I wish to say a little about both, but, first, I wish to thank the President of the Board of Trade, her Ministers and the civil servants for the way in which they listened and acted in response to the joint appeal, from management, unions and all of us who are concerned for industry in Bedfordshire, about the future of the Vauxhall car plant in Luton. We have come through another period of great anxiety about south Bedfordshire's industrial future. If the right economic policies are pursued, because of its history of vehicle building and component manufacturing, our area can still become the Detroit of the United Kingdom, with all the economic advantages that that will bring—but it will need the right economic policies.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir David Madel: I have only just started, but I shall give way.
Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman contrast the action of the President of the Board of Trade to which he has just referred, with the action that was taken by the Opposition when they were in government? In 1993, Leyland DAF collapsed, putting at risk thousands of jobs in truck manufacture. In Lancashire, when appeals were made to the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, he stated that nothing could be done. However, Labour-controlled Lancashire county council's economic development agency worked with the private sector and together they invested in the successful Leyland Trucks.
52
Lancashire Enterprises continued to develop the 200-acre site, where there are now over 2,000 jobs in 45 manufacturing companies, none of which would have been there if anyone had paid any attention to the statements by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Will the hon. Gentleman contrast what the Conservatives did then with what—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Sir David Madel.
Sir David Madel: I could take much time in the House debating truck manufacturing, truck production and what has happened in Dunstable, where we have lost all truck production, but I will say this to the hon. Lady: I have always believed that, in 1986, if the General Motors-Leyland Trucks-Rover deal had gone ahead, which some of us wanted, there would have been a future for Dunstable in vehicle building. Alas, there is no vehicle building there now. We are trying to put that right.
One of the reasons why that deal did not go through was that some hon. Members started shrieking idiotically about the possibility of the stars and stripes appearing on the Land Rover and Range Rover bonnet. Who owns Rover now? I do not think that I shall take the argument any further. However, if the hon. Lady is talking about what should have been done about truck manufacturing and whether different policies should have been pursued, we are in agreement, especially as Dunstable was badly affected.
Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir David Madel: I shall, but other hon. Members wish to speak. I hope that the hon. Lady will be brief.
Mrs. Ellman rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has to make a brief intervention.
Mrs. Ellman: The point that I am seeking to make is that, in 1993, the Government of the day refused to act, but action was taken by a Labour-controlled local authority, which resulted in the saving of truck manufacture in Lancashire and of thousands of manufacturing jobs in Lancashire and beyond.
Sir David Madel: The point that I am trying to make is that, in 1986, when there was a proposal for a General Motors-Leyland deal, the Labour Opposition kicked up a terrible row. One of the consequences was that, eventually, Dunstable lost all its truck production. I know that we have just had Wimbledon. We could say "30 all" on that. If the hon. Lady will excuse me, I must move on.
As I have been talking about Vauxhall, I wish to make one point about the speech of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), the Liberal Democrat spokesman. His remarks were a bit downbeat and not very encouraging about Vauxhall. Do not worry: the new Astra productivity, production and quality in Ellesmere Port are just as good as on the continent. If they were not, 1,000 extra jobs would not be going there, so I hope that the Liberal Democrats will not mislead the country on economic conditions locally. They certainly misled people in Bedfordshire in 1986.

53
As I said, I am grateful for the help that the President of the Board of Trade gave us on the future of the Vauxhall plant at Luton. However, I hope that she has already done a further thing to help us: I hope that she has made strong representations to the Deputy Prime Minister on the White Paper on roads, which will soon be with us. We in Dunstable and Luton urgently need certain roads for our improved infrastructure. That is vital for industry, for employment and for future employment.
I hope that, having helped over Vauxhall at Luton, the President of the Board of Trade will be able further to help us with getting those new roads built, which are vital for our local industry. We cannot have industrial and employment policy in Bedfordshire decided by the antics of Friends of the Earth. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I am here to represent my constituents and, in view of the history of my constituency and what we have been through, that means above all fighting endlessly to get a more secure employment base.
In view of what has been said, I assume that DTI Ministers are getting increasingly anxious about what is happening to the manufacturing sector and about the policies pursued by the Monetary Policy Committee. Last Friday, there were three quotations in The Times from three people who come from entirely different wings, if you like, of the political spectrum, on the present policies of the committee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in criticising the committee:
"The way you cause bust is that you carry on tightening policy when the economy is already going down."
The Engineering Employers Federation said:
"We would urge the MPC as soon as possible to signal that interest rates have peaked and that the next move will be downwards."
Ken Jackson, general secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, which has many members in Bedfordshire, said:
"The recession will continue until the Bank ends its war of attrition against manufacturing industry."
I agreed with quite a bit of what the hon. Member for Rotherham said about how the Monetary Policy Committee could become more involved in industry. I think that industry feels that it is simply not getting its message across to the committee. In fact, the committee might invite the President of the Board of Trade and some of her Ministers to sit in on some its meetings. It is the committee's duty to become far more heavily involved in the worries and needs of industry, and to pay far more attention to industry's view, rather than ale-house gossip in the City.
People in industry are being pushed to their absolute limits on the factory floor to secure export orders and, once they are secured, to ensure that they are delivered on time. I look to the MPC to start to work with the grain industry, rather than giving the impression of working against industry.
On industrial relations, I should like the Government to take a leaf out of our book and leave many things as they are. The change of Government was a year ago. There was a change of Government in 1951, after six years of a Labour Government. In moving the Loyal Address, the then Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, said:
"What the nation needs is several years of quiet, steady administration, if only to allow Socialist legislation to reach its full fruition."—[Official Report, 6 November 1951; Vol. 493, c. 68.]
54
I should like to turn that around: what the country needs is several years of quiet administration, to allow Conservative trade union legislation to reach its full fruition, rather than pulling it about and starting to change it around. This country does have greater industrial stability, and I hope that the Government will make a gesture in that way.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, however, the motion mentions
"industrial unrest in several sectors of the economy".
There is one sector in which matters have not improved but become worse in the past 12 months. From April 1997 to April 1998, just over 30 per cent. of all days lost were accounted for by stoppages in the transport, storage and communications sector, predominant recent stoppages on London Underground and Railtrack. The biggest single cause of action was pay—wage rates and earnings levels—followed by disputes over manning and works allocation.
There must be a way of achieving industrial peace in the railway industry. I cannot think of any other industry in which work conditions have improved more since the war. In 1945, the industry had steam trains, coal had to be shovelled and there were many difficulties. An enormous effort has been made to improve industrial conditions in the railways. The Government, in their heavy emphasis on greater use of public transport, are creating an atmosphere in which people entering the railway industry should be able to look forward to steady and secure employment. Somehow or other, we have to transform the atmosphere in the railway industry.
Since the war, there have been some remarkable breakthroughs in industrial relations—one of the best of which was the productivity agreements, in the 1960s, at the Fawley oil refinery, near Southampton. A whole range of improvements in that industry followed the agreements.
Mrs. Dunwoody: If the railway industry was able to offer its members the pay rates that are common in the oil industry, many railway men and women would be highly delighted with their jobs.
Sir David Madel: The hon. Lady and I have discussed the railway industry in the Select Committee on Transport, on which I was pleased to serve when she was Chairman. If I may develop the argument a little more, I think that she will see what I am getting at.
I am convinced that the railway industry and management can draw on good practice in other United Kingdom industries, to move towards better industrial relations. I am convinced that in that industry we can move, by negotiation, to single-union recognition, no-strike clauses and three-year wage agreements. Although it will not be done overnight and it cannot be forced through, there is sufficient experience in other parts of UK industry to show that it can be done, although it will take time.
I tell the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) that thousands of my constituents now depend—and even more of them will come to depend—on peace in the railway and tube industries to get to work. Jobs in the industry should become ever more secure. It is the challenge of management and unions to make industrial peace happen, and to move to the type of industrial peace that exists in many other sectors of UK industry.

55
One of my worries about the Government is that we have a restless Prime Minister and a restless Cabinet, always looking for things to do. That is not the best way to govern the United Kingdom. The best way to govern this country is—
Mr. MacShane: To do nothing.
Sir David Madel: No; it is to deal with matters as they arise. In this debate, we are talking about a problem that has arisen—the plight of manufacturing industry. I do not think that there are enough signs that the Government are responding positively to our worries about that industry.
I remind Labour Members that every Labour Government we have ever had left office with unemployment higher than when they took office. The way that the Government are going about matters, the same will happen again—I fear that history will repeat itself. If that happens, where will the welfare-to-work programme stand?
5.33 pm
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: We have had an interesting debate, in which some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), seemed to argue—it is the first time that I have heard such an argument in the House—that the Government should not try to be proactive, but sit back and wait for events, to which they should react. I strongly suspect that the Government would soon be criticised by Conservative Members if they were to take that advice.
We heard an interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who made a powerful case on several matters—not least on brown-bread bacon sandwiches. I hasten to add that he made that case without having to resort to lobbyists or any outside agency.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) made an interesting speech, on which I should like to focus for a few moments. His thesis was that the Chancellor should have raised consumer taxes to take the heat out of the economy. There is no question but that some money has to be taken out of the economy and that increasing interest rates is currently the main mechanism of doing so. One aspect of the monetarist thesis that now seems to be generally accepted is that a major factor in increasing inflation is money entering the economy more rapidly than goods to "absorb" that extra money. Consequently, the extra money has to be "sopped up" by inflation and increased prices. The hon. Gentleman therefore seemed to be agreeing with the thesis that removing money from the economy is a good way of controlling inflationary pressures.
The mistake made by the hon. Member for Eastleigh was to suggest that that extra money should be returned to the economy in immediately increased public sector spending. Such spending would not produce the downward effect on inflation that he seemed to advocate. Although he recommended that we spend the extra money on valuable projects that I agree require further investment, the economic circle could be squared only if he were to propose that we not only increase consumer taxes and spend that tax revenue on good works,
56
but increase interest rates—exactly as has happened—or cut public sector expenditure in other spheres. If such action was not taken, increased public sector spending would not achieve the effect on inflation that the hon. Gentleman desires. That is the fallacy in his argument.
Mr. Cotter: As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) has left the Chamber for a moment, I should like to defend him. We have proposed a balanced Budget, and to pick out one aspect of it without considering the others is not to consider the whole.
Dr. Ladyman: I am going only by what the hon. Member for Eastleigh said in his speech—I cannot do more than that. I confess that I have not read in great depth the Liberal Democrats' proposed Budget, but, even if it is a balanced one, without increasing interest rates it would not serve the necessary purpose of reducing inflation. The Liberal Democrats are therefore not offering any proposals to end the Chancellor's dilemma, in which—people generally agree—interest rates, and consequently the pound, are too high.
Mr. Cotter: As I said, we have a complete policy. It would be wrong to try to deal with that policy in a short intervention. However, a part of our proposals on making progress on lowering interest rates is an early single currency timetable.
Dr. Ladyman: I shall return to the single currency issue later in my speech. A belief that I have propounded many times is that in the House we could do with a lot more agnosticism about the single currency. A few hon. Members are absolutely wedded to the idea of entering it, and fewer hon. Members are wedded to the idea of never going in. I think that we need a little more open-mindedness by all hon. Members, so that we can judge what is really in the United Kingdom's best interests.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has left the Chamber. I was delighted to hear his—as I said earlier in the debate—almost damascene conversion to the cause of manufacturing industry. I have absolutely no doubt from the performances that he gave on television—when he was an adviser to Margaret Thatcher, before his election in 1987, as he was beginning to climb the steps of promotion in the Conservative party—that he was not being helpful to manufacturing industry.
The quotation to which I referred in my earlier intervention was absolutely accurate. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not consider the balance of trade significant and that it should not be used as an index of whether the economy was going in the right direction. Therefore, I am delighted that he now supports manufacturing industry.
Today's debate shows that economics is extremely complicated. As the Conservatives failed to understand that in 18 years in government, it is unlikely that they will have learned to do so after 14 months in opposition. One matter on which we all agree, but which the Conservatives appear to be trying to forget, is that at the end of the day inflation is the company killer. It kills exports and will ultimately damage the prosperity of the United Kingdom, so we have to get it out of the system.
I acknowledge some fault on behalf of the Labour party. Perhaps previous Labour Governments did not realise quickly enough the danger of inflation and the

57
damage that it can inflict. That failing was shared by the Conservatives for a considerable time, but at least we have grasped that now. We realise that, once inflation gets into the system, it puts prices up for ever. It cannot be reversed a few months later. However, if it is necessary to increase interest rates to get inflation out of the system, at least they can come down again. In the long term, they are less harmful than inflation. We have to set ourselves a target in respect of inflation. Deep down, that is the view of all industrialists and those in the manufacturing sector who are currently struggling.
I have received representations from manufacturers in and around my constituency about the effect of interest rates and the high pound. I share their concerns, but in the long term, inflation is what really hurts them. I believe that they share my objective of getting it out of the system.
As everyone is aware, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer set up the independent Monetary Policy Committee to set interest rates. Let us speculate for a moment what would have happened if that committee did not exist. The Chancellor would have received the same data and the same advice. Presumably he would have had the same motivation as the Monetary Policy Committee, so it is likely that, at least originally, the same decisions would have been made. There might have been differences in the interpretation of the data, but broadly the same decisions would have been taken.
Sir David Madel: One hopes that the Chancellor would not do what the Monetary Policy Committee has done in every decision—it always over-corrects.
Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Perhaps the Chancellor would have done things slightly differently. In the long term, however, my fear is that, when the going got tough, the Chancellor would ultimately have done what Chancellors have always done, and under-corrected. If that was the case, he would not have increased interest rates when that was necessary. There was considerable evidence of that towards the end of the previous Government's period in office. Although there was clear information about the inflationary pressures in the economy, the Government did not increase interest rates as quickly as they should have done.
Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. Does he agree that the essential difference is that, when there is no independent Monetary Policy Committee, the Chancellor alone is responsible for those decisions both to the House and ultimately to the electorate? Under the present arrangements, the responsibilities are confused and to some extent deniable.
Dr. Ladyman: I do not accept that at all. Responsibility for decisions by the Monetary Policy Committee ultimately lies with the Government. The Government must be prepared to say, "We set up the mechanism, so we shall take responsibility for it." I do not accept the argument that responsibility is in any way diffused.
There is, however, a growing danger in respect of the Monetary Policy Committee, which I would ask the Chancellor and his ministerial colleagues to bear in mind. The committee has to focus only on the target that the
58
Government have given it. During various dinners and meetings, I have spoken with at least four members of the Monetary Policy Committee. They were absolutely focused on the target that the Government set them—the inflation target. That was absolutely right. They said several times, "We cannot look at other matters. We cannot consider unemployment or sterling, because we have to focus on meeting the Government's inflation target, as that is the only task that the Government have set us." Now that the Monetary Policy Committee has reached the centre of economic debate, my concern is that some of its members may now try to act as quasi-Chancellors, by making political judgments and considering economic factors other than the target that the Government have set them.
Let me use an analogy. I was once given a flying lesson as a birthday present. When the aeroplane was coming in to land, the instructor explained the process of getting back down to terra firma without an almighty bang. Basically, one has to set the flaps and prepare the aeroplane for landing before slowly reducing speed. At the same time, one has to adjust the position of the nose of the aeroplane so that it remains level. He said, "It is very complicated doing everything at the same time, so I shall adjust the engine speed while you keep the nose of the aeroplane up. You focus on doing that." Because he had taken the other factors off my shoulders, I was able to focus on that one task, so the aeroplane landed safely.
In many ways, the Government have reached exactly that arrangement with the Monetary Policy Committee. They have set the target. The Government have taken the political and economic decision that inflation should be 2.5 per cent. and have given the Monetary Policy Committee one tool with which to achieve that target—interest rates. So long as the Monetary Policy Committee focuses on that target, the Government will know that, by hook or by crook, the 2.5 per cent. inflation target will be met, and they will be free to concentrate on the rest of the economy. The political responsibility, however, remains with the Government as they set the target. As I said earlier, if the Monetary Policy Committee attempts to broaden its target, there will be problems if it comes into conflict with the Government.
Although there may be some short-term problems, in the long term the Government's policy will benefit manufacturing industry. Although increased interest rates and a high value of the pound may hurt in the short term, they will be worth it if they get inflation out of the system. We have to look for some short-term ways to help manufacturing industry during that process. The Government must make sure that it really is short-term pain and that it is over as quickly as possible. If the Monetary Policy Committee were in any way inclined to listen to my advice, I would encourage it to over-correct. Frankly, the quicker it is over with, the sooner interest rates will come down. We have to aim for stability.
We have had a brief debate about monetary policy and the European currency. Let me reiterate what I said in an earlier intervention. Low interest rates, low inflation and a competitive sterling are essential regardless of whether we join the European currency. I do not need to make up my mind about the euro until after the next election, when we can see what lies before us, and I justify my agnosticism on the ground that, whether one wants to enter the currency in the next five minutes—which I

59
believe would be foolish, given current circumstances—or whether one is determined never to enter it, the economic targets that one sets should be identical.
Mr. Cotter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many people think that, if we committed ourselves to joining the single currency—or if we actually joined it—we would ensure low interest rates? To be agnostic is not very realistic.
Dr. Ladyman: I do not accept the argument that interest rates would magically fall if we announced that we were going to join the single currency tomorrow. It is far more likely that sterling and interest rates would be pickled at the levels that applied when we made the announcement, and there would be no further movement. Interest rates, inflation and the value of sterling must fall before we can join the euro.
To help manufacturing industry, we need to establish stability and—to use the Prime Minister's much-vaunted expression—to end boom and bust.
We need to continue to open up markets and to encourage the European Union to take the necessary steps to bring the east into the open market, although that can be financed only through a dramatic cut in the amount that is spent on the common agricultural policy.
We should also consider the grant aid that we provide to industry. There is an anomaly in the way in which we give grants to attract new industry into the various EU countries. The EU limits the amount that Governments can put into a new project to 30 per cent. of the capital cost, but it does not limit what non-governmental organisations can put into the pot. In France, for example, local authorities, chambers of commerce and others typically put in money over and above the Government's 30 per cent. of the capital cost, in the form of free factories or tax breaks to the inward investor for the foreseeable future. That creates an unlevel playing field.
The same happens in this country. In Wales and Scotland, development agencies can put money into the pot, as that money is not considered to be direct Government funding. My constituency is 80 per cent. in Thanet, which has full assisted area status, but we still find that we cannot compete with areas that receive extra money. There would be considerable savings if the EU limited the total investment from public sources in any new enterprise to 30 per cent. of the capital cost. Alternatively, grant aid could be made available only to inward investors from outside the EU, so that EU money is not used to fund companies that move round within Europe.
We should also consider grant aid for training. The Government's proposals on training assistance and on lifelong learning, together with the additional training money from the new deal, are essential in the short term to improve manufacturing industry.
I think that I am right in saying that, in the past few months, only one significant manufacturing company has gone bankrupt in my constituency. It did so not because of the high value of sterling—it traded only within the United Kingdom—but because of its cash-flow problems, which arose because larger companies had not paid their bills on time. That is why the Government's initiative on the late payment of debt is so important.
60
The right hon. Member for Wokingham said that one way in which to remove money from the economy would be to encourage savings—I entirely agree, which is why I believe that the Government's proposals on individual savings accounts are so vital. However, I do not know how he squares that with the fact that he seems to be encouraging building societies to demutualise, which should be complete anathema to someone who wants to encourage savings.
We must also create a proper framework for industrial harmony. The Government's policies on the minimum wage and fairness at work are vital to that; they will allow industrialists and manufacturers to plan for the future and to organise and manage their companies appropriately. Conservative Members sometimes seem to have spent too much time in boardrooms; if they had more experience of management below the level of the boardroom, they would know the importance of good industrial relations and appropriate trade union representation in the workplace.
We must ensure that we invest in industries in which we can really win. Britain has demonstrated that it leads the world in the biological, chemical, pharmaceutical, biotechnological and information technological sectors—other countries cannot compete with us—so I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on announcing today a further £1.1 billion for science and technology.
Far from ignoring manufacturing and the problems that have been highlighted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Government have done a tremendous amount to help. They do not overlook the problems that have arisen; they are working on what needs to be corrected. They have certainly done more in the past one and a quarter years than was done in most of the years of the previous Conservative Government.
5.56 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I apologise to the House and to both Front-Bench spokesmen for being unavoidably detained and unable to hear the opening contributions.
This debate has arisen because the Chancellor wanted to hit the ground running. He has managed the first part; he has certainly hit the ground. The problem is that, when a Chancellor hits the ground, that is not a solo performance—a few million others join him in the crash.
That is not new, of course. I remember that, when I first came to the House some 22 years ago, Lord Healey, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, had run up inflation to more than 24 per cent. The dead were unburied, the rubbish was piling up in the streets and the International Monetary Fund had to come in like the cavalry rescuing a banana republic.
To show that I have no political bias, I should add that I remember that Lord Lawson, as Chancellor, created from a budget surplus an inflationary boom. Everyone went mad borrowing and spending money, and house prices went through the roof. Unfortunately, the inevitable reckoning coincided with a world recession, which made the bite that much more savage.
Despite what Labour Members say, the previous Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), created a virtuous circle—the

61
economy was moving in the right direction. Growth meant more employment, which meant more Government revenue, which meant that more money could be spent on social policy, which, in turn, fed through to further growth and employment.
Mr. Sheerman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman can contain his enthusiasm, I will let him have his threepence worth in a few seconds.
Every single month over the past three years, unemployment has come down—until now.
Mr. Sheerman: The real critics of the former Chancellor, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), sit not on the Government but on the Opposition Benches; indeed, many of them sit on the Front Bench. The virtuous circle to which the hon. Gentleman referred was in many ways achieved.
Mr. Page: I do not join those who criticise my right hon. and learned Friend. He attracts that criticism by his enthusiasm for the euro.
I still do not know whether the Chancellor diagnosed the problem correctly. When he took over in May, with his enthusiasm for hitting the ground running—we will have more living proof of "legislate in haste and repent at leisure"—the general view was that the problem was that there was some froth in the high street that needed restraint. Inflation was occurring not in the manufacturing sector, but in the high street.
I have no objection to monetary policy being handed over to the Bank of England, but fiscal policy should not be operated completely independently and with a set of blinkers. The aeroplane analogy of the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) was interesting, but if one puts on too much flap and reduces the throttle while trying to keep the nose up, the plane will eventually fall out of the sky, and that is exactly what is happening at the moment.
Mr. Sheerman: Oh, come on.
Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman may disagree, but I happen to know that that is exactly what happens if one does that in an aircraft. The Chancellor's reactions last year turned a small difficulty into a major problem. The so-called windfall tax was a smash-and-grab raid on the utilities. It seems to have been forgotten that the industries that the previous Government privatised cost the taxpayer £50 million a week when they were nationalised, and that an equivalent sum started coming into the Exchequer afterwards. That is one of the reasons why the Labour Government have suddenly become such converts to certain forms of privatisation.
The Government will have to face that problem with the Post Office. I cannot see the Post Office succeeding in the modern world without being set free from the shackles of Government. If we took note of other countries' practice in introducing commercial aspects to their post offices, we might reconsider our policies.
The Chancellor showed that the Government do not really care about manufacturing industry when he hit it with advance corporation tax. At the same time, interest
62
rate rises were driving up the value of the pound and making it impossible for our manufacturers to compete abroad. The hon. Member for South Thanet made a couple of cracks about running businesses and Conservative Members' lack of experience. From my modicum of experience, I know that we can ask manufacturers to increase productivity by 4, 5 or 6 per cent. in a year—with effort, they can do that each year—but we cannot ask them to increase it by 30 per cent. in a single year. The extra blow to manufacturing this year has been the straw that broke the camel's back.
Hurting British manufacturers has made imports cheaper, which has contributed to the froth in the high street. If people spend more money on imports, the balance of payments suffers and it is that much harder to drive out inflation. The Bank of England has used its one stick—interest rates—time and time again. It has over-corrected, and should bring interest rates down faster than it put them up.
No one in the House would take any pleasure in the problematic state of the manufacturing sector of our economy. On that issue, we are all united. Nevertheless, despite Government Members' brave words, we can all see the worrying signs that manufacturing industry is facing serious difficulties. Output has fallen for the last two quarters for which figures have been published, and the survey to be published this week by the British Chambers of Commerce will show the severe impact of the strength of sterling on manufacturing exporters.
The Institute of Directors published a quarterly survey in June. It says:
"Our March survey showed a sharp fall in export orders, capacity utilisation and expected output growth; the June survey shows further weakening in those areas, together with a dramatic downturn in business optimism."
It continues in that gloomy tone.
Manufacturers in the west midlands are feeling the effects more keenly than practically anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and proper attention should be paid by the Government and by Parliament. Manufacturers' export order books have contracted sharply, and in the north-east of England orders are at their lowest since 1990. The hundreds of job losses announced by Pringle and Barbour in the north-east in the past fortnight are, I am sorry to say, being replicated in textile firms in such places as Bradford and Scotland, and in engineering firms on the Humber.
The state of manufacturing is much better in other areas, such as the south-east, where the financial services sector is much more important, and the south-west; but even in those two regions there are recruitment bottlenecks and the first signs of a slowdown in activity. It will be surprising if Britain does not experience a prolonged period of slow economic growth and rising unemployment, whatever measures are introduced.
The consequences can easily be predicted. An unemployment rise will inevitably increase the tensions between employers, who will try to contain their costs, and employees, who will obviously want to maintain their salary levels. There will be some industrial unrest. One does not have to be Ed Balls to see that. The new culture of partnership between employer and trade union that the President of the Board of Trade commended to the House in her White Paper on fairness at work will inevitably be undermined.

63
I have always found it hard to understand how good industrial relations can be ensured by legislative proposals to give unions unnecessary privileges. The Government have created problems for themselves. The requirements placed on employers by their minimum wage proposals will increase wages and wage costs, if for no other reason than that people will want to maintain differentials. It will be more difficult to generate new employment opportunities.
Hon. Members on the Government Benches will have heard the general secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union, Mr. Ken Jackson, call on the Bank of England to end its war of attrition against manufacturing industry, and to lower interest rates. That call has been made in the House, and it will be made many times more. The Government tell us, and will tell us again, that the economy is heading for a soft landing. I recall a former Chancellor prophesying green shoots, but they took a long time to come. It may also be some time before that soft landing occurs.
Decisions must be taken if Britain is to get back on track to sustainable long-term growth. The Chancellor of the Exchequer assured us in The Times last Friday that the right decisions had been taken. He is reverting to the type of Labour Chancellors by repeating their traditional incantation about the danger of excessive wages.
Mr. Redwood: The Government forecast a soft landing on average, which means a crash landing for manufacturing, and no landing at all for high fliers on their side.
Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend proves the point that there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Averages always mean someone is at the top, but someone else is equally far from the average at the bottom.
Incantations about the dangers of private sector wage rises unfortunately follow a rate of inflation already well above the Government's 2.5 per cent. target. Public expenditure will also increase by 2.75 per cent. on top of inflation over the next three years. and that will mean substantial growth in the burden of taxation, beyond the economy's growth rate.
The traditional features of Labour Government are high public spending that is growing faster than the economy, rising inflation, declining manufacturing and the prospect of rising unemployment. I have been through that before in the late 1970s, and I have a feeling of deja vu. I doubt that even Mr. Derek Draper—if he were ever released back on to the circuit—would be able to spin the Labour party out of that problem and the political unpopularity that will result. It would be better for the Government to admit now to the truth of my analysis, but I doubt that they will do so. I doubt, too, whether Labour Back Benchers could bring themselves to do so.
A play in the 1960s called "The Company Way" sums up the position of Labour Members, in the words:
"I play it the government way. Where the government puts me, there I'll stay…I have no point of view. Whatever the government thinks, I think so too."
Mrs. Dunwoody: Author?
Mr. Sheerman: Author?
Mr. Page: Not me.
64
Not surprisingly, that play folded after a few weeks. Unfortunately, the Government have a few years to go, and we will all suffer from what they did in their first Budget in June 1997.
The previous Government, of which I was proud to be a member, were committed to promoting competition, to improving the quality of production and to restoring our country's national pride in manufacturing. We succeeded in raising the national level of output after 1992, and in recording significant gains in productivity, especially between 1994 and 1997. Not many hon. Members seem to understand that if the number of units on a production line is reduced by 10 per cent. or 20 per cent., profit does not drop by only that amount. Standing costs remain, and the cut in production bites into the company's success. A company that cannot keep up growth goes out of business.
A small downturn has devastating effects on companies. That is why it is necessary to have stability in the economy. Manufacturers need to plan ahead for 10 or 15 years to recoup their capital costs. Companies cannot expect an 80 per cent. jump in annual turnover to save the day. They do not make that sort of money, but deal in small percentages, and that is why stability is necessary.
When we were in government, there was, for the first time, a major growth in manufacturing exports. Our industrial relations record had never been better. Sadly, the golden legacy we left for the new Government in May 1997 has been put at risk. The difficulties being faced by the economy as a whole and by manufacturing in particular cannot be solved by some Calvinistic injunction to be good when those who make that injunction are gambling with the country.
Harry Truman, the former American President, got it right when he said that it is a recession when a neighbour loses his job, but a depression when you lose your own. For too many people in manufacturing, the recession is already here. For some Ministers, the depression is only a few days away, but for the rest, it is just a matter of time.
6.15 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I have been disappointed by some of what I have heard, particularly from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). I was delighted when the Opposition chose to spend half a day on manufacturing. It seemed a wonderful opportunity for a serious debate about the fundamental problems of manufacturing. However, his speech dwelt wholly on the surface, scoring points and making political jibes. His analysis was very superficial—he is good at that. What irritated me most was that the fundamental problems of our country are worth talking about seriously.
The right hon. Gentleman sometimes chides people like me who represent industrial constituencies—Huddersfield is certainly an industrial constituency—for not speaking up for industrialists. The way to do that, however, is to examine changing patterns in the global economy and how our industrial and manufacturing sectors fit in. If we could dwell on that, the debate would be much more useful.
Mr. Redwood: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recollect that I set out a six-point programme to improve

65
matters for manufacturers. Does he agree that, unless something is done pretty soon about interest rates and exchange rates, a lot more manufacturing will close?
Mr. Sheerman: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we must deal with global economic problems. Unprecedented change has occurred in the world economy over the past five years. Sometimes, I hear Alistair Cooke, now in his 80s, on my radio on a Sunday morning giving his in-depth analysis of the global economy and its effects on the United States and Europe. He is a man of great experience who is capable of squeezing into eight minutes—the BBC, yet again, has cut him back—the core of a matter. In a recent programme, he spoke about the fact that the global economy has become a reality in his lifetime. People used to talk about it; now it is here.
The crisis in south-east Asia is wide-ranging. We can wish it away, or pretend it does not exist. We can pretend to carry on as if it were of little significance, but it is a large change in the global economy. We are still facing up to it, and there will be worse to come. The United Kingdom must be seen in that light, and in relation to other instabilities. I am pro-European and, given the right measures and proper caution, I am in principle in favour of joining the European single currency, but there is some instability in the European Union.
We face a flight from the deutschmark to the pound and the dollar. One ray of sunshine is the American economy, whose tenacity and vibrancy is coupled with the ability to reinvent itself. We must learn some lessons from the American example and consider our economy in the context of real changes throughout the world.
I am something of an historian, so I must return to what I regard as a seminal work in terms of how we view British manufacturing and industry. In 1993, the London business school and IBM produced a consultancy report entitled "The True State of British Industry". That report changed everyone's mind about the state of British business. Until then, many people had thought that British business was pretty damn good and that we should continue to do what we had always done. Bad times were blamed on inflation, the exchange rate and many other factors, and the consensus was that there was nothing really wrong with British business and management.
Using a set of criteria, "The True State of British Industry" presented the facts. It revealed that between 1 per cent. and 1.5 per cent. of British companies were world class and that, if superhuman efforts were expended, 38 per cent. of British companies could become world class. That meant a hell of a lot of changes. According to the report, 60 per cent. of British industry was hardly saveable. It predicted that most companies would disappear and no longer be real players in the British economy.
That seminal work changed hearts and minds in the Conservative party, in the Labour party and in British business. As President of the Board of Trade, the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), produced competitiveness White Papers that attempted to address those problems. The way in which the Labour party regarded business and the problems facing it changed totally. The report probably changed the Liberal Democrats also—although I know less about their thinking. It changed us all, and so it should.
66
At the same time, there were other changes in management. The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, of which many of us are fellows, took up the challenge. Some 25 chief executives and chairmen of blue-chip companies spent two and a half years analysing what constituted a "tomorrow's company": a company that would survive into the next century and beyond while remaining a vigorous player. Many of the great companies that were listed in "Fortune" 500 a year ago, are no longer there. They have not survived: they have been taken over or gone out of business. The "tomorrow's company" philosophy and tool kit was extremely valuable because it represented an attempt to learn lessons from world-class companies so that the nation could start addressing the problems.
Five years later, the British manufacturing economy has not come to terms with that challenge. There have been some improvements, but not enough. I was slightly amused by the comments by my old friend the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page)—we have been on opposing sides for so long that I think of him as a friend; although not an hon. Friend—who said that the previous Government increased exports. If someone devalues the currency by 30 per cent. and does not improve manufacturing export performance, God help us. Yet that is what occurred.
Manufacturing benefited from coming out of the exchange rate mechanism and from a massive devaluation. British business had a very cosy time—in fact, it was a bit too cosy. British companies did not have the urge to change into more efficient and productive industries. When the German economy was faced with a highly valued deutschmark, business used the time to retain and expand its market share by examining the quality of management and over-all manufacturing capacity. German manufacturing increased productivity in circumstances similar to those we face at present, and improved its market share.
Mr. Page: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. However, does he accept that, the last time there was a devaluation, we started to fight our way back in volumes of sales and in growth of manufacturing exports and productivity? We did not look to devalue our way out of the crisis, as we had done time after time. Last time, it was different: we cracked the failings of the past and embarked upon a virtuous cycle. A Government reshuffle is imminent, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's manufacturing expertise is recognised with a place on the Front Bench.
Mr. Sheerman: I shall respond not to the second but to the first point. The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting issues. I thought that he was arguing against an independent central bank. The fact of the matter is—let us not be party political about this—that Britain's record, under all parties, in handling its currency has been a disgrace. We got into trouble with high long-term interest rates because we did not have a bank and a currency that we could trust. Rather than take tough decisions on the economy, every Government devalued the currency. That was true of both major parties in government.
In the first few days of this Administration, the Chancellor took the bold and imaginative step of ending all that. He sought to ensure that we have a currency that

67
people can trust. I remember visiting the Bank of England three or four years ago and I was amazed when the Governor, Eddie George, said, "Until we came out of the ERM, the Bank of England didn't have a vision statement; we just did what we did. Afterwards, we produced a vision statement that said that we should have a sound currency, low inflation and a climate in which business can thrive." I assume that the Bank of England has retained that vision statement.
Mr. Redwood: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the technicians have won and the Bank has had its way on two occasions in the 20th century: first, in relation to the gold standard; and, secondly, in relation to ERM? Those moves ended in massive job losses and manufacturing haemorrhage. Is the hon. Gentleman at all concerned that the current experiment might end the same way?
Mr. Sheerman: When I hear the right hon. Gentleman speak, I am often reminded of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who is an expert at plucking two dates from history and making an historical case. That is the worst sort of historical analysis. The right hon. Gentleman is just like my right hon. Friend, although he does not write or speak so much about historical subjects. One cannot conduct an analysis in that way. We must analyse what has happened to our currency, and trust in that currency over a long period.
I have recently been described in several columns as a "parliamentary poodle"—I have never viewed myself in that way—but that is one decision that I believe is good for the economy. The vision statement of the Bank of England must be correct: businesses seek security. They want to know that they are operating in a stable environment. We have not had that in this country for a long time. Stability counts; it is crucial.
Sir David Madel: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments. There is no stability for industry if interest rates continue to rise when they should not. That does not do anything for industry.
Mr. Sheerman: I am not going to speak much longer, but I intervened on the right hon. Member for Wokingham on interest rates, for which I have figures back to 1950. We are still in a very low interest economy compared with most of the time under the Administrations of which he was part, when they reached 11, 13 and 14 per cent. The only time that interest rates have neared present levels was in the almighty recession of the early 1990s. The tragedy is that we have been a high-interest economy. That has been a tax all the time on my industrialists in Huddersfield and on our manufacturing sector.
We must achieve long-term low inflation and low interest. That is the secret. That is what Germany and the United States are better at. Looking at our motion, that is exactly what is crucial. It is sometimes tough and I feel terribly sorry about that. This morning, I was at John Brierley, a 100-year-old cotton spinning company in my constituency. It is finding it tough and I have every sympathy, but our motion is about securing our economy for the long term. Too many politicians in this country have been obsessed with the short term. The Tories do not like it because we have gone for the long term.
68
Sometimes it hurts in the short term to get it right in the long term. That is why I shall support the Government in the Lobby and why I think overall that the pattern set now is right for British industry and manufacturing.
6.30 pm
Mr. Tim Boswell: This is a serious issue which Members of Parliament do not treat at one remove. Many of us have personally experienced the consequences of six hikes in interest rates and the inconvenience of getting to work through tube strikes. Those of us who remember the winter of discontent—I often remind myself that not all of us now remember it, even in this place—look out on this rather drenched summer, for which I do not blame the Government, and see the signs of a strong and growing industrial El Niño effect, for which I do blame them. The debate has been eloquent in showing the widespread concern about manufacturing industry. That says a lot, even if our prescriptions differ on how to deal with it.
I and many other Conservative Members have a strong commitment to raising our competitiveness through better education and training, to the practice of good industrial relations and to the success of manufacturing industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and others deployed powerful arguments. Several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have distinguished records on the subject.
It is interesting that new Labour has been rather absent from the debate and unable to say how well things were going. [Interruption.] It appears to be getting its messages now. Whereas until recently new Labour has been in denial, the argument that it is all the fault of the last 18 years of Conservative government is rapidly running out of road. The time is coming when the Labour Government will have to stand up and be counted and be accountable for their actions in respect of manufacturing.
Mr. MacShane: Does the hon. Gentleman recall an Opposition day debate this Parliament that was so poorly attended by Conservative Back Benchers?
Mr. Boswell: I recall that many of my hon. Friends were here for the introduction of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham. I have the impression that many others—not, of course, because of my contribution—are hurrying to the Chamber even now.
I want to talk not so much about manufacturing industry as about industrial relations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham made some telling points about the problems. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) referred extensively in his interesting speech to the problems of the engineering industry. He took the words out of my mouth on that, so I confine myself to noting that hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) and I met the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry to discuss problems in the large power generation plant industry that affect employment in my constituency. Those are not the only problems.
In a letter to me enclosing its business survey, the Institute of Directors refers to
"a dramatic collapse in business optimism",

69
with an especially abrupt fall in the manufacturing industry. The 3Is barometer survey of business confidence is at its lowest level since 1992. "Office World" is often quoted by DTI Ministers. Its quarterly small business survey announces:
"Warning signs from small businesses—Government's honeymoon over".
Professor Robert Blackburn heads the small business research centre at Kingston university. He concludes: "The signs are ominous."
The question before the House is what is the sensible action for a responsible Government at such a time. We understand that macro-economic management is difficult—as many hon. Members have conceded, it has been difficult for Governments of all colours—but what do we do about it, given that it is difficult? There are undoubted problems. Should not we be doing everything possible to avoid heaping greater burdens on industry? Such burdens might arise through taxation, additional regulation or industrial action frustrating management. The three together are increasingly adding up to a noxious brew.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer warns companies about their earnings record while imposing a cool £25 billion of extra taxation over the Parliament on business alone. The Monetary Policy Committee is in agonies trying to balance its inflation targets with the consequences for manufacturing industry in particular. Businesses and trade unions, well aware of the likely score, are trying to get their retaliation in first. That is well exemplified by the industrial strain in London Transport today.
On industrial strain, we had some revealing figures in the exchanges with the President of the Board of Trade. She is not here to answer the point, but she sought, somewhat disingenuously, to compare a series of figures about our record in the 1980s with figures that I gave on the Labour record in the 1970s. What is incontestable is that industrial relations are very much better than they were when the last Labour Government left office. That is well shown by the fact that, in 1979, 29 million days were lost; by 1994—the figures are little worse now—only 1 per cent. of that number were lost. I am delighted that we are on the verge of solving the industrial relations problem. The question is whether the Government's proposals help or hinder the process. In almost every respect, they are likely to make matters considerably worse.
Let us kick off with the minimum wage, which, as the Minister knows, has been extensively debated. At least we now have the report of the Low Pay Commission. There is the interesting question of the impact of the minimum wage on business costs. The commission estimates the direct impact at 0.6 per cent. To that must be added the entirely unquantified impact on differentials, which may not be too great because of the figure chosen, which has been further doctored down by the Chancellor because of the concern that he raised in his arguments with the DTI.
Be that as it may, the minimum wage is not the only leg of the stool, because we go on to "Fairness at Work", which the Minister, in fairness, sees as a major part of his proposals. We have had the recognition debate, and we found that the Confederation of British Industry had got its way on the 40 per cent. hurdle, but there had to be many concessions, and, even at 40 per cent., there is still plenty of leverage for those who want to make disputes to ensure that they happen.
70
Perhaps more serious than the recognition figure is the impact of the unfair dismissal proposals. In particular, I draw the House's attention to the fact that it is likely to poke up the route of recourse through employment tribunal on grounds of unfair dismissal with no limit on damages, in comparison with a more legally based claim of wrongful dismissal, which is confined to the contract term.
Finally, there are several interesting and important issues relating to representation that the Government have not properly addressed. For example, it is even possible to allow for a disaffected employee to drag in the representative of one trade union when another trade union is recognised. That will increase the possibility of inter-union disputes like those of the 1970s, which we had thought we could now forget.
My first criticism of the change that is taking place is that it is all about litigation and using litigation for recourse, rather than being in line with the spirit of the all-party approved private Member's legislation to resolve disputes, wherever possible, by consensus, arbitration or agreement.
Secondly—as I warned the Minister of State—I was staggered when I engaged in correspondence with him and asked, innocently enough, what the compliance costs were of his proposals on "Fairness at Work", but, so far, answer have I none at all. We shall have to continue asking.
As if the minimum wage and "Fairness at Work" were not enough, there are several other measures in the pipeline. There is the implementation of the working time directive, which is supposed to be introduced on 1 October. There is a slight problem, in that the regulations have not been published. How can firms be expected to comply with, to implement or to prepare to implement regulations that are not yet in existence if they do not know what they are to contain?
Above and beyond that, there is the implementation of an avalanche of European directives, some arising out of the social chapter, including those relating to works councils, parental leave, and part-time working, and the revision of the assured rights directive. Together, those all lead in one direction: they offer rights without further responsibilities, impose further costs on business and, therefore, concomitantly reduce employment opportunities. Taken together, they are bad news for business.
Yesterday, I visited an important showcase for British industry, the Silverstone grand prix circuit, which is shared between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), although mine contains the grandstand, the start, the finish and the pits. I mention it not only because it is a remarkable example of what this country can achieve through its inventiveness, but because it is an analogy for competition. There is a range of grand prix cars which, to my untutored eye, all look the same; they may be painted rather differently, but they all have multiple and complex names and they all go extremely fast—far faster than I would choose to go. The actual difference between them in terms of performance is only 1 or 2 per cent., but that is everything; that is what the whole industry is based on. If we want to be competitive, it is no good saying, "We can take a little rubbish from 'Fairness at Work' and a few extra costs in taxation," because those small things can silt up the whole process and choke it.

71
The President of the Board of Trade, who has now rejoined us, is deemed to be irrelevant by some of her colleagues, so we can leave her out of the analogy. However, when I consider the position of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and which analogy I should apply to their attitude to British industry, I am drawn irresistibly to that of the oysters in "The Walrus and the Carpenter", or, to bring it up to date in new Labour speak, the plumber and the leaker, whichever is which. The House will recall that
"the Walrus said:
'I deeply sympathise.'…
But answer came there none";
as the House will remember, the reason was,
"They'd eaten every one"
We do not believe that the situation of British industry and manufacturing industry is irredeemable. Tonight, we are trying to save the Government from the follies of their own policies. In an effort to do so, we have tabled our motion and we shall press it to a Division.
6.44 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): First, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) for both the content of their speeches and the enthusiasm for Government policy that they expressed.
I understand that, on the right occasion, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) enjoys a Big Mac. Let me tell him that I am one Big Mac that he will not be devouring tonight. His speech evoked a sense of deja vu; one would have thought that the Conservative crew had never been in government, or left an inheritance for Labour to clear up.
Under the Conservatives' tutelage and during their period of responsibility, 2.5 million manufacturing jobs were lost. They discouraged investment in manufacturing, to the extent that investment grew by only 0.5 per cent. per annum. The value of manufacturing imports exceeded that of exports by more than £100 billion. Among manufacturing companies, insolvencies quadrupled under the previous Government. Like the electorate, industry wants an end to those disastrous policies. It wants an end to instability, which our policies are designed to achieve.
Today, Dun and Bradstreet reported that manufacturers now expect a growth in sales, orders, profits and employment; that is a radically different view from that expressed by Conservative Members. The Institute of Directors reports three quarters of manufacturers performing well or very well. More than twice as many manufacturers expect to increase investment as expect to cut it. That is not a sign of a Government's policies in crisis. Many other independent forecasters, including the Confederation of British Industry, expect manufacturing output to grow both this year and next.
The Opposition have tabled a spurious motion on recession and a crisis in employment relations. The right hon. Member for Wokingham has been unable to give a single, sustainable, fact-based argument that the problems that the Labour Government are now tackling are not the legacy left by him and his right hon. Friends.
72
The right hon. Gentleman has a bit of a reputation for economic forecasting. In 1989, he said:
"all about us there is manifold evidence of growth in prosperity, capital investment, and the like."—[Official Report, 12 January 1989; Vol. 144, c. 1072.]
Within in a year, we had embarked on the longest recession for 50 years. Two days earlier, in a similar debate, he had gone one better by saying:
"About one third of the unemployed in Britain are in London, the south-east and East Anglia, and in all those parts of the country it is possible to find a job. One has only to walk down the high street to see the jobs on offer. They almost fall out of the shops."—[Official Report, 10 January 1989; Vol. 144, c. 748.]
Within four years of that remark, unemployment had risen from 1.8 million to 3 million. Economic forecasting is not one of the right hon. Gentleman's strongest skills. He apologised for the 1990s, but, like some Rip van Winkle, he appears to have forgotten that the Conservative Government were in control of the economy during the 1980s as well. I hope that he does not mind my saying that he debates economic issues as effectively as he sings the Welsh national anthem.
Mr. Redwood: To say that there are many jobs available at a particular time is not to make a forecast for four years hence. What has the Minister to say about the headline of the "Business Day" section in the Evening Standard tonight, which says:
"Rid us of Beckett and restore morale at the DTI"?
The article contains a long catalogue of complaints about ineptitude, inadequacy and failure to make decisions that business needs. Will the Minister get in touch with business and understand that there is a serious crisis?
Mr. McCartney: The right hon. Gentleman should stop overdosing on Viagra. He is over-excited. One point is absolutely certain—my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers in the Department have proved since the first day of this Government that we are effective not only individually but collectively. We are one of the best Departments in the Government. Under the previous Government, job insecurity was rife, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I do not suffer from it.
The right hon. Gentleman alleged that we had made a £25 billion tax raid on companies. The Government will cut corporate tax bills by £4.5 billion, and we have cut corporation tax by a full 3 per cent. That is the lowest ever rate in the UK and the lowest of any major industrialised country. We have cut corporation tax twice and increased capital allowances for small firms; we have cut capital gains tax on long-term investment; we have cut taxes for working families on low incomes; we have cut national insurance contributions on employment; we have cut VAT on fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent.
The election of a Labour Government has prevented further Tory tax increases such as VAT on food, children's clothes, books, newspapers and fares.
Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. McCartney: The right hon. Gentleman should quit while he is ahead, but I shall give way.
Mr. Redwood: If the Government have made all those cuts in business taxes, why does the Chancellor's Red Book show a £25,000 million increase in the business tax burden?
Mr. McCartney: That is related to growth in the economy. The Government are directly reducing taxes for business.
I shall concede one point to the right hon. Gentleman: the Government have introduced one tax—the windfall tax—and I am proud of that. The previous Government allowed privatised utilities to make bumper profits while unemployment among young people and older workers increased to the point at which there was mass unemployment everywhere in Britain. We introduced a windfall tax to fund the new deal. I am proud of that, and the public are proud of it. The new deal is seen as one of the most successful programmes for introducing, at last, training and work opportunities for young people and older workers. The previous Government abandoned them year after year.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) spoke about employment relations. Looking back at the inheritance that we received when we came into office, we can see that, shamefully, under the previous Government, the International Labour Organisation listed the UK, along with Burma, as a country that was imposing limitations on workers' rights to the extent that we were not complying with our international obligations—Burma, I ask you. That is a regime known for its cruelty to all its citizens. We were bracketed with that country for our lack of compliance with ILO conventions.
The previous Government abolished wages councils, denying more than 2 million workers protection against poverty pay. They burdened the tribunal system with huge delays because of the increasing number of people who felt that they had been unfairly treated in the workplace. They systematically failed to work with trade unions and listen to their views.
The previous Government were even taken to the European Court. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), had a record as long as his arm of losing cases in the European Court for denying British people their rights. The man was a scandal and, if it had not been for the election, he would probably have been locked up because of his long record of failure to comply with the law.
Believe it or not, the previous Government went to court and lost because they did not want the lowest-paid workers in Britain to have three weeks' paid holiday—four weeks by the turn of the century. That is the previous Government's record, which we had to follow.
The hon. Member for Daventry raised the issue of today's rail strikes. The previous Government lost almost 900,000 working days in transport and communications in their last year of office. None of us wants strikes. The whole purpose of partnership is to reduce conflict in the workplace. The previous Government had a clear record of policies that led to substantial numbers of days being lost through industrial action in the rail industry.
Mr. Boswell: Will the Minister tell the House whether the rail union is today striking against the policies of the previous Conservative Government or those of the present Labour Government?
Mr. McCartney: The position is clear—the hon. Gentleman left us a legacy of under-investment, poor industrial relations and a demoralised work force. It has been left to this Government to start investing to clear up the results of their policies.
74
Opposition Members do not believe in partnership, but they are very isolated. Even Sir Stanley Kalms, the Tory party's biggest fund raiser, announced last week a recognition arrangement between his company and the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union. Levi Strauss, United Distillers, PowerGen, Tesco and Lucas are all making similar moves. Across Britain, employers are moving towards partnership and fairness in the workplace. Only the Conservatives, wedded to the past of undercutting and under-resourcing people in the workplace, do not believe in partnership and a joint approach to solving employment problems. They do not believe in trade unions having the right to exist in the workplace. They do not believe that unions are good for partnership.
Our White Paper has pledged funds to contribute to the training of managers and employee representatives to assist and develop partnerships at work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment announced a £2 million fund for union learning to support innovation in promoting learning and skills at work and to stimulate new partnerships. Would the Conservative party reverse that policy? Would it repeal the "Fairness at Work" White Paper proposals for funds to improve training and education in partnership for managers and employees? Would the right hon. Member for Wokingham withdraw funding for better relationships in the workplace? Would he repeal the proposals to give people the right to paid holidays? If he opposes those proposals, will he state whether the Conservatives, if they ever won an election, would repeal those new rights?
People are sick and tired of the Tories' old agenda. They want to move towards partnership in the workplace. That is why "Fairness at Work" has been overwhelmingly accepted. The right hon. Member for Wokingham has been waxing lyrical about why, even now, he opposes a minimum wage of £3.60, but he had to admit, under pressure, that he has a part-time job paying £12,000. Will he confirm that he has also been given 100,000 share options for a part-time job? He opposes a national minimum wage of just over £7,000 for someone who is working full time. He is guilty of double standards and hypocrisy.
We need no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of establishing a minimum wage. Will he fight the next election on wage cuts by pledging to remove the right to a national minimum wage? I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to answer. Will he oppose the continuation of the national minimum wage at the next election, possibly forcing wage cuts on many low-paid workers?
Mr. Redwood: The Minister has often asked that, and I have always given him a clear answer. We shall review all Labour's measures just before the next election and decide what is right for this country in the interests of more people having opportunities and jobs. We are not against decent wages; we are against people losing their jobs through ill-thought-out legislation.
Mr. McCartney: The right hon. Gentleman's reply is very interesting. All women workers in Britain now understand that the Conservative party will review their new rights as part-time workers, their rights to parental leave and their improved maternity rights. The right hon.

75
Gentleman's statement shows that, by the next election, the Conservatives will have learnt nothing from the previous election, and that they are prepared to undermine people's entitlements in the workplace. Every worker in Britain—all 25 million of them—should realise that, at the next election, the Conservatives' policy will be to remove the entitlements and rights that were given by this Government. That is a disgraceful position for the Conservatives to place themselves in.
We have said in our White Paper that we shall reduce from two years to one year the qualifying time for protection against unfair dismissal. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to remove that right and return the qualifying time to two years? Does he accept that, under the previous Government's proposals, many workers were undermined by their employers and could not gain access to arrangements to prevent them from being treated unfairly in the workplace? Does he intend to reverse our decision, which has been accepted by the overwhelming majority of British industry? Will he be isolated again and fight the election on the basis that workers will be able to be undermined by unfair practice in the workplace?
In The House magazine of 19 December, the right hon. Gentleman said:
"I knew that in the end I wanted to be able to make my own statements and live and die by my own remarks."
By his own remarks today, he has died a thousand deaths. Let us make sure that we give him a decent burial in the Lobby and reject the motion.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 313.

Division No. 333]

[7 PM

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Amess, David

Day, Stephen

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Duncan, Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Duncan Smith, Iain

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Baldry, Tony

Faber, David

Bercow, John

Fabricant, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fallon, Michael

Blunt, Crispin

Flight, Howard

Boswell, Tim

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Fox, Dr Liam

Brady, Graham

Gale, Roger

Brazier, Julian

Garnier, Edward

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gibb, Nick

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gill, Christopher

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Butterfill, John

Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Gray, James

Green, Damian

Chope, Christopher

Greenway, John

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Grieve, Dominic

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Hague, Rt Hon William

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Colvin, Michael

Hammond, Philip

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Hawkins, Nick

Cran, James

Hayes, John

Curry, Rt Hon David

Heald, Oliver

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

76

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Prior, David

Horam, John

Randall, John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hunter, Andrew

Robathan, Andrew

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Jenkin, Bernard

Ruffley, David

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

St Aubyn, Nick

Sayeed, Jonathan

Key, Robert

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Soames, Nicholas

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spicer, Sir Michael

Leigh, Edward

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Letwin, Oliver

Steen, Anthony

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Streeter, Gary

Lidington, David

Syms, Robert

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Loughton, Tim

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Luff, Peter

Townend, John

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Tredinnick, David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Trend, Michael

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Tyrie, Andrew

MacKay, Andrew

Walter, Robert

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Wardle, Charles

McLoughlin, Patrick

Waterson, Nigel

Madel, Sir David

Wells, Bowen

Malins, Humfrey

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Maples, John

Whittingdale, John

Mates, Michael

Wilkinson, John

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Willetts, David

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Wilshire, David

May, Mrs Theresa

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Moss, Malcolm

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Woodward, Shaun

Nicholls, Patrick

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Ottaway, Richard

Page, Richard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Paice, James

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Pickles, Eric

Mr. Tim Collins.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Alexander, Douglas

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Allen, Graham

Browne, Desmond

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Burden, Richard

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Burstow, Paul

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Byers, Stephen

Ashton, Joe

Cable, Dr Vincent

Atkins, Charlotte

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ballard, Jackie

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Banks, Tony

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Barron, Kevin

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Battle, John

Canavan, Dennis

Bayley, Hugh

Cann, Jamie

Beard, Nigel

Caplin, Ivor

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Casale, Roger

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Caton, Martin

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Cawsey, Ian

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Bennett, Andrew F

Chaytor, David

Benton, Joe

Chidgey, David

Bermingham, Gerald

Chisholm, Malcolm

Best, Harold

Clapham, Michael

Betts, Clive

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Blair, Rt Hon Tony

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Clelland, David

Borrow, David

Clwyd, Ann

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Coaker, Vernon

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bradshaw, Ben

Cohen, Harry

Brake, Tom

Coleman, Iain

77

Colman, Tony

Hoon, Geoffrey

Connarty, Michael

Hope, Phil

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cooper, Yvette

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Corbett, Robin

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cotter, Brian

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cousins, Jim

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cox, Tom

Hurst, Alan

Cranston, Ross

Hutton, John

Crausby, David

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Illsley, Eric

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cummings, John

Jamieson, David

Dalyell, Tam

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Darvill, Keith

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Dean, Mrs Janet

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Denham, John

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Dismore, Andrew

Keetch, Paul

Dobbin, Jim

Kemp, Fraser

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Donohoe, Brian H

Khabra, Piara S

Doran, Frank

Kilfoyle, Peter

Drew, David

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kingham, Ms Tess

Efford, Clive

Kirkwood, Archy

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Ennis, Jeff

Laxton, Bob

Etherington, Bill

Leslie, Christopher

Fearn, Ronnie

Levitt, Tom

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Livingstone, Ken

Follett, Barbara

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lock, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Love, Andrew

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

McAllion, John

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McAvoy, Thomas

Foulkes, George

McCabe, Steve

Fyfe, Maria

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Galbraith, Sam

Macdonald, Calum

Gardiner, Barry

McDonnell, John

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

McFall, John

Gerrard, Neil

McIsaac, Shona

Godman, Dr Norman A

Mackinlay, Andrew

Godsiff, Roger

McLeish, Henry

Goggins, Paul

McNulty, Tony

Golding, Mrs Llin

MacShane, Denis

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gorrie, Donald

McWilliam, John

Grant, Bernie

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Mallaber, Judy

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mandelson, Peter

Grocott, Bruce

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Grogan, John

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Gunnell, John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hancock, Mike

Martlew, Eric

Hanson, David

Michael, Alun

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Harvey, Nick

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Milburn, Alan

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Moffatt, Laura

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Heppell, John

Moore, Michael

Hesford, Stephen

Morley, Elliot

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hill, Keith

Mudie, George

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Mullin, Chris

Home Robertson, John

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hood, Jimmy

Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

78

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Oaten, Mark

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

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Snape, Peter

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Soley, Clive

O'Hara, Eddie

Spellar, John

Olner, Bill

Squire, Ms Rachel

O'Neill, Martin

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Öpik, Lembit

Steinberg, Gerry

Organ, Mrs Diana

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Pearson, Ian

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pendry, Tom

Stoate, Dr Howard

Pickthall, Colin

Stott, Roger

Pike, Peter L

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Pollard, Kerry

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Pope, Greg

Stringer, Graham

Pound, Stephen

Stunell, Andrew

Powell, Sir Raymond

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Purchase, Ken

Quinn, Lawrie

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Radice, Giles

Temple-Morris, Peter

Rammell, Bill

Tipping, Paddy

Rapson, Syd

Touhig, Don

Raynsford, Nick

Truswell, Paul

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Rendel, David

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tyler, Paul

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Walley, Ms Joan

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Ward, Ms Claire

Rogers, Allan

Wareing, Robert N

Rooker, Jeff

Watts, David

Rooney, Terry

Webb, Steve

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

White, Brian

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wicks, Malcolm

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Salter, Martin

Sanders, Adrian

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wilson, Brian

Savidge, Malcolm

Winnick, David

Sawford, Phil

Wise, Audrey

Sedgemore, Brian

Worthington, Tony

Sheerman, Barry

Wray, James

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Skinner, Dennis

Wyatt, Derek

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Ms Bridget Prentice and

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mr. Jim Dowd.

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 welcomes the measures the Government has taken to build an economy which is healthy and sustainable in the long term, including placing the control of interest rates with the independent Bank of England; notes that over the last 12 months investment has grown by 7 per cent., 14,000 manufacturing jobs have been created and the public finances have been put in order; welcomes the new culture of partnership in industrial relations which is developing within the framework of measures and proposals the Government is taking forward; urges the Government to continue its own productive partnership with both business and employees; and condemns the Opposition for its own record in government of allowing manufacturing to decline within a boom and bust economy of unprecedented proportions and actively and sustainedly destroying partnership and democracy in the workplace.

Department of Social Security
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I have to tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.13 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I beg to move,
That this House deeply regrets the Government's failure to meet their election pledges to reduce social security costs; believes that this is a direct result of incompetent leadership at the Department of Social Security which has created confusion, contradictory policies and delays and has wasted their first year in Government.
Fourteen months into this Parliament, I and all my colleagues believe that the time is ripe for a review of the progress made by the Government and their Ministers in the Department of Social Security. [Interruption.] I knew that the Secretary of State would agree with me; I always set out to be helpful.
Today, we shall simply judge the Government, and the Secretary of State and her Ministers, by their own rhetoric and targets; we shall not invent any for them, but simply go by the ones that they set themselves. I and my colleagues want to see what has become of the Prime Minister's promise that Labour would be
"the party of welfare reform,"
that it would
"design a modern welfare state based on rights and duties going together",
and that, ultimately, it would reduce dependency and spending. Those were the promises. Have the Labour Government achieved them, or have they achieved instead incompetence and political inertia? Those are the two charges against them.
Perhaps first we may deal with the charge of incompetence. I shall list some examples of the escalating levels of incompetence at the DSS which have occurred during the past 14 months. Perhaps we could start with the winter fuel payment scheme, which sums up that charge almost as well as any other. The Government spent nearly £1.7 million on an advertising campaign—some £850,000 on the television advertisement alone.
Mr. Phil Hope: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan Smith: In a minute.
Yet pensioners were to receive those payments automatically, so the campaign was unnecessary. With pictures of cheques dropping through letter-boxes, the advertising campaign only made it worse. Pensioners were encouraged to believe, and actually believed—when I went around talking to them, many that I met certainly did—that they would receive those payments without having to do anything about it.
Mr. Hope rose—
Mr. Duncan Smith: I shall give way in a minute.
However, the majority of pensioners collected theirs through the post office, and the advertisement took no account of that reality. Of those lucky enough to receive the cheques, more than 40,000 were sent cheques that
80
bounced because they were out of date. Then, more than 9,000 of those cheques were sent to those who did not even qualify—more than 1,000 of whom were in local authority residential care.
The pressure that the Government put on officials to get things done in a hurry was largely responsible for that problem. Officials that I have met in many of the Benefits Agency offices that I have visited around the country have complained and commented adversely about that.
In May, it was revealed that as many as 100,000 cheques were still to be collected at post offices.
Mr. Kevin Hughes: How many pensioners?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I said 100,000; perhaps the hon. Gentleman's ears need clearing out.
Many pensioners had probably been misled by the advertisements and were still waiting for the cheques to drop through the letter-box. They continued to wait.
Mr. David Hanson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan Smith: In a moment.
There are also serious question marks over the selection of the advertising agency. Although the agency had been used by the DSS previously, when my colleagues were in government, the difference is that the present Government must have been aware at the time when they placed the campaign that the Labour party had an account with that agency. Why not, then, prevent speculation about why they placed that contract, by going out to competitive tender? They did no such thing. In fact, most interesting of all, they decided to place it without such a tendering process; I believe that it leaves them vulnerable to another charge of cronyism. It links very nicely with what has been going on over the weekend, and a certain amount of "cronygate".
Mr. Hanson: Instead of nit-picking and carping about some of the issues, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House straight: does he support the giving of that fuel grant in the first place? That is what pensioners in my constituency are interested in: the fuel grant received on their doorsteps, in their wage packets, in their bills, paying for those winter heating bills.
Mr. Duncan Smith: That is, of course, if they received them and were able to cash them. I must say to the hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Hanson: Does the hon. Gentleman support winter payments?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I am just about to answer that. In due course, I shall make some very serious charges about this wasted year, when policy has gone missing. In reply to the question of whether we support this, my simple answer is that I would support anything that improves and increases—[Interruption.] Wait a minute. I would support anything that improves and increases the income of pensioners, provided that the Government who do so can afford it. The question remains, can the Government now afford what they are promising

81
pensioners? I shall come to that in a second. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will have less to say on that in due course.
I have left the subject of cronyism and the poor way in which the Government have handled the process of paying pensioners winter fuel payments, but there are many other examples of incompetence. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State would keep quiet for a second, she might learn some things about how matters have been mishandled throughout the past 14 months by her.
For example, in December 1997, the Secretary of State—the same one who seems intent on making comments from a sedentary position—was the first for more than 20 years not to make the uprating statement in the Chamber, or to speak in the uprating debate. That debate is possibly the single most important thing that happens to the Social Security Department in the year—and she did not come to the House. She sent someone else—two different people, in fact. They were the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), a junior Minister; and the Minister of State.
In September, the DSS head of information, Steve Reardon, was axed by the same Secretary of State. Apparently, the Secretary of State removed him because he could not read her mind. At first, she seemed to be for a Cabinet pay rise. Then, when the Chancellor expressed the opinion that he was not for a Cabinet pay rise, it appears that the Secretary of State was not for a Cabinet pay rise. Mr. Reardon, a long-standing civil servant held in high regard, apparently could not cope with the pace of Government U-turns. He could check what they were doing, he could follow the turn, but not that quickly, when it happened almost the same day.
However, firing the messenger is not the answer, and spin is not the solution. In November and December, a number of leaks revealed that the Government intended to cut disability benefit and introduce a tax on child benefit. Those leaks continued, with plenty of opportunity for the Secretary of State or her Ministers to say that they were rubbish.
In the new year, the Secretary of State caused unnecessary concern by again floating the idea of an affluence test—I believe that that was when the Prime Minister was in Japan—including the proposal to means-test the basic state pension. Originally the Government were quite keen on the idea of an affluence test but, suddenly, they thought that it would be unpopular, so the Secretary of State was instructed by Downing street to issue a denial. That served to highlight yet again the confusion at the heart of Government.
Mr. Hope: There is nothing to do with social security contributions in that speech. Does the hon. Gentleman's party support the winter fuel payments that this Government introduced? Can he confirm that he would support the increase in child benefit? Those are two substantial welfare reform measures that this Government have introduced in this Parliament.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I see that the Whips' messengers are out in force. I have already answered that question. If the hon. Gentleman was not listening, that is his problem. He should try to pay attention.
I shall press on. In February and March, the Government were forced into a series of face-saving concessions to try to salvage the benefit integrity project.
82
The handling of that project provoked yet another rebuke from Downing street and also from Lord Ashley, the chairman of the all-party disablement group.
Then, the Secretary of State claimed with authority that there were women earning £1 million a year who claimed as much as £18,000 a week in maternity benefits. When journalists challenged that, the DSS had to explain the use of that figure. The Department replied:
"it's a spurious figure, but it's one she uses to make her point. Like a lot of figures we give, it doesn't reflect real life."
The Secretary of State might like to carve that on her Dispatch Box. Perhaps it is a motto that she will take away with her. That is an absurd counter-statement from her own Department, when the Secretary of State uses figures that do not add up.
Of course, there was the Secretary of State's mishandling of the reform of lone parent benefits. Few of us will ever forget the Secretary of State cutting a lonely figure on the Front Bench in December, with no Cabinet colleague to give her support and her own Back Benchers angry about her change of heart on a policy that she had condemned before, and adopted after, the election.
The reason was simply costs. The Chancellor refused to budge. Not once in the run-up to that debate did the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister speak about the principle of the change. They talked about the cost and the need to stay within the budgets that they had inherited—never the principle.
In January, the Government started their road shows. The public were vetted, and only those who were members of the Labour party were allowed to attend. When Labour party members became too troublesome, only those who were good members of the Labour party could come to the road shows. Eventually, even the Secretary of State was not allowed to attend. It was only at the road shows that the Government started to talk tentatively about the principle. Perhaps the Secretary of State would like to give her opinion and tell us whether she supports principle or cost-saving.
So beleaguered had the Secretary of State become that, in March, she broke off an interview with the BBC's "Women's Hour", leaving the studio when an interviewer apparently asked an unfriendly question.
Those examples of incompetence bring us to the serious charge of failure of policy. If the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Withington, will listen carefully, he will understand how that leads directly to the failure of his Department.
When the Government were elected, the Prime Minister appointed the Minister of State to his new job, with the all-embracing title of Minister for Welfare Reform. His task was to think the unthinkable. Clearly, the Prime Minister wanted to make people believe that he was serious about a radical reform of social security. We all thought, when he appointed the Minister of State, the man with such a track record, that that might have been his intent. I expect the Minister thought so too.
By late September, the Prime Minister had in his possession the Minister of State's considered views on reform—a Green Paper. It was just such a Green Paper that had been promised as a matter of urgency back in May, yet, far from seeing the light of day, that document was kicked around between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and later even the Secretary of State.

83
The Government had expressed the intention that it would be published before Christmas. Nick Timmins wrote in the Financial Times:
"Frank Field, the Minister for Welfare Reform had a publication date of December 7th pencilled in for his green paper."
He had clearly been carefully briefed.
However, the Chancellor ensured that the Green Paper did not come out until after he had delivered the Budget, where he signalled a very different set of changes from those outlined by the Minister of State in past publications. The result was an emasculated Green Paper in March, which a number of influential commentators dismissed.
In the Financial Times of 27 March, Nick Timmins, whom most hon. Members respect as a commentator, stated:
"Almost four months on, the green paper actually manages to tell the public less about what is going on in welfare reform than it has already learnt from the leaking, spinning, and announcements that have taken place."
The Sunday Times of 29 March described that as "a missed opportunity" and Melanie Phillips, one of the people whom the Government like to brief, wrote in The Observer:
"Presenting Frank Field's Green Paper on welfare reform after the budget is back to front politics.…the reason for the disorder is the lack of a coherent approach in Government."
That is the real issue—the lack of a serious and coherent approach, with everyone taking a chunk of welfare reform.
A classic example of lack of coherence in the reform process is reflected in the working families tax credit package. People will be paid benefits—credits—even if they are earning more than £30,000 a year. However, the Secretary of State seems to be obsessed by the idea of middle-class dependency, and she will affluence-test the same people to whom she plans to pay that credit—a case of absurdity and confusion.
The saddest part of the saga is the way in which the Prime Minister has walked away from his Minister of State and let the Chancellor continue to concentrate power in the Treasury.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: The Government whose social security policy is under scrutiny have published a strategy paper on welfare reform. Today, they published a paper on benefit fraud. Last week, they published a major document on child support. Will the shadow Secretary of State at some stage in his speech treat us to his views on substance, and will he get out of the gutter?
Mr. Duncan Smith: I have just dealt with substance. Labour Members do not like the fact that there is very little of substance in anything that the Government have yet produced. On the second point, they should not leave so much of what they think in the gutter.
Mr. Wicks: Let us deal with two matters of substance. We all agree, I hope, on the reform of child support. The Government propose a simpler formula and a maintenance
84
disregard to give mothers some of the child maintenance. Does the shadow Secretary of State support those two major measures for reform?
Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that, when the Secretary of State came to the House with her proposals for Child Support Agency reforms, I said that, as far as we could make them work, we would support any constructive reforms. I shall deal with that later, if the hon. Gentleman will wait. It is no good his talking about the gutter. Are The Observer, The Sunday Times and the Financial Times all in the gutter? Are all those commentators, who spend their lives considering social security matters, suddenly in the gutter because they disagree with the Government? That does the hon. Gentleman no credit.
Mr. Hope rose—
Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. I shall make progress.
Beyond the Green Paper, perhaps the single most important issue facing the Government is the reform of pensions. What Melanie Phillips described as incoherence is well illustrated by the pensions policy review process. The Government are boxed in by their pre-election attacks on the basic pension plus proposals, which were described by The Times as the
"most dishonest act of the campaign"—
that is, the 1997 general election campaign. The Government's commitment to the state earnings-related pension scheme conflicts with the Minister of State's views, and has added to the confusion over pension reform.
The Chancellor contributed to the confusion by taxing pension funds early on and devaluing the SERPS rebate by getting rid of advance corporation tax dividend tax credit, raiding £5 billion a year from those funds. That complicated a review of pensions that was already likely to be complicated, and that is, after three consultations and endless leaks, finally to be kicked into the long grass by the Chancellor, perhaps some time in the autumn, even though the Minister, as he knows full well, said that it would be published in the first half of this year.
What is absolutely clear is that this area has been taken over by the Treasury; we know that from the leaks at the weekend about top-up payments. Such announcements always beg more questions than they answer, and it seems ironic that the pensions review is delayed and delayed while the Chancellor leaks his proposals without regard to the process of pension reform. Yet again, the Chancellor is pre-empting another Department of Social Security Green Paper. The two Departments should work together, not against each other.
Mr. Hope: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there have been more than 2,000 submissions to the pension review from a substantial range of private sector organisations, voluntary organisations and many others? Will he confirm that the number of submissions from Conservative Members is nil?
Mr. Duncan Smith: What is most interesting about the hon. Gentleman's comment is that he has obviously not studied how many submissions came in. There were

85
2,000 to the first consultation but, by the time of the third, the number had dropped as low as about 10—people were sick and tired of constantly being asked to make policy for the Government. The Government were supposed to make proposals, but they have come forward with none. The hon. Gentleman should read those submissions, because they make fascinating reading—although his intervention was obviously quite facile.
No policy had been more hyped than the Secretary of State's pet project, the new deal for lone parents.
The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): Hear, hear.
Mr. Duncan Smith: From the start, the figures showed that the vast majority of lone parents did not want to take part, with 75 per cent. not answering the first letter of invitation to interview and a return to work figure that oscillates, at best, between 5 and 7 per cent.
The right hon. Lady said, "Hear, hear," when I mentioned her pet project, but if she had spent a tenth of the time considering pensions and supporting the Minister for Welfare Reform, we might not have this problem. She has avoided the most serious area altogether, because she feels uncomfortable with it. If she had not been a single-issue merchant, and had got on with running the Department, we would not have the problem on pensions and we may not have had the problem on lone parents.
Mr. John Heppell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I want to make progress.
Before any understanding of the figures could be gained, the Secretary of State leaped up and claimed success in September last year, a full two and a half months after the project got under way-wow! She claimed a figure of 20 per cent.; 5 per cent., the media said. The media were right. Furthermore, a large number of the 5 per cent. who returned to work would have done so any way, and the Secretary of State never gave us a breakdown for that figure.
That did not stop the Secretary of State continuing to issue press release after press release claiming success and credit when none was apparent. She has told us how much she is spending on the lone parent initiative, but, remember, she said, "Spend to save." She said that the initiative would save money by getting people into work. I have two questions for her, and perhaps she will answer right now: how much, exactly, will it save, and how many jobs will it create? I shall give way if she wants to give me the answers. No, she does not.
Mr. Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman has criticised the poor response rate to the new deal for lone parents. Is he aware that, when the Conservatives set up their parent plus pilot—of which, I believe, he was a supporter—they budgeted for a lower response rate than has been achieved on the new deal?
Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, because, as he will recall, that programme had one simple difference: the Secretary of State adopted the pilot areas, but she failed to take on the qualification programme involved with it. In every area,
86
groups were divided into two and would have been checked from start to finish. Instead of having to rely on general figures from the Secretary of State, the hon. Gentleman would have known by now exactly what created the environment for people to go to work, which policy was the most successful and which were not working.
The Secretary of State has none of that in place, because, from the start, this was a political initiative aimed at saying, "Look, we did something." The Government, however, junked the most important part of the programme, which we had already set up. The hon. Gentleman, if he had checked, would have realised that we included the qualification programmes to check how the programme would work.
Let us deal with the cost, which is perhaps the most important issue. The most damning charge against the Government is the rising cost, given that Labour said that it would
"increase the share of national income spent on education as we decrease it on the bills of economic and social failure."
The record is quite different. The working families tax credit will cost £420 million in 1999–2000, and £1.35 billion in 2000–01. Now we discover that the Chancellor is busy trying to hide £5 billion a year from the welfare bill by changing the way in which he accounts for the annual cost of the WFTC. By a process of smoke and mirrors, he intends to try to slide that money under the heading of accounting adjustments.
Everyone knows that that is an outrageous attempt to pretend that he has reduced the cost of welfare by £5 billion a year. The Office for National Statistics dismisses his claim that WFTC is part of the income tax system, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies said that it was "massively unhelpful" of the Chancellor to try to do that. He stands exposed not only of increasing the cost, but of trying to hide the core cost of £5 billion a year and pretending that he has saved money. That is a classic example of the Government saying and doing anything to pretend to the public that they are achieving their results.
The cost of the lone parent benefit, disability living allowance linking rule is an extra £10 million a year; changes to national insurance will cost £1.2 billion in 1999–2000 and £1.35 billion in 2000–01; the new child support package will cost £170 million in 1998–99, which will rise to £1.1 billion in 1999–2000 and more than that for 2000–01; and winter fuel payments cost £200 million in 1997–98, and will cost £200 million in 1998–99. The Government have never explained where they are getting the money for all that.
Mr. Heppell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I am not giving way.
Rather like the Chancellor's 2.25 per cent. projected increase in public spending, the new spending commitment to more than £7 billion appears to be an underestimate, as ever. This is only the beginning of the Government pumping up the whole of the social security budget.
Mr. Hanson rose—
Mr. Heppell rose—
Mr. Duncan Smith: I am not giving way; I intend to conclude shortly.

87
Equally serious is that, in spite of the talk about hand up and not hand-out, and getting people off welfare and into work, more people have been brought into the dependency net by extending the tapers and the raising of disregards in the new working families tax credit. Figures show that as many as 400,000 new families will be brought into dependency as a result of the measures announced in the previous Budget. That is an increase in dependency from the party that said that it would not increase dependency, but would cut it. That serious charge is levelled at the Government, and Ministers do not like it, because every single initiative has been a failure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Keith Bradley): The hon. Gentleman has been given a note—he has been going on for too long.
Mr. Duncan Smith: I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) about the time, so the Minister should sit back on his Bench.
Add to all that the fact that a number of reviews are still to report, and the process of reform almost becomes biblical. Today was another example: Green Paper begets Green Paper begets Green Paper. There is not a policy in sight, with endless review after endless review.
Mr. Heppell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Duncan Smith: No. The hon. Gentleman has nothing else to add.
The real problem that lies behind all that incompetence and policy failure is that, when the Government look back on their first year in office, they will realise that there has been a tragic waste of the best year that any Government since the war have had to reform welfare. On 28 March, The Economist said:
"The danger is that the story they record this year is the birth not of a better welfare system but just of a more expensive one."
That indictment of the very party that said that it would cut the bills hangs around the Secretary of State's neck.
Mr. Heppell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has said quite clearly that he is not giving way. Hon. Members must remain seated.
Mr. Duncan Smith: That indictment is becoming clearer as we head towards a public expenditure statement which has already loosened constraints on public spending without there being any constructive reform policies that might, in the long run, lead to better focus and the reduction of the burden of dependency and, with it, the unnecessary cost to the taxpayer. The Minister for Welfare Reform knows that, because that is why he was brought into the Government. It would have been better if he had been given his head properly to propose measures that could have been implemented.
On 1 January, the Opposition rightly offered the Government the chance of a serious debate on welfare reform. None has been forthcoming. Since then, we have
88
been through a series of disappointments, delayed reviews and reviews that seem to point nowhere in particular, with long timetables running out to 2020, as if the next election will not matter. I supported the statement on the Child Support Agency, because it was their only constructive proposal. We have shown that we are prepared to have a serious debate, but the Government are running scared and have not taken up our offer.
During the past year, the Government have had a golden opportunity, but they have wasted it, because they have failed to deal with welfare reform constructively and positively. We charge them with total failure and incompetence, and I am afraid that that charge sticks.
7.39 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security and Minister for Women (Ms Harriet Harman): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"congratulates the Government for their outstanding record in pursuing their efforts to provide opportunities for those who can work and security for those who cannot, to cut expenditure on economic and social failure and to modernise the welfare system."
One would not think from listening to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) that tonight provides an opportunity to debate one of the crucial issues facing the House and the country: welfare reform. The hon. Gentleman failed to address any of the really important questions.
Despite the fact that, according to my hon. Friends, the hon. Gentleman spoke for 26 minutes—it seemed longer—he failed to set out his approach to tackling poverty, worklessness and social exclusion. We heard nothing about his proposals to support children and families. He had nothing to say about proposals to ensure security in retirement for pensioners. He made no suggestions about rooting fraud out of the system or how to tackle the spiralling costs of social and economic failure. He cannot decide whether he thinks that our policies do not work or that we do not have any—he changes from one view to the other.
The hon. Gentleman's so-called allegations—such as the allegation of cronyism—are either untrue or irrelevant. For the record, the company that had the advertising contract to make pensioners aware of the winter fuel payments was on a standing contract initiated by the Conservative Government, so if they are anyone's cronies, they are his. When I took up office as Secretary of State for Social Security, I and my team of Ministers took over a system that was in crying need of reform. Poverty and social exclusion were growing, and yet the costs of social security were rising.
Mr. Duncan Smith: They still are.
Ms Harman: They are not.
The system that we inherited from the Tories left one in five households of working age with no one in work. It left one in four children being brought up on benefits, never seeing the world of work. It left one in four pensioners existing on income support, or, worse, living below the income support level. The Tories wrote off millions of people who wanted to work—wrote them off to a life of dependence on benefits.

89
Despite profound social and economic change, the social security system still reflected the assumptions of Beveridge's day rather than the patterns of life today and of the next century. The social security system that we inherited was based on the assumption that men were the breadwinners and were in permanent full-time employment—interrupted only by temporary periods of unemployment—and that disabled people would be supported on benefits.
The Tories had not changed the system from Beveridge's assumption that women would be married and would stay married, that the woman's husband would support her while he was working, that his national insurance contributions would provide for her as well as for him if he was temporarily out of work, that she would depend on his income in retirement, and that his insurance would provide for her after his death. The social security system provided security for the man, and the man provided security for the woman.
Beveridge said that when women get married women, they
"give up gainful occupation. Housewives and mothers have vital work to do in ensuring the continuance of the British race."
Even though half those in employment are women, the system that I and my team of Ministers inherited did not expect women to work. Even if the man was unemployed and the woman had no children, she was classed as dependent on him rather than being available for work.
The Tories did not reform the system from Beveridge's expectation that women would be housewives and mothers, and would not bring up children on their own. Even though one in three marriages now break down and every year 100,000 children are born to couples who do not live together, the system that I and my team of Ministers inherited had not woken up to that, and had simply allowed more than a million lone mothers and their children to drift on to income support. Lone mothers have to bring up their children the hard way—on their own, on income support and with no money coming in from the father. That has resulted in mounting costs to the public purse and spiralling costs of social exclusion.
The Tories did not reform the system from Beveridge's expectation that people with long-term health problems or disabilities would depend on benefits but would not work. In Beveridge's day, most jobs involved heavy manual work. People with physical and mental disability or learning disabilities were beset by prejudice, so disability was synonymous with benefit dependence. Now there are 2 million long-term sick or disabled people who work, and 1 million more people who could work and who want to work. The system that we inherited was simply about classifying them and paying them benefit. It gave them no concerted help to get into work.
Beveridge assumed that people's work would provide the foundation of their income in retirement, and that it would only be a short retirement. Yet the system that we inherited left 1.5 million pensioners claiming income support and a further 1 million living below the breadline—not even getting the income support to which they are entitled.
Despite a revolution in the delivery of services—one can arrange most of one's life over the phone, from shopping to mortgages, 24 hours a day—the social security system that we inherited expected people to turn up at the office, queue, fill in pages and pages of forms
90
and ask for the same information three times. No one ever explained or apologised. Few would say that claiming from the social security system was a pleasant experience, and few working in social security would disagree.
After 18 years in government, surely the Tories should have been aware of the profound social and economic changes, and should have understood and acted on them. Instead, the social security system was stuck in the past. The Tories failed to modernise it, and everyone was losing: the people who were written off to benefit dependence and the taxpayer who had to foot the bill.
We promised to modernise the social security system and to make it fair. We set out in our Green Paper the principles underpinning our welfare reform: work for those who can and security for those who cannot. We promised to tackle poverty and inequality, to cut the cost of social and economic failure and to tackle the scourge of fraud. That is what we promised, and that is exactly what we are doing. On the principle of work for those who can, our programme to help the young unemployed into work or training is well under way. Our programme for the long-term unemployed has begun.
But we have done more. The previous Government assumed that there were two groups of people, so only two Government policies were needed. The two groups were, first, people who were required to work and who would be helped to do so—which was considered to be Department of Education and Employment business—and, secondly, people who were not required to work and who were to be paid benefits—which was considered to be Department of Social Security business. They had no programmes for those who were not required to work, but who wanted to work and get off benefits and who could work.
To tackle the problem of workless households, I have looked beyond the employment register and asked who wants to work even though they are not compelled to work, and how we can help them to be better off and lessen their benefit dependence. I have established two completely new programmes, financed by the Chancellor out of the windfall levy: the new deal for lone parents and the new deal for the disabled.
The new deal for lone parents offers lone parents whose children are of school age help and advice into work. The step from the security of income support into work is difficult if they have to do it on their own, even with benefits to back them up in work. They cannot take risks if their children are depending on them. The new deal for lone parents gives them a personal adviser: a friend on the inside track who can advise them about jobs, training, interviews, benefits and child care—all the things a lone parent has to consider when she moves into work. The new deal is making a real difference.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way, but she knows perfectly well that her "new deal" for lone parents has been a complete shambles. She knows that 75 per cent. of lone parents contacted by the Benefits Agency did not even bother to respond, and that, on all the estimates, much fewer than 5 per cent. of lone parents who are currently on benefit have returned to work. Indeed, some estimates put the figure as low as 1 per cent. Will the

91
right hon. Lady give the House her own estimate of the number of lone parents who will find jobs as a result of the programme? What is her target?
Ms Harman: I do not need to give the House my estimate of the number of lone parents who will find jobs as a result of the new deal for lone parents. We have spent up to £1 million on an independent evaluation—by Social and Community Planning Research—of the additional number of lone parents who are in work and off benefit as a result of the new deal. The interim findings show that there are more lone parents in work than there would have been without the new deal, and that, if the new deal had been operating across the country— beyond the eight pilot areas—a further 10,000 lone parents would have been in work, and not on income support, as a direct result of it.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) presented me with a number of figures, which were mentioned on the radio by his hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. Let me tell the House what Social and Community Planning Research said about those figures. It said that the hon. Gentleman's figures were
"meaningless…leading to an incorrect conclusion".
Mr. Quentin Davies rose—
Ms Harman: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, I will give way to him.
Mr. Davies: At least the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) were figures. The right hon. Lady seems to be incapable of setting any targets, or coming up with any figures. Her response to me just now involved a double evasion. First, she shuffled off responsibility for evaluating the worthwhileness of her programme on to some so-called independent agency; secondly, she—who is responsible for the expenditure of public money in this regard, clearly has no business plan, and clearly has not worked out in her own mind what kind of public expenditure—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Davies: She has not worked out what kind of public expenditure is worth budgeting—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must take his seat when I am on my feet. His intervention has been too long.
Ms Harman: The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has just astonished the House with his commitment to lone parents—a commitment that he did not find it possible to voice during all the years when his party was in government, and which he has mentioned for the first time during its time in opposition.
In fact, I did give a figure. If the new deal for lone parents had been working nationally beyond the eight pilot areas, an additional 10,000 lone parents would have been in work and not on income support. The new deal is making a real difference.
92
I am immensely proud of the work of our personal advisers. Although not highly paid, the staff are highly motivated, and have worked with determination, sensitivity and initiative. I am grateful to the Opposition for giving me an opportunity to place on record the great debt that we owe to the pioneer personal advisers. Most are women, many are mothers and some are lone mothers themselves. They have changed the face of social security, and their work means that today more lone parents are now in work and off benefit than would be the case otherwise.
Let me also place on record our thanks to lone parents organisations such as Gingerbread and the National Council for One Parent Families. Unlike the Opposition spokesman, those organisations care about lone parents; unlike him, they know what they are talking about. They helped to design our new deal for lone parents, and to design the training for our personal advisers. Above all, however, we need to recognise the lone parents to whom being a good mother means providing for children as well as caring for them. Such parents want to work not only to give their children a better standard of living than they could provide on benefits, but to show them that life is about work, not just about dependence on benefits. They want to work because—like other mothers—they know that they can contribute to society by working, as well as by rearing children.
Lone mothers who have found work through the new deal are, on average, £39 a week better off than they were on benefits, and their benefit dependence is reduced by £42 a week. They are better off, and the taxpayer is better off. That is the approach of welfare to work: a hand up, not just a handout. The new deal for lone parents will become national in October.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: Laying aside all party-political broadcasts for a second, will the right hon. Lady tell us whether she would genuinely regard it as a success if her programme led to 1 per cent. of lone parents returning to work?
Ms Harman: I will not set targets. I have said that we will set targets once we have received the final result of the evaluation. No Government acting sensibly set targets before they have completed the pilots and the evaluation.
Mr. Duncan Smith: With respect, the right hon. Lady just said that she would not set targets, but she has given a figure of 10,000, and she is talking about a 1 per cent. figure. She is going national, without any idea of where the success lies. If she is going national—if the process is no longer experimental—she must surely tell us what the target is. Is it 1 per cent.?
Ms Harman: The 10,000 figure was not a target; it was what Social and Community Planning Research findings showed would be the number of additional lone parents in work had the new deal been extended nationally. The body also says that the size of the difference has increased gradually over time, and can be expected to continue to increase. I have said that we will set our target when we have the full results of the evaluation.
This is welfare reform in action. The working families tax credit will help to make work pay even more for lone mothers; the national child-care strategy and the

93
child-care tax credit will make it even easier for lone mothers to work by ensuring high-quality, affordable, accessible child care for all; and family-friendly employment policies, including extended maternity leave and reformed maternity pay, will help women and men to combine their work and family responsibilities. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green made a good deal of my comments about statutory maternity pay, but his Government never reformed the statutory maternity pay system—a system that leaves the lowest-earning one fifth of women without the cover provided by statutory maternity pay.
I have made it clear that fathers, as well as lone mothers, have a responsibility to their children. The reform of the Child Support Agency—a policy ably developed by my noble Friend Lady Hollis, which I announced to the House last week—aims to ensure that fathers pay for their children. Our child maintenance premium will ensure that, for the first time, 700,000 children will be £10 a week better off through their fathers' maintenance. That, together with our unprecedented increase in child benefit, will make children better off, and will strengthen fathers' parental responsibility.
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that, whatever the hon. Gentleman says—for all his puff and bluster, and his jousting with figures—he knows that this is modernisation for good, and that no Government will ever go back on the system that I have created.
We are also modernising the welfare system for people with disabilities. Most disabled young people in my constituency, and their mothers, tell me that they want the same as everyone else. They want to work like everyone else, to take pride in their work, to make friends at work and to earn their living at work. They want to contribute to society, not just to take. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I, with finance from the windfall levy, have extended the new deal to the long-term sick and disabled. That is welfare reform in action.
That has four strands: active advice and support for those seeking work; taking the disincentives to work out of the benefit system and extending to the disabled the incentives formerly available only to the registered unemployed; making work pay for those whose earnings are depressed by disability; tackling discrimination with tough new standards for employers, and giving employers incentives to extend opportunities to people with health problems or a disability.
In October, we begin the first of 12 pilot projects to offer, through jobcentres, personal advisers along the same lines as the new deal for lone parents. Those pilots will cover 250,000 people on incapacity benefit, who are among the many hundreds of thousands of people who were written off by the previous Government to a life of dependence on benefit. However, we know that it is in the voluntary sector that there is great expertise in helping people with disabilities and health problems, so we are awarding grants to partnerships of voluntary organisations and employers to pilot ways in which to help disabled people to get and stay in work.
This Thursday, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I will announce the 10 successful bids for the first tranche of partnerships. Our approach is to provide the opportunities and support for people who want to work to do so; the social security system that
94
I inherited denied sick and disabled people those opportunities. Worse, to get the unemployment figures down, the Tories encouraged people off unemployment benefit and on to incapacity benefit. Classifying them as incapable of work solved the problem of the Tories' rising unemployment figures, but it increased the number of workless households, and wrote them off to a marginalised life on benefit.
About 1 million people on incapacity benefit are capable of at least some work. Under the Tories, if they took a risk and got a job, they were punished if it did not work out: they could go back on benefit, but be up to £40 a week worse off than when they were previously on benefit. Therefore, I have changed that, so that, if their job does not work out within the first 12 months, people can go back to the same rate of IB that they left. That encourages people to move off benefit into work, rather than penalising them.
We are piloting the extension to those on incapacity benefit of the jobmatch payment and the jobfinders grant, which are currently available only to those on jobseeker's allowance. Those on incapacity benefit face the same expenses as those on JSA in moving into work after a long time on benefit, so they should get the same help—the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green and his hon. Friends never supported that. We are also helping people with health problems or disabilities to be much better off in work than on benefit, with our new disabled persons tax credit.
For a disabled person with a child under 11, moving from incapacity benefit to the disabled persons tax credit in work could mean that they are better off by £36 a week, and that their benefit dependence will be reduced by £71 a week. It is a hand-up, not just a handout. They are better off, and the taxpayer is better off. We are tackling social exclusion and investing in opportunity. That is our welfare reform in action.
All that, and the tough stance against discrimination that has been taken by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, amount to a radical programme of welfare reform that recognises for the first time the aspirations of people with disabilities, and acknowledges for the first time that their rights include the right to work.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: With my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform, I have met young adults in Croydon with very serious learning difficulties—some have Down's syndrome—who are now in work, but some of those in residential care seem to suffer from a particular poverty trap, because, to get their residential care cost, they have to stay on income support. It is a technical matter. I am not expecting an answer now, but will the Department of Social Security look closely at that matter, so that those young adults with serious learning difficulties can work full-time, not just part-time?
Ms Harman: My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and we will certainly look into it. The system is full of disincentives to work for people who are on incapacity benefit, or are disabled because there was never an expectation that they would want to work or could work. I thank him for raising the matter.
I have talked about welfare reform being about work for those who can, and I turn to security for those who cannot. That brings me to pensions. It is a great concern

95
that many of those heading to retirement face a drop in income that is far greater than it need be. It is a great scandal that many of the poorest people in Britain are pensioners—people who have worked hard all their lives, and now struggle to make ends meet.
For tomorrow's pensioners, we will reform the pension system, so that it tackles the growing inequality of income in retirement; extends occupational pensions to the many—up to 1 million—who currently do not join them; provides access to second pensions through our new stakeholder pensions for those who have no access to an occupational pension and for whom private pensions can be very poor value for money; provides second pension entitlements for those who care for an elderly or disabled relative or for children while they are young; and ensures that the growing number of the self-employed are properly provided for.
We will set out our pensions reform in a Green Paper, arising out of the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), by the end of the year, but today's pensioners, particularly the poorest, cannot wait.
Hon. Members will remember that, while we were in opposition, pensions was an issue of some controversy within the Labour party. I was clear then, and I remain so, that we must recognise and take action to help all pensioners. We have done so with the cut in VAT and the winter fuel payment of £20 for every pensioner household, but I was also clear, and I remain so, that our priority must be to get help to the poorest pensioners—those on income support and those who are entitled to income support but not receiving it.
For pensioners on income support, we gave a winter fuel payment of £50.
Mr. Webb: The right hon. Lady rightly stresses the urgency of helping the poorest pensioners who are not claiming their income support. Does she accept that, on 1 May, when the Government came to power, half those 1 million pensioners were already claiming a means-tested benefit—housing benefit—and that local authorities throughout the land have lists of those 500,000 people, ready to hand over to central Government? Why is it going to take until the end of this year to get a Green Paper on something that could have been done 18 months ago?
Ms Harman: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point: it is possible to find out who is not claiming and get help to them. If I may, I will tell him how we are progressing on that element of the pension review in due course.
Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Ms Harman: I am not going to give way.
We estimate that about 1 million pensioners are entitled to income support, but do not receive it. The previous Government were never interested in that. They did not even know the figures until I asked a parliamentary question. At first, the figure was that 800,000 pensioners
96
were not receiving the income support to which they were entitled, and that rose to 1 million. That was a major failing of the previous Government—to leave 1 million pensioners not on the breadline, but below it. Again, I have taken action.
In April this year, I established, in nine areas, pilot projects to find ways in which to identify the poorest pensioners who are losing on their income support. In those pilot areas, we are searching our computer data and that of local authorities to identify those over pension age who look as if they might be eligible for income support but who are not registered as claiming it.
A personal adviser will then contact those pensioners, visit them and sort out their income support. The interim results of the research on those pilots shows that pensioners want help to find their way through the system—they cannot do it on their own, they do not want to wait in social security offices to get help, and they have simply no idea where to start. Our interim evaluation shows that some pensioners are losing 24p a week on unclaimed income support, and that others are losing up to £51 a week.
That is an indictment of the system that I inherited, and we are changing it. I visited one of the projects, in Paisley, Scotland, and met some of the pensioners and their personal advisers. The pensioners were delighted and relieved to be getting the extra help they need. The personal advisers were doing an excellent job—they, too, are changing the face of social security.
Our action is about ensuring that there is work for those who can and security for those who cannot, and getting benefits to those who are entitled to them. We are also stopping benefits going to those who are not entitled to them. I shall conclude by telling the House how we are transforming delivery of service and tackling fraud.
Social security reform has to deal not only with who gets money and how much they get, but with how the service is provided. That work is being ably led by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley). We are pioneering one-stop shops, so that those who are claiming do not have to go from the jobcentre, to the social security office and then to the council.
We are sorting out the forms, so that we do not ask those who are claiming three times for the same information, most of which we already have. We are also piloting telephone claims services for pensioners, introducing a new complaints system, and tackling fraud—work which was being ably developed by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for lichen but is now being carried forward by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform.
In November 1997, I launched the benefit fraud inspectorate—which has already published its first report, on housing benefit fraud in Blackpool. Today, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform published a Green Paper on fraud, which he is working on tackling.
In this debate, I have explained to the House—at some length, for which I apologise—actions that amount to a major programme of welfare reform that is already up and running. After 18 years of the system going in the wrong direction, we never expected to turn it round overnight. However, substantial welfare reform is under way in

97
every part of the social security system. It is practical action—making a real difference to people's life—which is what matters to my constituents, and to those of other hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is a record on which I and my ministerial team are proud to be judged.
8.11 pm
Mr. David Rendel: I do not think that any hon. Member would dispute the fact that, since the general election last May, there has been a great deal of confusion and even dissent at the Department of Social Security. We have seen open rebellion by Labour Members on the issue of lone parent benefit cuts, and a complete lack of long-promised policies to tackle the causes—as opposed to merely the symptoms—of pensioner poverty. We have seen, as recently as last week, the failure to produce a fair and workable solution to the problems of child support caused by the complex nature of human relationships. We have seen also what should have been key projects implemented in a disastrous manner.
It was therefore interesting to hear the Secretary of State concentrate in her speech almost entirely on the policies that she still intends to introduce in the future, rather than on the level of incompetence with which she and her colleagues have handled their portfolio in the past year. That latter point is the main subject of today's motion by the Conservatives.
Let us take, for example, the benefits integrity project. What a misnomer that was. The project's main outcome seems to have been to accuse unfairly many who have acted with complete integrity, only for those accusations to prove to be completely unfounded. The project that was supposed to evaluate entitlement to disability living allowance, and thereby to restore integrity, has managed simply to strip away the dignity of many of those who were investigated.
The Social Security Committee's report was uncompromisingly damning in its assessment of the project, and the project's outcome is now widely acknowledged as a failure. The Department of Social Security failed to uncover almost any fraudulent claims. Meanwhile, many of the most severely disabled people had their benefits reduced or even stopped. Some people—perhaps primarily Labour Members—seem to think that the Prime Minister is capable of walking on water. However, even he hit problems when the Government's solution to patients who are quadriplegics was to tell them to rise from their beds and work.
It is to be hoped that the newly established disability benefits forum will achieve its aim. It would be nice to think that it will go some way towards rebuilding trust between those who are disabled, their organisations and the DSS itself. However, I suspect that it will take a very long time to rebuild that trust. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State told us, in line with the report's recommendations, what action she has taken to review the rules of conduct and good practice for general elections, to minimise the risk of such errors of judgment occurring in future.
Then there are smart cards—which are not so smart, as it turns out. The £1.5 billion contract awarded, in 1996, to ICL to computerise benefit payments at post offices is currently running two years behind schedule. By March 1998, only 40,000 claimants were using the new system,
98
compared with the 19 million people nationwide who should have been able to use it. Although it is claimed that the system will eradicate £150 million in fraud each year, the DSS has already incurred huge costs in consolidating all its benefits payments on to one central database, to make it compatible with the Post Office automation system. Although the costs may well be as much as £200 million—rather more than the Government are expecting to regain in combating fraud—the DSS is still waiting, as it will be waiting for at least another two years, for potential savings in reduced fraud to be made.
No one disputes the important and laudable objective of eliminating fraud. However, those examples illustrate how poor management at the Department has hampered efforts on that front and done little to enhance public confidence in or regard for the benefits system.
Then there was the Public Accounts Committee's report on the failure of the NIRS 2—national insurance recording system—project. The report highlights gross incompetence within the DSS. The Department awarded a contract on the basis of flimsy information and a rushed timetable. It failed to ensure that it was getting value for money, or to make contingency plans for potential delays in the project. It failed also to gain adequate compensation when the project did not start on time. The Contributions Agency itself assessed the proposals by Andersen Consulting as
"technically only on the margins of acceptability".
It is quite clear from the PAC report that the agency's actions went beyond the margins of acceptability.
There have been failures even in implementing policy. Winter fuel payments have already been mentioned in the debate and are a case in point. For a start, the Chancellor's use of the description "pensioner households" caused much confusion at the DSS. Calculating payments using that definition required data correlation in about 15 million computer records, involving 15 qualifying benefits across nine computer systems. It was therefore no surprise to learn that, last winter, administration costs alone were 10 per cent. of overall expenditure.
On top of huge delays in sending out cheques, implementation was such a huge disaster that £1.7 million was spent on what should have been a totally unnecessary advertising campaign, telling people that it was all right to cash the cheques that landed on their doorsteps. Anyone would have thought that one could assume that it is all right to cash a cheque that lands on one's doorstep. The fact is that 40,801 invalid girocheques were sent out with an incorrect date on them; 649 pensioners received two lots of £50 payments; and in 434 cases, both the invalid and the replacement cheques were cashed. I understand that letters have now been sent out "inviting repayment".
What about the so-called crisis in welfare spending? Although for many years there certainly has been growth in welfare spending, growth is now levelling out. As a percentage of gross domestic product, social security expenditure in Britain is forecast to fall. By the Government's own figures, planned social security expenditure in 1998–99 is lower by £588 million than it was projected to be in last year's expenditure plans. The biggest problem that we face with such expenditure is not the total amount, but the failure to target benefits properly on those who need them most.
As has been mentioned, an estimated 1 million pensioners still do not claim the income support to which they are entitled and, as a result, do not qualify for other

99
associated benefits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) pointed out, the names of half those people have been known to local authorities for years, yet the Secretary of State is only just getting around to pilot projects to address the problem.
I should like to raise another aspect of all those failures—the fact that Conservative Members seem to have gained tremendous powers of hindsight since their defeat last year. Several of the schemes in which they correctly identified significant problems have at their root the way in which they were established under the previous Administration. In the case of the benefits integrity project, NIRS 2 or smart cards, it is no good their standing up and accusing the new Government of mismanagement, without acknowledging their own part in the problem. The Conservatives would do well to remember that some of the projects were set up years before the election.
In respect of the benefits integrity project, the Social Security Committee report described as "regrettable" the failure of the former Minister of State to consult disability organisations. Further, it stated that it was "totally unacceptable" to have formally launched the BIP before the general election and before incoming Ministers had had the opportunity properly to assess the project that was then set in motion. Perhaps the most important point to recognise is that many of the mistakes associated with the BIP occurred at the inception of the project. They date from the moment at which the previous Government failed to consult disability organisations, and ploughed on with the project without regard for the people it was targeting.
If we are talking about incompetence, Conservative Members might care to look a little more closely at the so-called incompetence index that they published last month. It was drawn up as an illustration of ministerial incompetence at the Department of Social Security. It refers to cold weather payments instead of winter fuel payments, which are a very different matter. If one is complaining about incompetence, it is important not to be incompetent. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
As the debate has developed, it has become increasingly clear that it is the second social security debate introduced by the Conservatives in two weeks that is rapidly turning into something of an own goal.
Mr. Wicks: I did not plan to intervene, as I hope to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but to be fair, past Ministers under the previous Administration dealing with the benefits integrity project made it clear that there should be consultation with organisations representing those with disabilities. That instruction was ignored by civil servants in the interregnum between the previous Administration and the present one. The Select Committee—its Chairman is here—did not attach blame to past or present Ministers.
Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I shall continue with the important point that I was making, which is still valid. The Conservatives have to take much of the blame for what has gone wrong. The motion, which attacks the Labour Government for their incompetence, must be one of the
100
most hypocritical that any Opposition party has ever dared to bring to the House. As such, it does not deserve and will not get any support from the Liberal Democrats.
It is true that the Government did not start with the best hand. The Secretary of State was right when she said earlier that the Government had inherited a social security system that was in a mess. Indeed, in social security, as perhaps in no other sector, most of us felt that the Government had a right to say as they came to power, "Things can only get better," but that was before we had lone parent benefit cuts, council tax benefit cuts, the benefits integrity project and the incompetent handling of the NIRS 2 project.
Unbelievable as it may seem, in the very area where there was total cross-party agreement that reform was needed, the Government succeeded in doing what most people would have thought impossible—making things worse. It is no credit to the Conservatives, most of whose plans have now been implemented by the Government with dire results, but it is certainly no credit to the Government either. If, as expected, the Secretary of State is soon removed from her post, it cannot be said that many Opposition Members, or, I suspect, Labour Members, will be sorry to see her go.
8.24 pm
Mr. Terry Rooney: When I read the motion last week, I wondered what on earth was going on. I could not believe the words on the Order Paper. Then I realised that there must have been a mind block among the Conservatives—they had forgotten about last year's general election, thought that they were still in power and were referring to their last year in office.
When we talk of confusion, contradictory policies and incompetence, the jewel in the crown must be housing benefit. In 1982, when my local authority received guidance from the Department, it was told that it would probably require six staff to administer the new benefit. Within 12 months there were 154 permanent staff and 48 part-timers—somewhat more than six. As for being contradictory, for many years Housing Ministers were deregulating rents, forcing up council rents and lowering grants to housing associations—which also drove up rents in that sector—while social security departments were picking up the bill. Short-term thinking led to long-term debts; there was no co-ordination or co-operation.
Before the Social Security Act 1988, there used to be a wonderful document called the yellow book—a simple volume detailing social security. The 1988 Act introduced the blue book, which comprised 17 volumes detailing the law relating to social security. In addition, there was the adjudication officer's guide, which now consists of 24 volumes. That is the legacy of 18 years of Conservative government.
The most outrageous provision in the 1988 Act was the brainchild of the former Prime Minister. The social fund was a wonderful new system of lending money to the poor to pay for their most basic needs. It now has administration costs of 37 per cent. of money that it handles. By any stretch of the imagination, that is incompetent and contradictory.
Moving on to the 1990s, who can recall with glee the disability living allowance, which is both incompetent and contradictory? It is contradictory to the principles of care in the community and is an example of incompetence on a grand scale in its establishment, implementation,

101
organisation and administration. The classic example, which I shall not dwell on because it hurts, was the Child Support Agency. After three major pieces of legislation in seven years, only one in eight single parents get the full maintenance to which they are entitled.
It took until 1996 for the previous Government to recognise that legislation was required to deal with fraud. It took them 17 years to introduce legislation to tackle that major issue. In the same year, they introduced incapacity benefit and the dreaded, discredited, disjointed all work test—a terrible way to assess whether people were capable of work.
The biggest indictment of all of the previous Administration has to be their treatment of the staff who work in the Benefits Agency. When the Conservatives left office, there were some 62,000 staff in the Benefits Agency. More than 5,000 of them were temporary and 13,500 had fewer than five years' service. There was a constant drain on the staff, as people were totally disgusted with the way in which they were treated. Training budgets were slashed, and training became a business unit, which had to attract customers from different parts of the Benefits Agency. As that was in the middle of the three-year plan to reduce running costs by 25 per cent., no one bought in training, and the staff became further and further removed from the legislation that they were being expected to implement.
As a result, decision making went down the pan; it became hit and miss. The incidence of violence against staff was intolerable. Morale was at rock bottom. Decision making went out of the window—so many people appealed against wrong decisions that they now have to wait 10 months for a tribunal. For seven successive years, the National Audit Office failed to sign the Department of Social Security accounts because of confusion, contradictory policies and incompetence.
The Conservative party legacy was inertia in the Department, the dead hand of dependency on claimants and an inactive service that did nothing to help people, but merely served the bureaucracy. Between 1979 and 1997, the social security bill increased in real terms by £43 billion—the only commensurate increase was that in the numbers of people living in poverty. The service did nothing except to drive people further into desperation. For the Conservative party to table such a motion after its 18-year stewardship of the social security system is the height of hypocrisy.
8.31 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I welcome the opportunity to have another debate on this important subject. In tabling the motion the day before the House is told the outcome of the departmental spending review, the Conservative party show a brilliant sense of timing. Arguably, the most important thing that the Secretary of State does in any year is to have a battle with the Treasury over the departmental budget. We should see the results of that tomorrow, so to discuss social security tonight on an Opposition Supply day is premature, to say the least.
Many interesting things have happened in the past 12 months. The Government's welfare-to-work scheme is very important, especially in the long-term cultural shift that I hope it will achieve. It is not pejorative to say that the jury is still out on the scheme's success, but the policy is courageous—the Government have taken the debate a long way—and I wish it well.
102
The Government badly misjudged their policy on single parents, and they have wholly failed to correct their mistake. The Green Paper contains much that is of interest. The success measures, in particular, are an interesting tool for future policy development, although it remains to be seen whether we have got them right. Nevertheless, they represent an interesting departure, and I hope that the whole House will apply its collective mind and will to making the best of them.
I wish the Minister well in his deliberations on pensions reform. The delay in the deployment of policy is beginning to become a wee bit worrying. I am known as someone who is always in favour of hastening slowly and taking the appropriate amount of time to get things right, but there are worries that the delay is becoming a paralysis.
We must not forget the recommendations of the pension provision committee, which is admirably chaired by Tom Ross. There are two sides to pensions policy; the Minister is interested in developing stakeholder plans, but we must also remember the current pensioner population. Some of the committee's recommendations provide important lessons that we should all take on board. I see some Labour Members waving copies of the report, so I look forward to their contributions.
The introduction of tax credits also represents an interesting and potentially important departure, although the detail may thwart some of the Government's more laudable aims. In particular, there are some real misgivings about the details of the proposed disability tax credit for disabled people.
Much has happened, and much has yet to evolve from the Government's plans. I want to look forward and to concentrate in particular on the Government's plans to work with the Benefits Agency to promote the notion of modern service, which I believe to be an important part of the Government's programme. The administration of benefits must be simplified; administrative systems must be put in place that can deploy modern benefits efficiently. The system must be transparent to claimants and proof benefit eligibility gateways against the fraud about which we are all rightly concerned.
I am nervous that the comprehensive departmental spending review will say that the Department will have to pay for its administrative budget through savings from fraud. The Government are now saying that estimated losses to fraud have increased from £4 billion to £7 billion, but that figure is notional—I would dearly love to see the methodology tightened up, so that the data were more robust and policy makers could make more rational and sensible decisions.
To tell local authorities that, if they drive down fraud by 50 per cent., they can keep 10 per cent. of the money they save is to invite them to look for fraud. However, as the Select Committee's report on the disability living allowance showed, there is a fine line between inaccuracy and fraud. People may not intuitively perceive that they need to report changes in circumstance, so they may claim benefit to which they are not entitled, but whether that is fraud depends on whether they are deliberately deceiving the system. It is hard to know how central Government can produce a policy to deal with fraud, but we must be careful about saying that fraud costs £7 billion and that everyone is at it, which stigmatises people who need to claim benefit.

103
We must adopt a balanced approach. We should concentrate on the prevention rather than on the detection of fraud, and I welcome the fact that the Green Paper does that. However, fraud will not be detected until the administrative budget can pay for data matching, home visits and all the other mundane, run-of-the-mill matters that any ordinary private business would have to attend to if it were to have any chance of solving such problems.
I fear that tomorrow the Treasury will say that the programme of change and the 25 per cent. reduction in administrative budgets over three years—which is now beginning to bite into the bone, not the fat, of the Benefits Agency area offices—will have to continue.
It is absolutely essential that, in applying for benefits, people can act as they do when they buy an insurance policy. They phone up and speak to operators who have a screen in front of them. The form is filled in and sent out to be signed; when it returns with the accompanying documents, it is processed. That is the way in which modern commerce deals with the equivalent of a benefit application. With its current budget, the Benefits Agency is light years away from that level of service.
It is senseless for jobseeker's allowance to be spread across the Department for Education and Employment and the Benefits Agency. It is madness for the Department to act as a gateway and the agency as a processing arm. That is yet another example of how the previous Government could never make up their mind. I do not care which way it goes, but the Department or the agency should be assigned the whole process.
In a Benefits Agency office the other day, I saw an officer holding a sheet labelled "Workaround 115". A workaround is what the staff have to do to make the computer system get round a procedure that it was not designed to do in the first place. Cheat sheets show staff how to get round the inadequacy of the software. They spend more time on finding workarounds than on almost any other task.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) mentioned the plastic benefit card. The delays are worrying, in terms of both efficiency and combating fraud. It is a classic case of a project that should be given high priority.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Today, I received a reply to a specific parliamentary question about what action was taking place: the Minister said that there was none.
Mr. Kirkwood: I hope that the Government will consider the issue, which I do not think is in any way party political. I remember the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), waving a plastic benefit card in a splendid photo-opportunity, but he would not look quite so splendid if he did it again now, and neither would any current Minister. I hope that something will be done soon.
The access to corporate data schemes—the so-called Accord system—are also in danger of going wrong. I want to try to encourage Ministers to look differently at the project. As I understand it, it is no more or less than a procurement exercise. If we cannot get the three private sector consortiums to come up with a complete redesign that goes right through from the local office to the
104
over-arching system, buying a new set of computers and a software application to be used locally will not realise the potential of the experiments.
I am in favour of benchmarking, and a lot can be learned from the private sector, but we must be careful about the proprieties of the contribution of Benefits Agency staff. I hope that I am wrong and that the Accord process is not simply a way of enhancing service delivery at area level. I hope that it will be an intrinsic part of the future development and simplification of the whole benefits programme.
The Green Paper on fraud was published today. My local authority has been struggling in an attempt to work out how it can take part in the so-called benefits verification framework, which would allow it to bear down on council tax and housing benefit fraud. I am told that the estimated cost for the council to introduce the framework is about £110,000, while the Department's subsidy is only £16,000. The council estimates the recurring cost at £250,000 per annum, for which it will receive a maximum of £40,000 from the Department, if it does everything 100 per cent. the way that the Department wants.
I do not know how accurate those figures are, but they are frightening. The scheme is voluntary at the moment, and there is no way in which we can persuade local authorities to get involved if that is the difference between what they are offered and what they estimate that the cost will be. Everyone can see the need for the scheme, although it may be that the Department has gold-plated it. The practice is everything: it is all very well having fancy Green Papers and great plans—we all support them—if cash-strapped local authorities cannot implement them.
There is a lot of work to do, and with a wee bit of good faith we can make some improvements. The Government need to be realistic about how we need to spend to save. The Treasury acknowledges that. We need to put more capital expenditure into the benefits system so that we can simplify it for the long-term benefit of everyone, including the claimants.
8.46 pm
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood)—my hon. Friend—whose chairmanship of the Social Security Select Committee we all appreciate, given the challenging agenda that we have.
I always welcome a debate on social security, although my first instinct was to regret the fact that the official Opposition had not tabled a motion that looked to the future, wanting instead to dwell, in a very partisan way, on the immediate past; but, on reflection, it is useful to have an opportunity to scrutinise carefully the mismanagement of the Department of Social Security over the past 20 years, because in considering future challenges we need to understand what has gone wrong in the past.
There is a sense in which the time span is even longer, although there is no time to dwell on all the history. It is half a century since the foundation stones of a modern welfare state and a modern social security system were laid. The first key foundation stone was a relationship between work and welfare, which is a modern theme and challenge, and in those days the assumption—of Keynes, Beveridge and many others—was that we could afford a

105
decent social security system only if the foundation stone was full employment. Many politicians of all parties accepted that. The roll call includes not only Bevan, Attlee, Beveridge and Keynes, but Conservative leaders such as Harold Macmillan, who, leading Governments in the earlier post-war period, recognised that full employment was important.
The second foundation stone was an ethical one, involving national insurance. It was said that all citizens had a duty and a responsibility to pay contributions into a community chest, and had the right to draw out of that chest in times of need, both when they were old and when they became sick or unemployed.
At a time when we are trying to recreate a sense of honesty and fairness in our systems, it is useful to look back to that age. There was a safety net—national assistance, which is now called income support—based on a means test, but it was meant to be for the few, not the many, to coin a phrase. It has turned out very differently.
I welcome the Opposition's debate. The abandonment of the goal of full employment during the Thatcher era was crucial. Suddenly, the state did not agree with Macmillan and Attlee and other, wiser people. It was no longer the job of the state to maintain full employment. It was thought that the market would try to create full employment, but it was not the Government's job to do so.
The Thatcher Governments sought to set people free from the state, but, with growing poverty and inequality, the paradox was that many more people found themselves totally dependent on the state for their income during the Thatcher and Major years than ever did in the wicked days of social intervention. The number of those dependent on income support doubled during those years, from one in 12 of the population to one in six. The irony is that Thatcherism created the very dependency state from which it had promised to set people free. Perhaps some apology should be made from the Conservative Front Bench.
One of the most appalling statistics I have ever read came in an answer to a parliamentary question late in the previous Parliament. I asked how many babies in Britain were born to parents on income support, or on family credit because their wages were low. The answer was one in three. We all aspire to do well for our children, but the poorest in Britain are the new-born. What kind of society is that?
We need a debate on the mismanagement of social security over recent years. The social security budget is distorted if we spend less on insurance benefits and more on means testing. Some 35 per cent. of social security spending is devoted to means-tested benefits. In 1979–80, the figure was quite high at 16 per cent., but it doubled during the Conservative years, and with that came poverty traps and disincentives that all of us should deplore. Fraud also grew because of the growth of means testing.
Sadly, former Governments lowered their guard against fraud by cutting the number of home visits, which was a cardinal error. Criminals—those who make multiple claims, and landlords who defraud the system of thousands of pounds a week—saw a new market for their operation. It is controversial to say so, but the climate of division and greed that existed during the Thatcher and Major era, when there was, apparently, no such thing as society, led to a culture of dishonesty among some people. If it was okay to defraud the tax system, some thought, it was also okay to defraud the social security system
106
The new Green Paper on benefit fraud is crucial to undoing much bad work. Its emphasis on deterrence, detection and prevention is important. In creating new benefits such as the working families tax credit, which the Select Committee is currently considering, we must try to design fraud out. That is easier said than done, but fraud must be one of the criteria in policy design.
Mr. Webb: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the growth of means testing. Is it not simplistic to say that that means testing is always bad? The working families tax credit is family credit by any other name, although it will be accounted for differently. It is still income-dependent. As well as increasing that category of means testing, the Government will help pensioners to claim more income support, which will mean more spending on means testing. Both those policies are presumably welcome to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Wicks: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am anti-means tests by instinct. I am a universalist, and if that is old-fashioned, tough. The working families tax credit is an ingenious new method of targeting without the crudities of a means test. Income taxation is a means test, but the Chancellor is developing a new way, through what some of us know as fiscal welfare, to target the poor, not just benefit the rich, through tax reliefs and allowances.
On issues regarding old age, I welcome attempts to use data matching and local authority records, as the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has suggested, to help people—often in their 70s, 80s or 90s—who should be claiming income support. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have an interest in alternative methods of helping the elderly, and I wonder whether there should be a pension premium—perhaps on a cohort basis so that it could be phased out—for people over 80, who tend to be the poorest among our elders.
Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman has a distinct and welcome penchant for honesty. Can he honestly persuade himself that the working families tax credit does not involve a means test?
Mr. Wicks: The Select Committee is considering how the credit will work, and I see it as at least the beginning of an attempt to use the tax system to target people on low incomes who have caring responsibilities, such as parents, without the crudities of a means test.
Mr. Letwin: It is not the tax system. At the negative end of the tax system, there is a withdrawal rate, exactly as there is for means testing.
Mr. Wicks: Questions remain about the withdrawal rate, but withdrawal is being done far more sensitively than with some of the crude means tests of the past. We are in a new phase in the history of social security. Can we use the tax system for fiscal welfare that targets the poorest? There is a way to target without having the crudities of the old-style means test. The Select Committee is examining working families tax credit as honestly as it can. I am glad to be called honest by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin); he will receive no solicitor's letter from me for saying that. However, we must keep an open mind.

107
In further honest pursuit of the Conservative record on social policy and mismanagement of social security, let us consider pensions mis-selling, which is one of the great scandals of the post-war period. Apologies are often in fashion now; tonight might provide an opportunity for the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) to clear his party's conscience about pensions. We all know what happened. The previous Government suddenly discovered personal pensions and sought to persuade all sorts of people to buy them. That persuasion was readily taken up by pension companies that mis-sold personal pensions to people who were seriously concerned about security in their old age.
The arithmetic in this area is breathtaking. I consulted the Library for a briefing. The Financial Services Authority is trying to sort out the scandal. It reckons that 640,000 people will be covered under phase 1 of its work. That is likely to cost the pensions industry £4.5 billion, which equates to an average of about £7,000 per person. The FSA is now on to phase 2, under which 1.8 million people will be covered. It reckons that those 1.8 million people comprise 985,000 transfers—people who transferred their company pension entitlements into personal pensions, which is nearly always a mistake—682,000 non-joiners who were eligible to join a company scheme but who were advised to take out a personal pension instead; and 154,000 opt-outs who were persuaded to leave occupational pension schemes in order to start personal pension schemes.
It is now estimated that the pensions mis-selling scandal will cost the industry £11 billion. I have met many of the people—such as nurses, police officers and teachers—who are behind that disturbing arithmetic. They had decent occupation pension schemes but were persuaded by salesmen, acting as a kind of army for Tory Ministers, to move out of occupational pension schemes and into personal pension schemes. It seemed attractive at the time, but it turned out to be not fairer but fouler.
We all know that child maintenance is a difficult subject. However, from the start, many people—including myself—warned the then Tory Government that they were making mistakes regarding child support, not in terms of the principle of parental responsibility, which we all support, but in terms of the mechanisms. A particular mistake was that there was nothing for the seven out of 10 lone mothers on income support or for their children. The decision to knock £1 off income support for every £1 of child maintenance collected led some to dub it an Exchequer support agency rather than a child-centred policy. It is about time that children got a look in, and I am pleased that they will as a result of the new Green Paper. This is a case study in social security mismanagement. The Conservatives had stewardship of the system for many years, and child maintenance was an incompetent shambles. Some honesty—I use that word again—is in order here.
One of the great features of that period was the way in which it affected the expenditure of public moneys. We know that the Government have great priorities in terms of education, health and social care. We are devoting one third of total public spending to social security. At the beginning of the Tory reign, that figure was one fifth. There are major challenges ahead, and I know that the rhetoric is easier than the practice. However, I think that
108
the Tory years are associated with galloping poverty. The challenge for the new Government⁁I see the policies being put in place—is to promote opportunity.
The Conservative years are associated historically with mass unemployment. The challenge for Labour is to promote training and work: what we call the new deal. The Tories introduced and defended, year after year, the catastrophic Child Support Agency. The challenge for my colleagues on the Front Bench is to introduce a fair and efficient child-centred child maintenance service. I think that the policies in the Green Paper are correct. I only add modestly that a change to the agency's name would herald a new era.
Mr. Loughton: The people's Child Support Agency.
Mr. Wicks: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that sensible contribution.
The Tory years are associated with increasing fraud in our social security system. I take the point raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire that the difficult issue is how to say that fraud is wrong but that it is right and proper for people to collect benefits to which they have a claim. That is a difficult operation, but we must do it. It is all about bringing honesty and integrity into the system.
Over the past 18 years, until May last year, what we called social security was more an indicator of social insecurity in terms of the money spent and the distortions regarding means testing, disincentives and dishonesty. My colleagues on the Front Bench face a major challenge in creating a system that we could truly describe as social security.
9.3 pm
Mr. Howard Flight: I cannot believe that the Secretary of State thinks that what has happened in the past year is even close to what the citizens of this country expected of the Labour Government in terms of social security reform. People expected vision from the Minister for Welfare Reform. They expected a radical approach that they thought would come more easily from a Government of the left than from a Government of the right. People expected a reduction in the cost of social welfare, which they expected to be more focused on those in need, and in the unnecessary cost of recirculating citizens' taxes back to them. They expected an updating of, and clear decision on, national insurance.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) said that expenditure went up from a fifth to a third of all Government expenditure. That was essentially because of changes to the global economy. Continental Europe has had even worse rises in unemployment and welfare expenditure. A Government who feel that membership of the euro is likely to be helpful in achieving Keynesian full employment have got that one very wrong.
It is not only a matter of the painful level of unemployment of the early 1990s, and, indeed, the early 1980s, when economies were restructuring. We are at a relative cyclical low. As in America, unemployment is below 5 per cent., but we go on pumping in more than £100 billion per annum. The mounting expenditure is not predominantly the result of high unemployment.
I cite also the perspective of the majority of the country, the majority of middle-of-the-road, average, husband-and-wife families bringing up two children. They expected

109
reforms that did not leave them paying more and more for other people and subsidising the bringing up of other people's children. They expected a fairer deal for themselves. Many of them voted against the previous Government. They felt that they picked up the bill for many things that had gone wrong in our society over the past 15 years.
I was appalled by what the Secretary of State had to say. She almost seemed to be saying—I am not quite sure what she was saying—that the key reform was to help lone mothers and to modernise the welfare system to take account of the fact that women worked and that an increasing number of women brought up children by themselves. I do not believe that that is what the country expects of the Government.
There are two aspects to the subject of single parent families. First, there is the breakdown of marriage. The community fully supports and sympathises with wives and mothers abandoned by their husbands. The other aspect is the voluntary choice to have children alone. I do not believe that women who make that choice have the support of society. As far as possible, society would wish children to continue to be brought up by a two-partner unit, whether formally married or not.
The reality is that £7 billion of expenditure has been added, and another 400,000 people have been brought into dependency. The redistribution agenda of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not the Minister for Welfare Reform, has guided what has happened so far. The radical thinking of the Minister for Welfare Reform has been somewhat stillborn. I would be sad if that thinking had no chance to bear fruit before the next general election.
I want to focus on some aspects of the working families tax credit, which unfortunately encourages some of the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Croydon, North. It is axiomatic that a society that can afford it can make otherwise unviable family units viable by the transfer of resources. Society can do that in two ways: either by providing mothers with an income to stay at home and bring up their children, or by paying for child care and so allowing mothers to work. Those are forms of subsidy which are of equal inherent value and there is no moral argument for choosing one over the other, but the Labour reforms clearly favour the latter course—to pay for child care and allow mothers to work.
It is both unwise and unfair not to take the view that a mother who stays at home to bring up her children is doing just as worthwhile and valuable a job in society. I believe that mothers will respond by working, even if the work they do is not implicitly of greater value to society than the work of looking after their children, which they will hire other people to do.
What is wrong are the system's disincentives to sustain the relationship between the parents of children. The measures have increased the income to those without a partner, and the rate of withdrawal of subsidy has been lowered. The net effect is that, if a woman's husband or partner is earning the average wage of £330 per week, unless he spends less than about £100 a week on his own personal expenditure, he is of no value to that family—the father on the average wage is of no value to the mother and their children. That comes about because the 55 per cent. withdrawal from husbands' after-tax income is subtracted from family credit. If the husband leaves, the wife receives the couple's married allowance. There is
110
massive incentive to cheat, because, if two people are not living together as husband and wife for tax and welfare purposes, they are better off by £107 per week—38 per cent. better off.
The bottom line about what is wrong is that the working families tax credit is based on family income, whereas income tax is based on individual income, but the two systems have been intermixed. If a couple can present themselves as one absent parent and one lone parent with an income of £250 per week, the state will make them better off than a couple who are together with an income of £450 per week. Can that be right? I thought that new Labour and the Prime Minister were committed to the family unit and to sustaining it, but the biggest welfare reform of the past year appears to introduce both a major disincentive for having a two-parent family unit and a major incentive to commit fraud.
Yes, mothers will be better off and they will be encouraged to work, but the marginal value of a husband has been substantially reduced. That is the price of three features of the system: first, that the benefits are paid to families, rather than to individuals; secondly, that families receive a higher basic income; and, thirdly, that the rates of withdrawal will be lowered. Once those aspects are factored in, the net effect is as I have described. There is cross-party agreement on the need to get rid of poverty traps, yet, post-family credit, the number of households now facing marginal tax rates of 50 per cent. rises from 800,000 to 1.3 million; and, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the figure has the potential to rise to 2 million. The Government have enormously increased such disincentives.
I believe that people expected the Government to act urgently on their stakeholder pension proposals. There are about 7 million or 8 million people without pension arrangements, but the Government have boxed themselves in. They would have been wiser to support the previous Government's proposals. What has happened? The Green Paper has been deferred again and again.
I suggest that the problem is that the Labour party is having difficulty in biting the bullet that stakeholder pensions will have to be compulsory if they are to work. If they are not compulsory, it is clear that people will not willingly sacrifice some 12 per cent. of today's income when they know that the state will have to look after them if they do not do so. The Government have had advice to that effect from almost all the professional bodies that they have consulted, but they are reluctant to introduce compulsory arrangements, so they are dithering.
When I talked to people who voted for the Labour party at the previous election, I found that many—in particular, surprisingly, young people—are most disillusioned by the Government's failure to get on with pension reforms and their stakeholder pension proposals.
It is a great disappointment to the country and to hon. Members in all parts of the House that a Government with such a large majority and mandate have failed to get on with the welfare reforms that they painted in a vision for the nation. They have been sidetracked into the Chancellor's specific redistribution programme, and I fear that they have now lost the initiative until the next election.
9.15 pm
Mr. Phil Hope: We are debating an Opposition motion which claims that the Government have wasted their first year in office and failed to reform the social security system. I find that an intriguing notion when we compare our inheritance from the previous 18 years of Conservative stewardship of the welfare state with the action that has been taken by the new Government in their first 12 months.
We have inherited a mess from the Tory Government. Millions of children are growing up in poverty. Millions of pensioners are living below the poverty line. There has been rising inequality between the richest and poorest pensioners and, if nothing changes, that will continue. Thousands of disabled people were written off to live on invalidity benefit with no hope for the future. Millions of lone parents were made scapegoats by the Conservatives simply because they are lone parents and left with no hope for the future. The establishment of the Child Support Agency, as I am sure all hon. Members know from their surgery experience, has created massive despair and distress among families throughout the country. There was also the scandal of pensions mis-selling, which the Conservative party encouraged and failed to stop when it realised the magnitude of the disaster that it had caused.
The Conservative party's 18-year stewardship was not only incompetent but vindictive, divisive and self-destructive. Indeed, it would have gone further. A pamphlet, entitled "Who Benefits?", written by the shadow Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), shows that, if the Conservatives had remained in government, they would have called for the effective abolition of the welfare state. The hon. Gentleman stated:
"We envisage a future system where welfare is paid out of private insurance contributions for the affluent majority, alongside a state benefit system which protects and caters for the needs of those for whom private insurance is not an option."
In effect, there would be one rule for the rich and another for the poor.
Mr. Loughton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Prime Minister's comments in the foreword to the Green Paper that was published in March, which state that the Government intend the welfare state to remain
"a low-grade safety net for the destitute"?
Mr. Hope: The hon. Gentleman has failed to understand, or even to read, the Green Paper on welfare reform, which is one of the most radical documents to emerge from any Government this century. It takes forward a programme of welfare reform that will enhance people's lives and help not just those who have to rely on the welfare state for their income but the whole community. It is essential that a welfare state not only meets the needs of those in poverty but has the full support of the whole community—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) must behave himself.
Mr. Hope: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Having inherited that appalling crisis, the Government have had to do two things simultaneously: first, they have had to act immediately to tackle the poverty that they
112
inherited; and, secondly, they have had to lay down the foundation for a new direction for the welfare state in preparation for the next millennium.
Mr. Rendel: I am interested in the idea that the Government acted immediately to overcome the poverty that they inherited. Is that why they cut lone parent benefit?
Mr. Hope: It might have been helpful if the hon. Gentleman had waited until I had finished speaking about the action that the Government have taken in their first 12 months in office to tackle the crisis that they inherited from the Conservatives. For example, in the Budget we increased child benefit by £2.50 a head per week for families whose oldest child is under the age of 11. That is the highest increase since child benefit was introduced.
We have introduced the working families tax credit and the child care tax credit, which, combined, mean that the poorest 20 per cent. of families will be on average £500 a year better off. For young people whose lives were decimated by the Conservatives and who were thrown on the scrap heap when they left school, we have introduced the new deal, which provides them with jobs, training, opportunities and hope for the future.
For parents, we have introduced the national child care strategy, which will provide affordable and accessible child care. It will enable parents—whether they are lone parents or two-parent families—to work and earn income to lift their families out of poverty. We have provided a new deal specifically targeted at lone parents, which many hon. Members have already said is a successful programme of support to help lone parents to work. The White Paper on "Fairness at Work" spells out a range of family-friendly policies to enable parents to work.
Another group that was hammered by the Conservatives in their 18 years of stewardship of the welfare state is the disabled. We have introduced the new deal for disabled people, to help those who can work to get off the dole and into work. We have introduced the disabled person's tax credit to give disabled people a fair wage, so that they have a decent income on which to live. We have made a commitment in the Green Paper on welfare reform to provide universal disability living allowance and attendance allowance. Moreover, a disability rights commission will be set up to establish firm rights in terms of security of employment and services for disabled people.
We have introduced winter fuel payments of £20 for all pensioner households and £50 for all pensioner households on income support. That is universal support, targeted to meet the needs of the poorest. In addition, we have cut VAT on fuel, which was introduced by the Conservatives when they were in power, and introduced a zero rating on the gas levy.
Those are tangible benefits for disabled people, pensioners, children, parents and young people, all of whom were left in despair by the previous Government. Naturally, we must plan for the long term. Action is needed not just to tackle poverty here and now, but to prevent poverty from returning in the future.
I have already referred to the welfare reforms outlined in the Green Paper published earlier this year, which contains clear principles and a new direction to eliminate poverty in the future while tackling poverty today.

113
The Green Paper on the Child Support Agency also introduces radical reforms. One of its outcomes will be to raise the incomes of parents on benefit by £l0 a week, as they will get the first £10 of maintenance that is paid. That is extra money for the caring parents in a relationship.
There is to be a new Bill on pension sharing to help divorced women and to ensure that they are not disadvantaged when they reach pensionable age. As other hon. Members have said, we also have new proposals to tackle benefit fraud.
Much more important, the combination of all those measures—active communities, programmes, welfare state support and the new deal—will mean that people will be in work, self-sufficient, with incomes that make work pay. There will be voluntary action, with active citizenship and new schemes such as the millennium volunteers, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is introducing, and which will engage young people—and older people, in years to come—in actively supporting and regenerating their community. Reform of the welfare state is not only about income, but about people's lives—people having the confidence, ability and independence to live positive lives.
Much remains to be done. I look forward to the Green Paper on pension reform—which will introduce the new, value-for-money stakeholder pension and the new citizenship pension, which will cut the routes to pensioner poverty for women—because we need a pensions strategy for the future that can cope with a slowly aging society without placing a burden of unsustainable costs on our children.
I believe that, far from its having been a wasted year, as the Conservative motion suggests, the Government have begun to tackle the poverty that we inherited from the previous Government. They have also laid the foundations for wide-ranging reform to regenerate the lives of the families in most need and build a new welfare state, which has the support of the whole community.
9.25 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: The debate has been most interesting, because of what it has revealed about the gap between analysis and delivery. The hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) gave an eloquent disquisition on what he regarded as the major disadvantages of the welfare system that the Government inherited. Although many of us do not go the whole way with him in his attribution of cause, many Opposition Members, as well as Labour Members, would agree with him that the welfare state, as the Government encountered it on coming to office, was deficient.
The Minister for Welfare Reform wrote a series of pamphlets and books describing what he saw as the root cause of that deficiency. Many Conservative Members read those words, and I believe that we even understood them. More—we were persuaded by much of what is in them that, at root, there is a severe disadvantage in a welfare system that is a compound of means tests, a compound of disincentives and a compound of misincentives.
We understood that, when the present Government came to power, with the present Opposition in place, there was an historic opportunity—an opportunity to follow on from that analysis by delivering a new type of welfare
114
state, a welfare state that would not be a compound of such disincentives and misincentives because it would not have a plethora of means tests attached. It would have learnt the lessons of the past.
What has been interesting about the debate is the fact that no Labour Member has even attempted—I know that the Minister wants to speak urgently; perhaps he will make such an attempt, but I doubt it—to argue that the past year shows even the beginnings of such a radical overhaul. On the contrary, the Secretary of State told us at considerable length about marginal acts—acts which, on her reckoning, will affect 1 per cent. of lone parents, or which will slightly ameliorate the circumstances of old-age pensioners by helping them to pay their heating bills. They may or may not be important measures. They may or may not work. In any case, they cannot conceivably be represented, and they were not represented by the Secretary of State or by any other Labour Member, as deep or radical measures to change the structure of the welfare state.
That is sad, not only because the Government might have made such radical changes, but because the official Opposition would have worked with the Government to do that. It was perhaps the first time in British history since the war when a Government and an Opposition largely shared an analysis, and might have worked together to convert that analysis into action. That opportunity has been missed.
It is worse than that, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) amply illustrated, in many respects—from the best of intentions, as has so often been the case—the Government have actually worsened the misincentives and disincentives. The apparatus of the working families tax credit and everything that goes with it deepen the extent of the disincentives to work and the misincentives vis-a-vis the family. My hon. Friend could have gone on to provide other examples. If I had the time, I would do so myself.
The tragedy is that the actions of the DSS over the past year have been governed by something outwith the Department that has nothing to do with the vision of the Minister for Welfare Reform. What is that outside force? It is, of course, the Treasury. What has happened to the Government is sad, but not unusual. The Department of Social Security has been bowled over and pushed to the ground by a Chancellor who has his own agenda, which has nothing to do with welfare reform in the radical sense.
I fear, therefore, that there will be no change and no eloquent defence from the Under-Secretary, because there cannot be change in the face of the force of the Chancellor, and there cannot be eloquent defence when the Under-Secretary knows that he would never be allowed to do anything that the radical programme of his right hon. Friend might have suggested that he should do. That is one of the great sadnesses which, for many Opposition Members, will abide throughout the lifetime of this Government.
9.30 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: This debate, although much too short, has proved to be revealing. We have had some interesting and memorable contributions
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who is generally regarded as an extremely able Chairman of his Select Committee, made

115
a number of good points, several of which I agree with. He made some telling criticisms of the Government and one or two criticisms of the Conservative party. I do not accept, however, that we should not have chosen today for the debate. He said that we should have waited for the Chancellor's statement tomorrow.
The official Opposition understand the Labour Government a good deal better than the Liberal party evidently does. The Labour Government always bypass Parliament; they never make policy statements to Parliament first. If one wants to know what policy statements will be made, one must read the press over the previous few days. If one wants to hold a debate while the matter is still active in the public mind, one must hold it the day before, not the day after, the relevant statement. If the hon. Gentleman wanted to know what the Chancellor will say tomorrow, all he had to do was read the Sunday newspapers yesterday. That is a regrettable state of affairs, and I agree that it is part of the perversion of the government of this country that has been brought about by the new Labour Government. I deeply regret it, but we have unfortunately to respond to such realities, unpleasant though they are.
The hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), as he always does on such occasions, made a thoughtful speech, with feeling and considerable experience of these matters. I agree with much of what he said. My instincts, like his, are against means-testing. There is an interesting divide in the House. The hon. Gentleman, and my hon. Friends and I, are against means testing, as is the Minister for Welfare Reform.
In his book "Making Welfare Work", the Minister for Welfare Reform states:
"A political party must first recognise how dire the problem is, acknowledge its scale, and set out a strategy which aims to replace means-tested dependency."
On one side, we have an interesting coalition between the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Croydon, North and Opposition Members, and on the other side the Secretary of State and the Chancellor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) made an excellent speech, setting out in graphic detail the perverse effect of the welfare system on the family, and its equally perverse effect in encouraging cheating.
The hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Hope), who seems to have left the Chamber, made a speech which, I imagine, was delivered to him by Millbank tower. When he spoke of 18 years of Conservative government decimating people's lives, he was so over the top as to be utterly ludicrous. No more need be said about him.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made a characteristically forensic speech and, in a few minutes, succeeded in showing up some of the fatal contradictions in the policy positions taken up by the new Labour Government—and they will prove fatal.
Much the most revealing speech was made by the Secretary of State. I fear that it was clearly a valedictory speech, and it would be inhuman not to sympathise with someone who is about to be fired, for whatever reason. It is only right to allow anyone who is about to be fired a certain latitude in what she says by way of self-justification.
116
The right hon. Lady said, "No one will ever go back on the system that I have created." That was a pretentiousness too far. She obviously has a vision of the history of welfare in this country which involves Lloyd George, Beveridge, Chamberlain, Macmillan—I am glad that the hon. Member for Croydon, North mentioned Macmillan in that context—and then Harman. Perhaps she has a vision of the welfare history of the human race which involves Bismarck and Beveridge—and Harman. No doubt she regards her achievements of the past 14 months as eclipsing everything that all those statesman of the past ever dreamed of achieving.
The Secretary of State's imagination matches the extent of the disappointment felt by her colleagues about what she has achieved over the past 14 months, because she was given the important task of delivering three major new Labour promises. The first was comprehensive reform of the welfare system, the second was to decrease the share of national income spent
"on the bills of…social failure"—
a reduction of the proportion of national income represented by social security spending—and the third was to deliver a range of enormously bold, extravagant and, I fear, entirely cynical promises to the older members of our society, and to old-age pensioners in particular.
What has the Secretary of State delivered? She has delivered a memorable administrative failure. We have heard this evening about cheques going out and bouncing, and cheques going out two or three times and being cashed, costing the public purse a lot of money. That may seem like small beer, but it shows the general spirit in the Department which she is supposedly administering.
We heard most from the Secretary of State about the one project that she appears to have brought forward—the new deal for lone parents, which so enthused lone parents that three quarters of them did not even bother to respond to letters inviting them to interview. We have agreed that the success rate is about 1 per cent. or, at most, 1.5 per cent. The right hon. Lady was extremely revealing in refusing to tell me, following an intervention, what are her targets; if she has none, she clearly has no control and no way of measuring the success or otherwise of the project. She has reinforced the impression gained by many of us over the past few months that this is nothing more than a gimmick, and a rather cruel gimmick, at the expense of single parents.
On comprehensive welfare reform, we have had a joke—a vacuous document called, again pretentiously, "New Ambitions For Our Country: A New Contract For Welfare". There is no new contract in the content, which is full of platitudes and questions, but has no substance at all. We shall never know whether the Minister for Welfare Reform had a real project in the paper that he put up to the Prime Minister last September, which was emasculated. Such a project is certainly not what has been provided to the British public.
What has happened in respect of reduced social security spending? The Labour Government are more than a year into their term of office, and they have gone in the opposite direction. The working families tax credit could cost up to £4 billion, and although getting people to claim benefits to which they are entitled, such as income support for pensioners, may be a desirable objective, it has a positive cost—about £2 billion, on the Government's own

117
figures. All those measures increase social security spending, whereas the Government were elected to reduce it.
Where are we after 14 months? The Government are going backwards: they are not fulfilling their programme. They have an even longer distance to travel in their remaining three or, if they are lucky, nearly four years in government. The scepticism in the country about whether they can fulfil those objectives as well as the other pledges in their manifesto is steadily increasing.
The right hon. Lady was appointed to fulfil a third set of objectives: the promises to older people. Throughout the last Parliament, the Labour party held out the prospect that, if they were returned to office, they would index the state retirement pension to earnings and not to prices.
Ms Harman: No, we did not.
Mr. Davies: The right hon. Lady shakes her head because it was not in the manifesto, but she knows that that is what hundreds of her colleagues were saying for years before the last election and during the election campaign. That has been a sad disappointment to millions of people who voted for the Labour party at the last election, and who had subtly been led to believe by all the spin doctoring that a Labour Government would index pensions to earnings, whereas they never had the faintest intention of doing so.
The Labour party said in its manifesto:
"We will support and strengthen the framework for occupational pensions."
It has done exactly the reverse of its explicit manifesto commitment.
Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: I cannot give way to the hon. Lady now. If she had tried to intervene a little earlier, I would have been happy to give way to her.
Shona McIsaac: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) receives remuneration from National Westminster Securities. National Westminster sells pensions. I believe that he should not have put his name to the motion, nor should take part in the debate if he intends to mention pensions. At the very least, he should declare that interest to the House.
Madam Speaker: Those are matters for the Commissioner and not for debate. I presume that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) has entered that information in the Register of Members' Interests.
Mr. Davies: Of course that interest is registered. Occupational pensions are not usually referred to in such debates. Many people have them, but I do not have one with National Westminster. If the Labour party was so worried about my remarks that it put someone up to make such a footling, time-wasting point, I must have been scoring a few runs.
Whereas the Labour Government were elected on an explicit programme of strengthening the framework for occupational pensions, they have done the exact reverse.
118
They have taxed occupational pensions in an unprecedented fashion. They are taking £5 billion a year out of personal and occupational pensions through the abolition of the dividend tax credit. They discriminated against occupational pensions as against personal pensions by not increasing the SERPS rebate to occupational pensions. It is not surprising that, as a result of a year of the Labour Government, the occupational pensions movement is declining. That is a great tragedy for our future, and one more broken promise.
The Labour manifesto said that we need higher levels of saving to provide decent retirement incomes. Once again, the Government have broken their promise. They need higher levels of saving, but they have taxed savings. That is hardly sensible.
The House hears almost every day of a new, broken Labour promise. We have heard of at least two today. Much of the talk today, of course, has been about a broken promise involving tuition fees but, over and over again, promises to older and more vulnerable people have been broken.
Let me close with one final new Labour broken promise. On 18 August 1995, the then shadow employment Minister wrote to a number of organisations representing the interests of retired people, saying:
"Tony Blair has asked me to respond to your letter…regarding age discrimination in employment, in my capacity as Shadow Employment Minister…the next Labour Government will introduce legislation to make age discrimination illegal, just as discrimination on the grounds of race and sex are today."
We have not heard a word about that commitment, 14 months into the new Labour Government.
I ask the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham)—who will wind up the debate, and who has responsibility for pensioners, or purports to—to tell the House now whether that commitment is still valid, or whether it is one of the many promises that the Labour Government have broken. Those promises have been broken cynically, but not with impunity, because the public are not so easily fooled. If the record of the past 14 months continues, there is no doubt that there will be a record of broken promises at the time of the next election such as no voter has so far seen.
9.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): After that speech, I begin to fear that rumours of a black market in Viagra may well be true. I hope that the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) will calm down before he goes home.
This has been a surprisingly good debate, in which a number of substantial contributions have been made. As we would expect, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) provided a good historical overview, and was able to set the record of the last Administration in a wider context. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) spoke of the importance of—among other issues—the staff employed by the Benefits Agency to the delivery of the welfare system that we want. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Hope) set out the history of the last Administration very clearly, and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, made a series of valuable contributions.

119
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) also made some interesting points that were worthy of consideration. Although I do not agree with his prediction of the behaviour that would result from the working families tax credit, his was a thoughtful speech. His speech was about what the Government were doing. The premise of the debate called by his right hon. and hon. Friends was that the Government were not doing anything, and the only two speeches that were devoid of content, point or substance were those made by Opposition Front Benchers.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) summed it up very well when he said that, yet again, an Opposition day debate on social security had turned into an own goal. I noted the speed with which Conservative Members left the Chamber as soon as the opening speeches were over. I do not think that I have ever attended an Opposition day debate, in six years as a Member of Parliament, at which the only two members of the party that called the debate who were present were on the Front Bench. That, I think, is a measure of where the debate was leading at the opening—although a number of hon. Members in all parties developed it into quite a useful discussion.
It is a shame. The procedures of the House give the Opposition a chance to scrutinise and criticise the Government's record, and I do not think that any Government—certainly this Government—should be concerned about that; but these debates are a test of not just the Government's record, but the Opposition—of whether they have anything to say, whether they have a case to make and whether they can tell us, as they singularly failed to do, what they would have done.
The motion criticises welfare spending. The Conservative party should know because, under the previous Administration, social security spending spiralled and the costs of economic and social failure soared. The cost of social security soared by £43 billion in real terms—[Interruption.] Let me tell the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) what we said in our manifesto:
"We will increase the share of national income spent on education as we decrease it on the bills of economic and social failure."
Over this Parliament, this Government will keep that election manifesto commitment—I am confident that we shall do so—but he must justify the previous Government's record.
Nearly 20 years ago, taxpayers knew that 25p in every pound that the Government spent went to health and education and 23p to social security. By the time that we were elected last year, 31p in every pound of Government spending was going on social security, but it would be wrong to judge the previous Government just by what they spent. What matters just as much is what happened to millions of people—to individuals, to parents, to children. Not just the cost, but the number of people who were being failed soared.
The number of people on income support doubled from one in 12 to one in six. By the time the previous Administration had finished, twice as many households had no one in work as when they were elected. The number of children being brought up on benefit had doubled: 2 million children of 1 million lone parents alone were being brought up on benefit. Nearly 1 million extra people of working age were receiving incapacity benefit.
120
That was a welfare system that was not working. It was not working for our society—a society that bore the costs of social exclusion, of young people who thought that they had no stake in our society. It was not working for taxpayers, who had to pay the bill. It was not working for many of those who had to rely on it.
We knew that that was not the welfare system that people in Britain wanted—whether they were paying for it, or dependent on it. We knew that the benefit system alone could not be the route out of poverty for so many children of so many parents on benefits, and I believe that they knew it was not the route out of poverty too.
We knew that 2 million disabled people of working age were working, but that another 1 million disabled people wanted to work. However, no one was giving them the chance to work, to enjoy equal rights and to feel that they were being treated as full members of society. We knew that the system was not working for those people who could not be expected to work because of their health or disability, or because they were retired. We knew that people who had to turn to the welfare system found that it did not seem to be working for them.
Too many people came to believe that they had more opportunity to commit benefit fraud than of earning an honest living. The previous Administration said that they wanted a benefit system where people helped themselves; they did. The organised gangs, the crooked landlords and, sadly, a minority of individual claimants helped themselves, and the previous Government did nothing about it.
The benefit system treated people only as claimants, not as individuals with hopes, aspirations and ambitions for themselves and their families. People did not get what they were entitled to. Perhaps 1 million pensioners, after a lifetime of work, bringing up families and living through war, did not receive even the income support to which they were entitled.
Therefore, as soon as we were elected, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, with a whole ministerial team—
Mr. Quentin Davies: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman did not give way in his speech, so I do not intend to give way in mine.
We set about changing and reforming the welfare system to make a reality of our principles and values: work for those who can and security for those who cannot. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said that we had made and are making no changes, but that is not true.
I make no apologies for the fact that one of this Government's first actions was to invest in new opportunities for people who had been denied opportunities for too long. We invested the windfall tax on the privatised utilities to create new opportunities for young people, for older workers, for lone parents and for the sick and disabled. We gave young people the chance to have a job, to gain skills and to be a full part of society. At the same time—not in the welfare budget, but in the education budget—we invested to raise standards in skills, so that, as today's children grow up, they do not leave our schools with the same lack of skills, education and qualifications that their older brothers and sisters have faced.

121
We are extending the new deal's opportunities also to older people—who also should not be written off by the welfare system. We have set out to discover the best ways of enabling sick and disabled people to keep their jobs and to return to work. This week, we shall be announcing the first pilot projects in that programme.
In the new deal—which has been championed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—we have said to lone parents, "There is an alternative to receiving benefit until your youngest child is 16. You can have a personal adviser who will work with you in dealing with the complexities of looking for work for the first time in years—to sort out training and child care and to understand working benefits."
In the welfare reform Green Paper, which was introduced in the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welfare Reform, we have stated how the welfare system itself needs to be developed—so that the principle of personal advice tailored to the needs of individuals becomes a reality across the welfare system. We are also establishing schemes that will bring the Benefits Agency and local authorities together so that people are not faced with different systems and bureaucracies that cannot talk to one another.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that the Government are not moving ahead with technology. I tell him that people can now ring up to claim their pension. Someone will be at a computer screen to enter the information and send out a completed form. That is only the beginning of our plans. In nine pilot schemes—[Interruption.] There is some laughter among Opposition Members. Before implementation of the new system, about 40 per cent. of pension claims made on paper and posted had to be returned for extra information—at an administrative cost to the taxpayer, and a cost in inconvenience to pensioners. Using the new system, over 90 per cent. of new claims are accurate. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the cheques?"] I shall deal with the cheques in a moment.
It is so symptomatic of the Conservative party's thinking that Conservative Members deride an improvement in service quality that helps to make the welfare system work for individuals and to cut the cost to the taxpayer. Now we know why so little happened over the Tory years.
Opposition Members asked about cheques, and said that people were worried about winter fuel payments not arriving. Under the previous Administration, for 18 years, no pensioner ever worried about winter fuel payments arriving—but they worried about their fuel bills, and about VAT on fuel at 17.5 per cent. Over 18 years, they never made an effort to help every pensioner household with its fuel bills. We have made that effort.
The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford may think that the fact that one employee of a private company administering benefits transposed two digits and sent out some cheques that were changed within 72 hours should provide the basis for an Opposition day debate, but that just shows the ridiculousness of the Opposition's critique. Conservative Members did not mention a word of how they did not do anything to help pensioners with their heating bills or utter a word of apology for attempting to impose VAT on fuel at 17.5 per cent. They have only words of derision for the changes that we have already
122
made to create a benefits system that works for people. Conservative Members stand condemned by their own words.
I should like to ask Conservative Members a key question. For years, they derided Labour Members when we said that we should use modern technology to help the poorest pensioners. However, one week into our pilot scheme, we identified a Scottish pensioner who was entitled to income support. We encouraged her to claim that benefit and now, consequently, she is £51 a week better off. When Conservative Members tabled today's motion criticising our welfare spending—the House is entitled to know the answer to this question—did they want that woman to stop getting that money? Was it that pensioner whom they intended to criticise? Should that pensioner, so long neglected by the Opposition, go without once again? That is what lies behind their message this evening. Should the lone parents who are on average £39 a week better off, with the taxpayer saving £42 a week—
Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 360.

Division No. 334]

[10 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Flight, Howard

Amess, David

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Arbuthnot, James

Gale, Roger

Baldry, Tony

Gibb, Nick

Bercow, John

Gill, Christopher

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Blunt, Crispin

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Body, Sir Richard

Gray, James

Boswell, Tim

Green, Damian

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Greenway, John

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Grieve, Dominic

Brady, Graham

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Brazier, Julian

Hammond, Philip

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hawkins, Nick

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hayes, John

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Heald, Oliver

Butterfill, John

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Horam, John

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Chope, Christopher

Hunter, Andrew

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Jenkin, Bernard

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Key, Robert

Cormack, Sir Patrick

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Cran, James

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Curry, Rt Hon David

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Lansley, Andrew

Day, Stephen

Leigh, Edward

Duncan, Alan

Letwin, Oliver

Duncan Smith, Iain

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Lidington, David

Evans, Nigel

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Faber, David

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Fabricant, Michael

Loughton, Tim

Fallon, Michael

Luff, Peter

123

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Soames, Nicholas

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Spicer, Sir Michael

MacKay, Andrew

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Steen, Anthony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Streeter, Gary

Madel, Sir David

Syms, Robert

Malins, Humfrey

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Maples, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mates, Michael

Townend, John

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Tredinnick, David

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Trend, Michael

May, Mrs Theresa

Tyrie, Andrew

Moss, Malcolm

Walter, Robert

Nicholls, Patrick

Wardle, Charles

Ottaway, Richard

Waterson, Nigel

Paice, James

Wells, Bowen

Paterson, Owen

Whittingdale, John

Pickles, Eric

Wilkinson, John

Prior, David

Willetts, David

Randall, John

Wilshire, David

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Robathan, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Woodward, Shaun

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Yeo, Tim

Ruffley, David

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

St Aubyn, Nick

Sayeed, Jonathan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Mr. Tim Collins.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Alexander, Douglas

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Allen, Graham

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Canavan, Dennis

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Cann, Jamie

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Caplin, Ivor

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Casale, Roger

Ashton, Joe

Caton, Martin

Atkins, Charlotte

Cawsey, Ian

Baker, Norman

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ballard, Jackie

Chaytor, David

Banks, Tony

Chidgey, David

Barron, Kevin

Chisholm, Malcolm

Battle, John

Clapham, Michael

Bayley, Hugh

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Beard, Nigel

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Begg, Miss Anne

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clelland, David

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clwyd, Ann

Bennett, Andrew F

Coaker, Vernon

Benton, Joe

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bermingham, Gerald

Coleman, Iain

Best, Harold

Colman, Tony

Betts, Clive

Connarty, Michael

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Cooper, Yvette

Borrow, David

Corbett, Robin

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cotter, Brian

Bradshaw, Ben

Cousins, Jim

Brake, Tom

Cox, Tom

Brand, Dr Peter

Cranston, Ross

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Crausby, David

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Browne, Desmond

Cummings, John

Burden, Richard

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

Burnett, John

Burstow, Paul

Dalyell, Tam

Byers, Stephen

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Caborn, Richard

Darvill, Keith

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

124

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Davidson, Ian

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Dean, Mrs Janet

Hurst, Alan

Denham, John

Hutton, John

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Iddon, Dr Brian

Dismore, Andrew

Illsley, Eric

Dobbin, Jim

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Jamieson, David

Donohoe, Brian H

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Doran, Frank

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Dowd, Jim

Drew, David

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Edwards, Huw

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Efford, Clive

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Ennis, Jeff

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Etherington, Bill

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Fearn, Ronnie

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Flynn, Paul

Keetch, Paul

Follett, Barbara

Kemp, Fraser

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Khabra, Piara S

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Foulkes, George

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Fyfe, Maria

Kingham, Ms Tess

Galbraith, Sam

Kirkwood, Archy

Gardiner, Barry

Kumar, Dr Ashok

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Laxton, Bob

Gerrard, Neil

Lepper, David

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Leslie, Christopher

Godman, Dr Norman A

Levitt, Tom

Godsiff, Roger

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Goggins, Paul

Livingstone, Ken

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Gorrie, Donald

Llwyd, Elfyn

Grant, Bernie

Lock, David

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Love, Andrew

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McAllion, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McAvoy, Thomas

Grocott, Bruce

McCabe, Steve

Grogan, John

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Gunnell, John

Macdonald, Calum

Hain, Peter

McDonnell, John

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McIsaac, Shona

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McLeish, Henry

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Hancock, Mike

McNulty, Tony

Hanson, David

MacShane, Denis

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Mactaggart, Fiona

Harris, Dr Evan

McWilliam, John

Harvey, Nick

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Mallaber, Judy

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Mandelson, Peter

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Marek, Dr John

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Heppell, John

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Hesford, Stephen

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Martlew, Eric

Hoey, Kate

Maxton, John

Home Robertson, John

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hood, Jimmy

Merron, Gillian

Hoon, Geoffrey

Michael, Alun

Hope, Phil

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Milburn, Alan

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Moffatt, Laura

Howells, Dr Kim

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hoyle, Lindsay

Moore, Michael

125

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Morley, Elliot

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

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

Mudie, George

Snape, Peter

Mullin, Chris

Soley, Clive

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Spellar, John

Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Oaten, Mark

Steinberg, Gerry

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Stevenson, George

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

O'Hara, Eddie

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Olner, Bill

Stinchcombe, Paul

O'Neill, Martin

Stoate, Dr Howard

Öpik, Lembit

Stott, Roger

Organ, Mrs Diana

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Pearson, Ian

Stringer, Graham

Pendry, Tom

Stunell, Andrew

Pickthall, Colin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pike, Peter L

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pollard, Kerry

Pond, Chris

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pope, Greg

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Pound, Stephen

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Temple-Morris, Peter

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Tipping, Paddy

Prosser, Gwyn

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Purchase, Ken

Touhig, Don

Quinn, Lawrie

Truswell, Paul

Radice, Giles

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rammell, Bill

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Rapson, Syd

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Raynsford, Nick

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

Tyler, Paul

Rendel, David

Vis, Dr Rudi

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Wallace, James

Ward, Ms Claire

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Wareing, Robert N

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Watts, David

Rogers, Allan

Webb, Steve

Rooker, Jeff

Welsh, Andrew

Rooney, Terry

White, Brian

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Rowlands, Ted

Wicks, Malcolm

Ruane, Chris

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Willis, Phil

Salter, Martin

Wilson, Brian

Sanders, Adrian

Winnick, David

Savidge, Malcolm

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Sawford, Phil

Wise, Audrey

Sedgemore, Brian

Woolas, Phil

Sheerman, Barry

Worthington, Tony

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wray, James

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wyatt, Derek

Singh, Marsha

Skinner, Dennis

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mr. John McFall and

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

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.
MADAM SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government for their outstanding record in pursuing their efforts to provide opportunities for those who can work and security for those who cannot, to cut expenditure on economic and social failure and to modernise the welfare system.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Betts.]
Question agreed to.
10.15 pm
Mr. Christopher Gill: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I know that you are sensitive to the rights of Back Benchers and of Parliament. May I draw your attention to the fact that statutory instrument 1998 No. 1673, which is on today's Votes and Proceedings, is not available in the Vote Office? You will agree that that is, to say the least, unfortunate, and an unforgivable omission by the responsible Department. Members of Parliament are entitled to be able to go to the Vote Office to obtain papers listed.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The instrument was laid on Friday, and "Erskine May" tells me that, when such drafts or instruments are laid, copies should be made available as soon as possible. Perhaps the Government will see to it that the instrument is made available.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have dealt with that point of order.
Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have for some years been trying to get Departments to answer letters from Members of Parliament within a sensible time. A week ago, I put down a series of questions to all Ministers asking how long it was taking them to reply, what targets had been set, and how often targets were being achieved. Seven days later, I have had answers from several Departments to the effect that they will write to me shortly.
The more complicated matter on which I seek your advice is that several Ministers have referred me to an answer given today by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. However, it is 10.20 pm and I have yet to receive that answer. Neither the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster nor his deputy knew that they were supposed to be answering that question. Members of Parliament are being referred to an answer that is not available. Can you help the Minister or me by saying how Ministers should reply to parliamentary questions and letters from Members?
Madam Speaker: I think that there is a further point of order.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) has just brought the matter to my attention. I will look into it, and I will let him have a reply within 24 hours.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory rose—
Madam Speaker: Is this a separate point of order to the previous one, on which I gave a ruling?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is about the statutory instrument, which names a constituent of mine. A point of order has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), but it relates to my constituent, and this is the second time that the same thing has happened.
Madam Speaker: The point relates to the Food (Cheese) (Emergency Control) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1998 (SI, 1998, No. 1673).
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, and it is my constituent's livelihood that is at stake. In May, when the order was first laid, there was the same failure to notify the House or me. An apology was given by the Minister of State, Department of Health, who said that that failure resulted from the urgency of the matter. That was two months ago.
The Government have had plenty of time to work out whether the matter is urgent. The second order that is laid pursuant to this should be notified to me as the constituency Member of Parliament and to the House. I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that this is not simply a discourtesy, but a contempt of the House. I suggest also that it is a discourtesy to you that this continues to occur despite verbal apologies from the Department concerned.
Madam Speaker: It is hardly contempt of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman claims that it is contempt of the House, I must have that in writing. I hope that I have given something of a reprimand in making the point that, as the statutory instrument was laid on Friday, "Erskine May" tells us that it should be available in the Vote Office. I ask for that to occur before the rising of the House tonight.

Orders of the Day
  Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords]
  Lords amendment considered.
Clause 25

  IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS AS TO FEES AT FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS IN SCOTLAND
  10.20 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move,
  That this House disagrees to the Amendment proposed by the Lords in lieu of the words left out of the Bill in page 22, lines 31 to 39.
  Madam Speaker: I inform the House that the Lords amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill involves privilege.
  Mr. Blunkett: I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his hon. Friends for the enormous patience that they have shown in recent weeks during the to-ing and fro-ing between this place and the House of Lords. It has been a travesty to see in the newspapers and hear in debates in the other place signs of the failure to understand the Government's proposition in terms of four-year degree courses in Scotland. Intelligent people should understand clearly why we have introduced the measure. They signally fail to understand that we have done so precisely because there are different education and legal systems in Scotland, and then criticise us for taking action that underpins and underlines that distinction. It is frankly breathtaking.
  The House listened to the views of the upper House when we returned again and again to this aspect of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. For that reason, I do not intend to detain the House for long tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] However, I must clearly detain the House long enough in order to explain to those Opposition Members who are shouting, "Shame," why we are carrying through this proposition, and why the motion carried by the House of Lords would create anomalies that would be much worse than those claimed in relation to our proposition.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I will when I have made some progress.
  If the Scottish education system is different—and we all accept that it is—if four-year courses are the norm because highers last for a year, as opposed to A-levels, which last for two years, and if, therefore, there is a different system that takes account—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: You have lost the House.
  Mr. Blunkett: I fear not; the only person that I have lost is the hon. Gentleman.

  129
  If there is a programme of four-year degrees in Scotland in order to reflect the situation in terms of highers, if our proposition reflects the need to take account of that difference—which was picked up by Sir Ron Garrick in the report that he produced at the time of the Dearing inquiry—and if Lord Dearing has said, including in speeches in the House of Lords, that his report recommends that the distinction should be recognised and built into law, is it surprising to anyone that the Government should reflect the Garrick inquiry and Lord Dearing's recommendations, and act upon them?
  Does it surprise anyone that we took action to ensure that the fourth year in Scotland was seen as different from that in England, Wales or Northern Ireland? I would have thought not, but as Opposition Members are clearly unconvinced, and want to pass something different, I would like to explain why we shall not accept that.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman started his explanation by noting that the university system is Scotland is different from that in the rest of United Kingdom, and in one sense it is. Why were my constituents, 2 per cent. of whom end up each year in Scottish universities, given the same application form to cover Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland? The same Universities and Colleges Admissions Service system processes their applications. If the systems are so different, why has there always been a common system for application to university, allowing students to choose their courses on the basis of their suitability?
  Mr. Blunkett: That explains why we are having some difficulty in outlining the difference to Opposition Members. It is not a question of the simplicity of the administration of application, but of the extent, level and timing of tuition. That is the difference between the English, Welsh and Northern Irish and the Scottish systems. We are talking about an historic difference in education systems, and narrowing the differences in respect of the likely expenditure that students will have to incur. That was the difference that the Dearing and Garrick committees wanted to be reflected, and it is the difference that we are reflecting. To do otherwise would create other anomalies.
  If someone from Northumberland went to Newcastle with an amendment passed to reflect the fourth year in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, we would create an enormous anomaly. It would result in 60,000 people taking four-year degrees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland complaining that the anomaly affected them rather than a small number of students who go to Scottish universities from England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: If we are to accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument that there should be an anomaly for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, given that we have debated the matter on several occasions and that it is important that the facts are laid before the House, will he take us through, country by country, the anomaly of why the education systems of France, Germany, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Spain,
  130
  Belgium and the rest of them make them eligible for a means-tested tuition fee, but not England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Lady misses the point. We are not talking about the education systems of France or Portugal but of Scotland.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Ask for a better briefing.
  Mr. Blunkett: I have a perfectly good briefing. To carry through the recommendations of Dearing and Garrick, because the United Kingdom is part of the European Union, we must reflect on what happens in the home countries in terms of European Union entitlement. It ill becomes the Liberal Democrats, who are great enthusiasts for Europe, to use as a stick to beat us the inevitable outcome that we must acknowledge students from Europe. I want to explain to the House just how big an anomaly it really is.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall, when I have explained just how many students are affected by what our opponents describe as the European anomaly.
  In 1996–97, there were precisely 350 students in their fourth year in Scottish universities from other European nations. Is it worth overturning the European issue, which is exercising Opposition Members and the House of Lords, in order to create a much bigger anomaly, whereby we would inevitably be accused of discriminating in favour of a young person doing a four-year degree course in Scotland, rather than in England, Wales or Northern Ireland?
  We cannot afford as a nation to create a new anomaly that would inevitably cost us at least £27 million to take account of four-year degrees in the remaining countries of the United Kingdom. We simply could not do it. Twenty-seven million pounds is a convincing sum in terms of opening up access to students throughout the UK who are currently being encouraged to take up university places.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Beith: Will the Secretary of State explain to students and potential students in Northumberland why what is perceived as a potential unfairness in relation to students from other European Union member countries is not recognised by the Government as an unfairness in relation to the inhabitants of Northumberland when they find themselves, not in two different universities, but in the same university as students who are paying £1,000 less in tuition fees for the same course—who, in some cases, would be students with whom they had gone to school, and who lived only a few miles from where they lived?
  Mr. Blunkett: Because to do otherwise than we propose would result in the anomaly of which the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware—that exemption would apply to a student from his constituency who went to Edinburgh or Dundee, but not to a student who went to Newcastle. It is as simple—[Interruption.] It is as simple

  131
  as that. I shall repeat—[Interruption.]—I shall repeat it again, because Opposition Members are so intent on shouting out after a good supper that they cannot understand the point: to do other than we propose would result in the right hon. Gentleman's constituents in Northumberland finding themselves able to be exempt from fees if they went north of the border, but not if they went to Newcastle.
  That would create an entirely new anomaly affecting all four-year courses in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. If the House believes that that is an anomaly when it affects 350 students from Europe, what about the anomaly affecting 60,000 students from the rest of the United Kingdom? That is what it amounts to.
  Mr. David Rendel: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall in a moment.
  Precisely because we have had so much difficulty explaining to Members of this House and of the House of Lords why one tiny anomaly relating to European students should not be replaced by a very substantial anomaly relating to all four-year degrees throughout the country, and precisely because we do not appear yet to have managed to get the message across that, in any case, those who are not so well off will already be exempt from, or will have ameliorated, the fourth-year expenditure in Scotland if their income is insufficient to meet it—for those reasons, I want to offer a way forward tonight.
  Mr. Rendel: Will the Secretary of State give way now?
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman must have been in the House long enough to know that intervening on me at the moment when I am about to say something that might be of interest to him is not the best way of encouraging me to deliver it.
  We have said throughout the proceedings on the Bill that we are prepared to monitor the impact of the changes that we are introducing. That is why, to enable Members of this House and the House of Lords to reflect on the alternatives and the anomalies that they would probably create, I offer, with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, the opportunity to have an independent review early next year to examine how our proposals for the Scottish fourth-year exemption are working. That review would monitor the impact—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The House must listen to the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Blunkett: I am giving hon. Members a little time so that the wine and whisky can quieten them a little.
  We propose to offer an independent review to take account of those entering Scottish universities this year and early applications for next year. It could also take account of the views of Opposition parties—if they so wish—the Scottish higher education principals, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and others on the alternatives that they consider might be better. That is not rubbish; it is not to be dismissed. It will give the
  132
  other place and Opposition parties in this House the chance to state what action they want to be taken and to acknowledge what would be the impact of that action. That review would take place far in advance of any student reaching the fourth year under the new system.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Secretary of State's acknowledgement that there may be some merit in the opposition to the proposal lead the Government to say that they will not try to reverse the Lords amendments, but accept them unless and until they are convinced that they are right and everybody else is wrong?
  Mr. Blunkett: No, I shall not say that, for several important reasons. The most important reason is that, when an unelected House attempts again and again to overturn the declared will of an elected Chamber, it is always the democratic elected Chamber that must succeed in putting through its policies. In the end, whether or not the House of Lords believes that it is right, that its wisdom is greater than ours and that the anomalies that it would create are fewer than the ones that it criticises us for creating, this House must account to the British people.
  This House must stand or fall by what it does. This House will, in the end, have to take responsibility for the outcome. That is why this House, on behalf of the democratic constitution of our country and the people who elected us, has to succeed in having its way. That is why we shall overturn the Lords amendment, and, if the Lords send it back to us again, we will overturn it again. That is why this House must always prevail over the unelected House next door.
  Mr. David Willetts: I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State, because so far he has not played a conspicuous role in the debate on this matter. We hoped that, as he had deigned to contribute to the discussion of the Scottish anomaly, we might have a prospect of making progress. The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, has come to the Chamber several times with feeble and unconvincing arguments, and we hoped that the Secretary of State could come up with something better. That hope was further encouraged when we read some briefing—I do not know whose ministerial office it was faxed from—in last week's Financial Times. The journalist wrote:
  "In a sign the government has been rattled. David Blunkett, the education secretary, will lead a mission 'to explain' in Monday's crucial debate in the House of Commons. He takes over from Brian Wilson, Scottish Office spokesman, who is thought to have underperformed on the so-called 'Scottish anomaly'."
  He has under-performed, has he? This issue led to the second biggest rebellion in this Chamber since the election, apart from the single parent vote, and the biggest defeat for the Government in the Lords since 1913, which, come to think of it, was a year after the Titanic under-performed as well.
  Mr. Blunkett: I know that we have introduced a numeracy programme, but I should have thought that even the Opposition could count. Only one Labour Member voted against on the previous occasion.
  Mr. Willetts: The rebellions, which included 31 Labour Members on one occasion, were against proposals put forward by the Secretary of State under the Bill.

  133
  The Secretary of State now steps in and appears to offer a crack of light. We are told that the door is ajar, inasmuch as we shall get a review, but we are not told whether he is willing to accept the fundamental point of principle—whether he understands the anger that is caused by the idea that two students studying side by side, doing the same course at the same university, should pay different tuition fees simply because of where they happen to live within the United Kingdom. That is the point of principle which the Secretary of State has signally failed to address tonight.
  The review seems to involve students from England, Wales or Northern Ireland applying for places at Scottish universities without knowing whether they face three or four years' fees. That is not a reasonable basis on which any student should be asked to apply.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Are not the Government trying to pick up on the Dearing report, in which a three-year degree course in England and Wales takes four years in Scotland? If a course takes four years, whether a student comes from England or from Scotland, he or she still has to do four years, but the Government feel that they should pay only three years' tuition fees. Why are the Government so against following the logic of their own principles in this matter?
  Mr. Willetts: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What I find extraordinary is that the Secretary of State is now trying to defend a position that he did not advocate when he made his original statement on the matter to the House last July. I do not believe that he intended that there should be a Scottish anomaly when he first announced his alternative approach, on the very day of the Dearing report's publication. I think that this mess is caused entirely by the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office announcing a concession in October without clearing it with his colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment. The only explanation for the Government's obduracy is a row going on between that Department and the Scottish Office.
  The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): Whether under-performing or over-performing, I was certainly performing well enough to see the hon. Gentleman off on the last occasion. Does he think that, when Lord Dearing and his committee made precisely the recommendation that we have acted on, they intended to create an anomaly or resolve one?
  Mr. Willetts: All that I can say is that I am still leading for the Opposition on this subject, whereas the Minister is no longer leading for the Government, so it is pretty clear to me who has been under-performing.
  The Dearing report is absolutely clear that
  "this would be a matter for consideration by the Secretary of State for Scotland".
  That is what Sir Ron Dearing said, and that is why we are inviting the Government to consider the matter again.
  The only argument that we heard tonight was the claim that the anomaly would cost not —2 million, but —27 million. In other words, we were told that, instead of simply having to ensure equal treatment among students from England or Scotland at the same Scottish university, the Government would have to get rid of fourth-year
  134
  tuition fees for every university in the United Kingdom. That is no part of our policy. I do not believe that that was the intention of any of the very many peers from all parts of the other place who voted against the Government. The argument is a complete red herring, because the two systems are indeed different. There is no reason why a regime that should apply to a Scottish university should also apply to an English university.
  Ms Margaret Hodge: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously asking the House to accept that a constituent of mine from Barking could attend a Scottish university and pay only three years of fees—not the fourth—whereas the same constituent, reading the same subject at an English university, would be expected to pay fees for the fourth year? Is he not, by his policy, creating a new set of anomalies?
  10.45 pm
  Mr. Willetts: All I can say is that they are different education systems. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They are different education systems.
  Mr. Blunkett: Is it not precisely the fact that Scottish students go through the Scottish education system and students in Barking do not that makes the difference between what the hon. Gentleman proposes and what we propose?
  Mr. Willetts: No; that is not the case. That approach—the claim that the first year of the Scottish four-year university course exists only to allow students to catch up with English A-levels—produces great anger and irritation in people in the Scottish educational world. That is not the case, but what is? I quote the secretary of the Committee of Scottish Higher Education Principals, Ronald Crawford:
  "The £27 million is a distraction. The four-year degree"
  course
  "is the norm in Scotland and it's the exception in the rest of the United Kingdom. It's inappropriate to consider the two analogously".
  There is absolutely no need, therefore, for the principle of equal treatment of students at the same Scottish university to require that one also abandons fourth-year tuition fees at all English, Welsh and Northern Irish universities. That is why the concession would cost only £2 million.
  The Secretary of State failed to explain on what basis he moved from contemplating having to concede on the Scottish anomaly to saying that he would have to make the wider concession in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Is he saying that it would be a legal requirement on him, as we were told at one point? We were told that, as soon as the matter went before the courts, he would be obliged to abandon fourth-year tuition fees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Is he saying that? If so, I must tell him that the courts would be familiar with the different higher education system in Scotland; they would understand perfectly that one was entitled to have a different regime in Scotland from that in England.
  If the Secretary of State is not saying that it is a legal requirement, is he saying that it would have to be done as a matter of policy? The present Government are supposed to believe in devolution. They are the Government who are supposed to believe in allowing things to be different

  135
  in Scotland from in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I do not see why any Minister should feel obliged to take a policy decision to enforce uniformity in that one small area of higher education when, throughout the rest of education and higher education in Scotland and England, the situation is different.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the argument that, above all, puts an end to that used by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) is the fact that the Government have never argued that her former students in Islington, when they were secondary school pupils, could not go out of Islington, as many pupils did, to another education system, paid for by the taxpayer? That is exactly the same parallel in secondary education as in higher education, where people may choose where to go to advance their studies. The hon. Lady never previously argued that Islington 15-year-olds could go to school only in Islington.
  Mr. Willetts: That is a very useful point, whatever it might mean.
  I shall revert to the argument that I was developing. If the Secretary of State claims that he is on a slippery slope and that he cannot make a concession for a footling £2 million without being obliged to make a concession for £27 million, he should explain to the House where that requirement comes from. Is it a legal requirement? Is it a policy decision? Or is it a political judgment about the forces that he would face? Is he saying that the political campaigns around the country would be so powerful that he, a poor weakling of a politician, would immediately have to give way and abandon fourth-year tuition fees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
  I do not find that credible. I have a higher opinion of the Secretary of State than to believe that he would immediately give way on the £27 million. The argument that he is trying to use with the House of Lords is that he is such a tough guy and such a macho Secretary of State that he is willing to jeopardise his entire Bill, rather than pay £2 million to deal with a glaring, absurd anomaly facing students going to Scottish universities.
  The only way in which the House could accept the argument advanced by the Secretary of State tonight is to believe two contradictory propositions—first, that the political pressures for an entirely different higher education system in England immediately to abandon fourth-year tuition fees would be so irresistible that the Secretary of State would give way, and secondly, that the Secretary of State is so tough and macho that he is willing to sacrifice his entire Bill, rather than make a £2 million concession.
  I am prepared to believe one proposition or the other, but not both. The only way that the Secretary of State can win the argument tonight in the House is by maintaining that both are true.
  Mr. James Wallace: The hon. Gentleman referred to the anomalies which it is incumbent on the Secretary of State to resolve. Does he agree that, as the Secretary of State intends to set up an independent review, the best way of ensuring certainty would be to assure those entering Scottish universities this
  136
  year that they would not have to pay fees in the fourth year, and that the review should be on the anomaly that the Secretary of State considers important and the extent to which it matters in the longer term?
  Mr. Willetts: If the Government accepted that there should not be anomalous treatment of students attending Scottish universities, and undertook to review the evidence, having protected the status quo, that would be a different matter. Sadly, that was not the point that the Secretary of State made this evening.
  We have heard much in the past few days about the Secretary of State's other responsibility. We have already heard some of the briefing about the statement that we shall hear from the Chancellor tomorrow. We may find that the Secretary of State himself comes to the House to tell us about the enormous sums that he claims are to be put into education in the next few years. We have read in the press about £15 billion of higher education expenditure over the next few years.
  Will not the Secretary of State look a rather absurd figure if he pops up on our television screens explaining that he has secured billions of pounds of extra cash from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, yet it is impossible to spend £2 million to deal with an anomaly that makes no sense to anyone outside the whipped ranks of his own party?
  Dr. George Turner rose—
  Mr. Willetts: No, I am about to finish.
  If the Secretary of State is to be taken seriously when he speaks about the financial settlement that he is bringing to the House in the next few days, he cannot also maintain that £2 million to deal with such an anomaly is a concession that it is impossible for him to make.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: A lot of this is about perception. Many students at Scottish universities come from the north of Ireland, so how is it to be justified that a student from Belfast will pay £1,000 more than a student from Dublin? That raises the issue of the cement of the British universities system. Part of the cement that keeps the United Kingdom together is the universities, and anything that damages the Scottish universities as United Kingdom universities is a serious matter.
  In the previous debate, I asked specific questions about the legal situation. I am entitled to say that the view of Edinburgh university, which comes through Sir Stewart Sutherland, the vice-chancellor, after the taking of legal advice, is that it is more than likely that the Government's view would not be sustained in a test case. I have also consulted Professor Anthony Bradley, a practising Queen's counsel, former editor of the Journal of Public Law and recently retired professor of constitutional law at the university of Edinburgh. This is what he put into print in the Edinburgh Evening News on Thursday 9 July:
  "The Government's controversial plan for students' tuition fees could be destroyed by its commitment to European human rights".
  That is the view of a QC. Although this is not the time to occupy the House with the detailed legal argument that some of us have heard, I must ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State two specific questions about the

  137
  review. I welcome the offer of a review and think that it will be helpful and constructive, but will he undertake that nothing will be done to charge existing students until, first, the review has reported and, secondly, there has been a test case in the courts to determine whether Professor Bradley and the university of Edinburgh, backed by Professor Ian Graham-Bryce of the university of Dundee, are correct? If he could give those undertakings, he would greatly assist some of us.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Now we have it: after all the to-ing and fro-ing, and after all the kerfuffle outside this place, all that we are being offered is an independent review of a situation that should have been resolved by any Government who were semi-competent. Will the Minister explain how independent the review will be, who will be on the review body, and how will it prevent uncertainty among the student population? From what I have heard, all this is simply a ploy based not on any principle, but on ducking and weaving by a Government who have been trapped by their inability to sort out discrimination that they have created.
  This is a point of principle. Tuition fees are wrong and, along with student loans, they will restrict access to higher education. The Government are completely out of step with university principals, students, the Association of University Teachers and others involved in education. The Scottish National party has opposed all attempts to erode the principle of education for all, according to ability and regardless of financial circumstances. Tuition fees are, like student loans, a backward step. As the Government insist on those fees, we can only seek to ensure that the arrangements are as fair as possible.
  Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that his party's commitment to use the Scottish Parliament to remove student tuition fees and student loans has been wiped from the internet, along with the rest of his party's previous policies?
  Mr. Welsh: The Minister has forgotten all points of principle. His Government should have allowed the Scottish Parliament to take this decision. In respect of the Scottish Parliament, we will get rid of this discriminatory anomaly affecting English, Welsh and Northern Irish students. We shall maintain our moral commitment, unlike the Government.
  The amount involved is only £2 million. It is a disgrace if the three Departments cannot find £2 million from their budgets. The Scottish National party will, on a point of principle, ensure that we get rid of this discrimination against English, Welsh and Northern Irish students.
  Miss Anne Begg: Can I be absolutely sure that the hon. Gentleman is committing the Scottish National party to spending Scottish taxpayers' money to fund English students coming to Scottish universities. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Welsh: Who is the nationalist now, I wonder.
  11 pm
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you ask hon. Members to apologise? We do not use the word "racist" in the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear that word being used.
  Mr. Welsh: The question of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) should be directed to the Government, who have introduced this measure that discriminates against English, Welsh and Northern Irish students. The Scottish National party will ensure that such discrimination does not exist.
  I refer the hon. Lady to a debate on this issue that I secured last January. We made our views clear that we are against such discrimination. The Home Departments in Wales, Northern Ireland and England should pick up the tab. The Government are annoyed at the House of Lords' refusal to back down. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment is becoming increasingly alarmed that his whole Bill will collapse. My party believes that it would be no bad thing if it did collapse, because we think that all matters relating to higher education in Scotland should be within the remit of the Scottish Parliament. It will not be long before the Scottish Parliament is in power and taking these decisions. It should be left to that Parliament to decide, in a Scottish context, what the Scottish people want to happen in our universities.
  If the Government are determined that the Teaching and Higher Education Bill should become law, all they need to do is to accept the amendment and they would have the approval of those involved in education, and of the general public.
  In January, I led an Adjournment debate on this issue. I raised objections to the Government's policy, not just because it is discriminatory, but because of the effects that it will have on Scottish universities and on the Scottish economy. I was accused of scaremongering, yet my fears are shared by many involved in education in Scotland.
  The principal of Dundee university said at this year's graduation ceremony last Thursday:
  "It is the end of an era for higher education.…I cannot disguise my feelings of profound concern. Notwithstanding what you may read in the press, our application figures leave little doubt that the issue of student fees is having an adverse effect, particularly the differential between Scottish domiciled students and those from England, Wales and Northern Ireland."
  Even before the review, the Government have been told what is going on. The principal went on:
  "Whatever rationalisations are put forward, the practical impact is discriminatory. If this leads to a decrease in the diversity of the student body…then it will be Scottish higher education and ultimately Scottish interests which will be the losers."
  The Government do not need a review to find out what educationists of Scotland are telling them now.
  In an independent Scotland, the Scottish National party plans to abolish tuition fees. If the Government fail to listen to public opinion and to solve this anomaly, a SNP-led Scottish Parliament, even at a reduced devolutionary level, will find the £2 million required to ensure equity for all students who choose to study in

  139
  Scotland. That compares well with the Government's prevarication by offering a review rather than solving the problem.
  Mr. John Home Robertson: My information is that 31 per cent. of the students from England who will be eligible to pay these fees will come from English public schools. As a former pupil of an English public school, I find it odd that the Scottish National party proposes to raise Scottish taxpayers' money to subsidise people from English public schools.
  Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman has been in the Labour party for too long. He has forgotten what principle means. If he is willing to sell his political soul to new Labour, good luck to him, but others have different views.
  Let me point out to the hon. Gentleman that, by that reckoning, 70 per cent. do not come from English public schools. We would sort the anomaly out, but his question should be directed at the person who—
  Mr. Home Robertson rose—
  Mr. Welsh: Will the hon. Gentleman sit down? We have heard enough from him.
  Mr. Wilson rose—
  Mr. Welsh: The hon. Gentleman's question should be directed at the hon. Member who is now trying to intervene, and who failed to convince his English, Welsh and Northern Ireland colleagues of the need to sort out the discrimination. The hon. Gentleman should direct his ire at his own Front Benchers, who could solve the problem very quickly and at very little cost.
  Mr. Wilson: I think that—doubtless inadvertently—the hon. Gentleman misunderstood the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). At least a third of students coming from England, Northern Ireland or Wales to Scotland will pay no tuition fees. My hon. Friend's point was that, as a third of students coming from England to Scottish universities come from the private sector—and are welcome to do so—inevitably the vast majority of those who would benefit from the waiving of fees would be people who had paid for a private-school education in England. The hon. Gentleman intends to give them—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The intervention is far too long.
  Mr. Welsh: I wanted the Minister to explain his hon. Friend's question, because I am a bit fed up with the Minister fiddling statistics and trying to make a case when none exists. He stated categorically that 40 per cent. of students would not pay tuition fees, but that is not necessarily the case. If the worst comes to the worst, and people from low-income households are deterred from coming to university—as we fear—the figure will not be 40 per cent.; it could be 30 per cent., 20 per cent. or lower. The Minister has used statistical methods and debating tricks to hide a policy that is fundamentally flawed and basically immoral.
  140
  I was going to say that the Government must tonight listen to the views expressed, not only in another place, but by hon. Members on both sides of the House—those who have not have been gagged on the Minister's side, that is. They must also listen to the voices of students and those working in education. The Government's policy is opposed by Scottish Ancients, the Association of University Teachers, the National Union of Students and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the United Kingdom—but, of course, this Labour Government think that they know better. If they are so confident of the wisdom of what they are doing, why do they not allow a free vote?
  The fact is that, yet again, the House of Lords has given the Government a chance to get out of the corner into which they have painted themselves. They are totally out of step with educational and public opinion on the subject, and they will pay a price for that. It will be unfortunate for everyone if the Scottish education system also pays a price for their incompetence.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of an independent review as a step in the right direction and a recognition by the Government that, on this important issue, they may be wrong; but I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or whoever will wind up the debate, to give us assurances along the lines requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The Government's announcement seems to be a last-minute concession: I certainly knew nothing about it before the debate, and I think that it has taken many of us by surprise. I feel that we are entitled to know more about the details of the membership of the body conducting the review, and about its remit and time scale. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the Government have acted, and the fact that the debate was opened by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  During the previous debate, I remarked to my hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Industry at the Scottish Office that he had perhaps drawn the short straw in coming to the Dispatch Box and trying to defend the indefensible. Of course this matter is of great relevance to the Scottish Office, which has some responsibility for Scottish universities and Scottish higher education in general, but, because it affects students attending Scottish universities from England, Wales and Northern Ireland, greater interest should be—and should have been from the outset—shown in this matter by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and, indeed, by the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Northern Ireland.
  I do not want to go over the same old ground that we have gone over in previous debates, but I should like to comment on some of the points that have been put forward by the Government, both in the House and in some of their press statements. We are told that better-off students would be the main beneficiaries of the fee waiver. If that is true, it would also be true in the case of the Scottish Office's original decision regarding a fee waiver for students from Scotland and other European Union countries.
  I suppose that there are some well-off students from England who attend Scottish universities, but there are some well off students from Scotland and indeed from France, Germany and Italy who attend Scottish universities. The latter will nevertheless benefit from the

  141
  fee waiver, whereas their English counterparts with the same parental income will not. That is where the injustice comes in.
  Besides, it is nonsense to suggest that students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who go to Scottish universities generally come from very high-income families. The Government's own figures refute that, because we are talking about 3,500 people a year and, if they all came from very high-income families, obviously, they would all pay the full fees of £1,000 and the total cost of the amendment would be £3.5 million, but the Government have at last admitted that the total cost of the amendment would be only £2 million. Therefore, the average fee paid by the 3,500 students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland works out at about £570 and the corresponding average residual parental income is £22,750 per annum, which is not exactly filthy rich.
  During the previous debate, the Minister for Education and Industry said—this has caused a bit of controversy in Scotland:
  "The pecking order of schools supplying students from England to Edinburgh and St. Andrews universities is: No. 1, Eton college; No. 2, Wellington college; No. 3, Charterhouse; and, No. 4, Westminster school. That tells us something about the wonderful, egalitarian education system that we have in Scotland."—[Official Report, 1 July 1998; Vol. 315, c. 442.]
  What he did not tell us was that he was referring to a grand total of 256 students, out of a total of 8,400 students, from England attending Edinburgh or St. Andrews universities, which are not typical Scottish universities. Nevertheless, we are talking about a sample—and not exactly a random sample—of 256 students out of a total of 8,400.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has done any more research. I believe that most of those 256 probably come from Scottish families and go to English public schools, and will get the concession because their parents live in Scotland.
  Mr. Canavan: That may be the case. The statement that those 256 are absolutely domiciled in England may be inaccurate.
  The broader picture—of students from England accepted to all Scottish universities last year—shows that the breakdown is far more egalitarian than was suggested by my hon. Friend the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office. Of those students, 33 per cent. came from state schools, including 26 per cent. from comprehensives; 21 per cent. came from further education, many—probably most—of whom would have come indirectly from state schools; 1 per cent. from higher education; 13 per cent. from other or unknown sources; and 32 per cent. from independent schools. It is therefore nonsense to claim that the majority of English entrants to Scottish universities are from English public schools.
  11.15 pm
  Mr. Phil Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the principal issues that is being missed in the debate is that the Scottish higher education system needs students from all walks of life and from all countries to provide the diversity and specialness that make Scottish universities so vibrant
  142
  and positive? Does he agree that the Government's proposals will drive away the very students who give the Scottish education system its very special flavour?
  Mr. Canavan: Scottish universities—possibly more than many of their English counterparts—have always had an international outlook. It would be a tragedy if they became narrow-minded nationalist institutions rather than international institutions.
  The trend to which the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) referred has already started. This year, compared with last year, applications from England are down 4.1 per cent., and applications from Northern Ireland are down 5.5 per cent. If the trend continues, it will pose a threat to the viability of many four-year honours courses and to the Scottish tradition of a broad-based university education following on from a broad-based school education.
  The other point that I should like to mention was repeated in this debate by the Secretary of State—the Government's claim that acceptance of the Lords amendment would create a new anomaly, as students doing a four-year course in England, Wales or Northern Ireland would not qualify for a fee waiver for their final year. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) —who intervened earlier in the debate—is not in the Chamber now, as I seem to recall that there was a vote to eradicate that specific anomaly, and that she, most of my hon. Friends and every Minister voted against eradicating it. I should welcome any proposal to extend the fee waiver to such students. However, the Government rejected such a proposal because of its cost, reckoning that £27 million would be too expensive.
  There is also a uniqueness about the Scottish anomaly. Under the Government's proposals, a student at a Scottish university may have to pay £1,000 more than a student in the same class doing the same course at the same university and with the same parental income, simply because he or she comes from a different part of the United Kingdom. That situation will arise not at any university or college in England, Wales or Northern Ireland but only in Scotland. It would cost only £2 million to eradicate that unique and unfair anomaly.
  The Government have probably already incurred a six-figure sum in debating the matter continually here and in another place. If the measure is challenged in the courts, as it is likely to be, they will face paying a bigger sum out of public expenditure in legal fees. I am pleased that, at this eleventh hour, the Government are prepared to think again.
  Finally, I have one comment on my right hon. Friend's rant about the House of Lords, that we also heard during the previous debate on the matter. It would be a sad day for British democracy if even the reactionary, unelected House of Lords were seen to take a more enlightened view than a Labour Government—especially a Labour Government who were elected on the mantra and the priorities of education, education, education.
  Mr. Don Foster: I am absolutely delighted to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) who conducted a forensic examination of the Government's position. He effectively pointed out that the Government have not been consistent on the issue. If my

  143
  hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will pick up that point.
  The House well knows that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to the main plank of the Bill—the introduction of tuition fees—and we voted against it on Third Reading. We have argued consistently that the Bill was hastily prepared without any real attention to detail, as the fiasco over gap year students clearly demonstrated.
  We are discussing another example of the effects of legislation that has been prepared too hastily—the Scottish anomaly. Already we have heard from the hon. Members for Havant (Mr. Willetts), for Angus (Mr. Welsh) and for Falkirk, West—and the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) certainly implied it—that the Government have now created a ludicrous, incoherent and unjust position. Surely it cannot be acceptable to right hon. and hon. Members that students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland should pay more than students from Scotland for the same course at the same university. That is the anomaly that we are debating.
  Sadly, the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) simply fails to understand the difference between that anomaly and the fact that students from the same area may choose to go to different universities in different locations, study different courses and possibly pay different fees. That is not an anomaly of the same order.
  Equally, it cannot be right that students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland should pay more than students from all other European Union countries. Why should a student from Cumbria in England pay more than a student from Umbria in Italy? Why should a student from Manchester pay more than a student from Madrid? The Secretary of State should be aware that many others agree that that is ludicrous.
  Lord Shore of Stepney, a former Labour Cabinet Minister described the position as
  "folly beyond all belief. It is not just discrimination; it is reverse discrimination."
  Another Labour peer, Lord Stoddart, remarked in the same debate:
  "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, 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 they are receiving if that sort of nonsense is being handed out to them?"' —[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 1103–05.]
  No wonder Lord Stoddart went on to describe the Government's position as nonsense and an absurdity.
  Dr. George Turner rose—
  Mr. Foster: I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Dr. Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with what I think is an important point on whether there is an issue worthy of debate? Lord Dearing was appointed by the Conservative Government to head the commission whose recommendations this Government are applying. Will the
  144
  hon. Gentleman explain why Lord Dearing still supports his commission's recommendation if, as the hon. Member says, there is no academic or reasonable argument for it?
  Mr. Foster: It is a great pity to hear the hon. Gentleman make the same mistake as the Prime Minister has been making day after day at the Dispatch Box. His argument would be infinitely more credible if the Government had accepted the Dearing recommendations, but they have not.
  There is no question but that the Government's position is nonsense and an absurdity. One would have thought that they would be grateful to my right hon. Friend Lord Steel, who tabled in another place an amendment that did not seek to wreck the Bill, or even to tear down the arrangements for tuition fees, much as we would like to; it merely sought to get the Government off the hook—to allow them to avoid any further embarrassment—by ending the Scottish anomaly.
  I hope that the Secretary of State has carefully examined the vote in another place, as the amendment made clear the feeling about this issue—it commanded an almost unprecedented majority of 211. The majority was so large that, if all Conservative peers had abstained, the amendment would still have won the day. It was so large that, if all hereditary peers had stayed at home, the amendment would still have been agreed to. The amendment's supporters included a former Master of the Rolls, a former Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, a former vice-chancellor of London university, the president of the British Academy, three bishops, a former Clerk of the Parliaments and a former Speaker of the House of Commons. Those people are not negligible; when they and so many others are joined by senior Labour peers, their voices surely cannot be ignored.
  The Government rightly want to reform the House of Lords, and we support them in that. Like us, however, they still want a second, revising chamber. The House of Commons must accept that, from time to time, the revising chamber will want to revise, which is what legitimately happened on this occasion in another place. An unacceptable anomaly was identified, and a proposal to rectify it was agreed.
  The Government's reaction was remarkable. On 8 July, Glasgow's The Herald said:
  "Senior Government sources last night made clear their determination to ensure the heavily-criticised plan does eventually become law. 'We are taking the Drumcree line on this; no surrender to the peers. We are toughing it out,' said one source."
  [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may ask, "Who said that?" He should check with The Herald, from which it is a direct quotation.
  Toughing it out will perpetuate the ludicrous anomaly that is perhaps most starkly illustrated in today's Daily Telegraph. The article tells us that Tom Laycock from Lamberton, 100 yards north of the Scottish border, will pay £1,000 less than Tom Maxwell, from Berwick-upon-Tweed, two miles south of the border, when they both attend an English, film and media course at Stirling university this year.
  Last week, the Prime Minister made clear his determination to tough it out. He seems to have misunderstood even the Government's position. He frequently tells us that the Bill reflects the Dearing

  145
  proposals, when it does not, and at Prime Minister's Questions last Wednesday he got it wrong again. He initially implied that the cost of Lord Steel's amendment would be £27 million. Even had free tuition to all students in their fourth year been proposed in the amendment, which it was not, the figure would have been wrong: definitive calculations by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals over the weekend show that even then the figure be only £18 million. In fact, the amendment, which would remedy the incoherent and unjust position, would cost only £2 million.
  11.30 pm
  The approach of some of the Secretary of State's colleagues can only be described as pig-headed, so perhaps we should applaud his attempt to find a compromise. At least he has shown some signs of realising the hopelessness of the Government's position and appears to be willing to try to build a consensus; but he has not gone nearly far enough to elicit my support or that of my party.
  We have become somewhat immune to the offer of a review. After only 14 months of this Government, we are approaching 150 reviews and task forces: that is 10 reviews a month. It is as if the Secretary of State is saying, "Ah, yes. I might be beginning to understand, and perhaps you're right, but I'm not prepared to change my position, so I'll stick to it, but if it causes a problem, I'll review the situation."
  We believe that the anomaly will create problems. More importantly, the so-called Scottish anomaly is unjust. In the face of injustice and inequality, we will seek every means at our disposal to persuade the Secretary of State to do what anyone should do if he finds that he is wrong: change his mind. He has shown some willingness to consider that he might be wrong. I hope that he will go further. We are prepared to enter discussions with him to help him to dig himself out of the hole that, frankly, others have dug for him. Better still, he could resolve the matter here and now for £2 million by simply accepting the Lords amendment.
  Valerie Davey: People outside cannot understand the preoccupation of the House with a minority of higher education students from the most well-off families. When people ask me what is going on, when the House of Lords has for the third time brought back this detail of the Bill, and I talk to them about higher education, they begin to understand. Let me try to explain to the House, as I have to those people.
  As a country, we say to students that it will take them, on average, five years to get a first degree. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, for the most part, two years are spent at school and three at university. In Scotland, for the most part, one year is spent at school and three at university. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] Fine. That is exactly what I have been learning: more students now stay on for two years at school and then have three at university. The Bill's generosity towards Scotland should therefore be accepted and understood. We are saying that there are five years in which to gain a degree. That argument has been accepted for all students. The special situation in Scotland of having four-year degrees is being recognised and funded.
  Mr. John Hayes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Valerie Davey: No, it is my turn.
  The Bill is fairer to more students than any of the amendments put forward in the other place.
  Mr. John MacGregor: I do not want to comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) because I do not believe that she knows what she is talking about.
  I speak not as a former Secretary of State for Education, but as someone born, brought up and educated in Scotland. I did a four-year university degree course in Scotland as well, incidentally, as a degree course in England.
  I want to address the two arguments put forward by the Secretary of State. I have followed all the arguments about Cumbria and Umbria, and so on. Relevant though they are, I do not want to comment on them. I certainly will not follow the prejudice shown by the Minister of State in previous debates and again tonight. He should be ashamed to resort to arguments about students from English independent schools, which is base, old Labour prejudice.
  The Secretary of State rested his case on two arguments. The first is that the Scottish education system is different. Because students do highers, they tend to spend less time in school, and need longer at university. That argument does not wash. Some students from Scotland—I was one—do A-levels before entering the Scottish higher education system.
  In addition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, the Secretary of State cannot argue that his policy on Scottish tuition fees rests on the nature of Scottish education when he is allowing students from all other European Union countries, which have completely different educational systems, to benefit from free tuition. He cannot dismiss that argument by saying that it affects only 350 students. It is an argument of principle, not of numbers.
  The Government have not implemented the Dearing report, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) pointed out, left the matter to the Secretary of State for Scotland. They have instead decided to follow their own route because the four-year honours degree is the norm in Scotland, but does not apply elsewhere. The Secretary of State's first argument fails on that ground.
  The right hon. Gentleman's second argument was that, if students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who went to Scotland were to be allowed free tuition in the fourth year, the same would have to apply to four-year courses in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Again, that argument does not wash. It is totally bogus. The point is that we want to treat all students at the same university equally, wherever they come from within the European Union. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was right to say that the ability of students from the United Kingdom to go to whatever university they want is part of the cement of our universal university education system.
  If students from Scotland decide to do a four-year degree course at an English university, they must accept that they will not get a year's free tuition, because that

  147
  will not apply to anyone from England. All we argue is that students from anywhere in the EU who go to a Scottish university should be treated the same as students from Scotland. Equally, the answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge)—she is not here—is that everyone who goes to an English university, whether from Scotland or anywhere else, knows that the fourth year of tuition will not be free. That is the simple point. Therefore, the £2 million argument is correct and the £27 million is a complete red herring. That is why the Secretary of State was wrong in his arguments tonight.
  Mr. Willis: Like everyone else who has mentioned her, I am also sorry that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) is not in her place.
  The Bill has been a disaster for the Government from the very beginning, and the Scottish question has gone from bad to worse. Every time that the issue has ping-ponged like Wimbledon in ermine between this and the other place, the Government's justifications of their position have become more bizarre. If it were such an important issue, the Secretary of State would have mentioned it on 25 June 1997 when he responded to the Dearing inquiry. However, he did not consider the consequences for Scottish four-year degrees at that time.
  Fortunately, the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, was on hand to help out the Secretary of State. The Minister announced that there would be a concession for Scottish students who were domiciled in Scotland and that their fourth-year fees would be paid. It was then pointed out that that was not good enough because the concession fell foul of European law and the fees of all European students would have to be paid. So that concession was made.
  We then had the marvellous situation on a Radio 4 programme when the Minister justified the fact that French students at Scottish universities would have their fees paid, by saying that they were part of the European Union—of course, the fees of students from England, Northern Ireland or Wales would not be paid because they were part of the European Union. Since then, the Minister has proved singularly unable to persuade his colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment to fund those students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who attend Scottish universities. Ultimately, the debate is about one Minister going off on his own. Ever since then, the Government have made a concerted effort to cover their tracks and not give ground. Even on this very small point, the Government are not prepared to give way, irrespective of the arguments.
  Lord Sewel—who has done a remarkable job attempting to defend the Government's position in another place—explained that, because there was a difference between the two systems, the rules had to be different. He then admitted that there would be a small anomaly and added that, as students would be paying more for their maintenance, an extra £1,000 did not matter. That became the basis of the Government's argument. When that did not work, an attack was launched on the Scottish university system. There was a concerted effort to
  148
  persuade us that it was far better for students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to enter university at year two because they were well equipped to do so.
  Mr. Hayes: Am I right in remembering—perhaps the hon. Gentleman can correct me—that the Minister described that Scottish tradition as bogus, thereby insulting Scottish universities and causing real distress among vice-chancellors, students and all those who believe that it is a decent and proper Scottish tradition?
  Mr. Willis: I do not know whether I am grateful for that intervention.[HON. MEMBERS: "You are."] I am told that I am—but one cannot toady to the Tories. It was not a member of the other place, but the Minister who made that disgraceful statement to which I shall return later.
  When the Bill was on Report in the House of Lords, the arguments changed again. Then it was not because the university systems were different, but because there was a difference in intellectual attainment between students in Scotland and England. We then went on to the hidden agenda when the Minister in the Lords said that Scottish universities wanted English students because they wanted extra cash.
  The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was right to say that the Minister for Education and Industry argued that the Scottish four-year degree system was bogus and that the act should be disregarded. Tonight, we have had the final throw of the dice. The Secretary of State said that all those arguments mean nothing and that this is really a battle with the House of Lords. He said that, irrespective of the argument, this House must win. That is what we are faced with. We are to ignore the arguments and the issue's importance, and ensure that the Secretary of State and his macho Government win.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Damian Green: About once a fortnight, the House assembles to hear the Government marshall their arguments for this policy. Every time, their arguments become weaker, less plausible and more desperate. Tonight, we have seen the start of the Government's retreat.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that it came as a surprise to him that the Minister was offering this half concession. It came as no surprise to me because, characteristically, a journalist had phoned me some hours ago saying that the Secretary of State would offer it and asking what our response would be. As ever, it had been leaked to the press hours before it came to the House.
  We should pay tribute to hon. Members in the other place for their commendable insistence and for producing a reasonable and narrow amendment, which the Government would accept if they had any sense. I urge their Lordships to keep going until the Government's U-turn tonight becomes the headlong retreat that this policy deserves.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), a former Secretary of State for Education, honoured the Secretary of State by saying that he had two arguments. I suggest that basically he had one—that two anomalies are possible and that the Government are choosing the easier of them.

  149
  That argument does not bear the faintest examination. If one accepts, as the Government do, that the Scottish and English education systems are different, one could accept that the fee structure should be different. If one does not accept that, as the Government appear not to, two students doing identical courses will pay different fees. That is unfair, and if the Government do not recognise it, they are being wilfully ignorant and deliberately pig-headed.
  Let us be generous to the Secretary of State. If there are two anomalies, which is the easiest to swallow? The Lords amendment would introduce fairness to Scottish university courses at a cost of £2 million. That is slightly more than three times the cost of the Lord Chancellor's wallpaper. We could pay for it out of the extra budget allocated to political advisers and spin doctors by the Government. We are told that the Scottish Office already has the £2 million in its estimates. Only the arrogance of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment stands between the Government and a welcome outbreak of common sense on this policy. [Interruption.] He has blustered away, and continues to do so from a sedentary position. I invite him to consider the effect that he has had on his colleagues in the other place.
  We have already heard some of what Lord Shore of Stepney said, but it is worth repeating to the House another of his remarks. He said that his colleagues in the other place,
  "if they were allowed a free vote on the issue…would make quite clear their own feeling of repugnance at what is being proposed."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 July 1998; Vol. 591, c. 1103.]
  He emphasised the word "repugnance" and he was right to do so. I hope that, this evening, there are once again some men and women of principle on the Government Benches who are prepared to vote according to their conscience.
  The Secretary of State has not convinced Britain's students either. Tonight, I am happy to give a plug for The Guardian, which tomorrow will feature a full-page advertisement asking the crucial question:
  "Why should it cost £1,000 more to go to university in Scotland?"
  The advertisement has been placed by the National Union of Students, whose representatives tell me that a ring round enabled them to raise, in one afternoon and in voluntary contributions from member unions, the money to pay for the advertisement, such is the strength of feeling against the Government's policy in universities throughout the country. The NUS makes the key points:
  "We know it doesn't make sense. The House of Lords knows it doesn't make sense. Is it so hard to admit a simple error?"
  It is clearly too hard for the Labour Government and for the Secretary of State.
  The NUS addresses itself directly to the Prime Minister, asking:
  "Please Prime Minister, listen to the pleas of students, lecturers, senior academics and the House of Lords. It's time to stop the destruction of Scottish universities and to stop your legislation as it stands. This Bill has caused confusion and uncertainty for all new students. It's time to think again."
  I hope that, for once, Education Ministers will listen to those most involved in the process of education—the students who are going through it.
  What arguments we have heard from those few Labour Back Benchers whom the Government have managed to get on their feet tonight have been straightforward, old-fashioned class warfare, in which vein they have been
  150
  encouraged by the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). In a recent article for The Scotsman, he wrote:
  "the most conspicuous beneficiaries of the concession demanded by the Lords would be the products of private education outside Scotland who opted to pursue the four-year Scottish honours degree."
  In new Labour, class warfare is the last refuge of the scoundrel. If they have nothing else left, they revert to their atavistic instincts.
  In this case, to do so is not only cheap, but inappropriate. First, if the Minister has great objections to gilded youth from English public schools, what about gilded youth from Scottish public schools? For some reason, Fettes springs to mind. Secondly, and more to the point, what about the many students from Northern Ireland who choose to pursue higher education in Scotland? The president of the NUS in Scotland says that he has been
  "inundated with telephone calls from anxious students from Northern Ireland who wished to know if they could escape the £1,000 fee by gaining Scottish residency…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."
  That is what the students from Northern Ireland are saying. The Government's attack on them as a privileged elite is completely inappropriate.
  Let us look at the real figures relating to the students about whom the Minister talks. I shall quote from another article by the Minister—I have been assiduous above and beyond the call of duty in reading all the Minister's words—in The Times Higher Educational Supplement.
  He wrote:
  "Any student from a family with an income of below £16,500 will not pay any fees in any year if they come to Scotland."
  The Minister might regard a £16,500 family income as enormous or as signifying fat cats, but I should point out that that is only just over £8,000 per parent. Are such people really fat cats? Are they worthy of the sneers of the Minister and those sitting behind him, desperate to do the Whips' bidding? No, they are exactly the people whom we should be encouraging into higher education, many of whom are the first from their families.
  I agree that the Minister has made his case worse than he needed to, because the Government's own figures state that, if a student's gross family income is less than about £23,000 a year, the students and the student's family will not have to pay anything towards fees. The Government seem to regard any family on more than £11,500 per year per parent as a fat-cat family that does not deserve any help to get into higher education. That attitude is completely disgraceful.
  Then there is the legal case. How much do the Government expect to pay in legal fees when the decision is challenged? It certainly will be challenged. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned advice from Edinburgh university. He will know that there is advice from many distinguished lawyers from Scotland and elsewhere that the European convention on human rights will leave the Government wide open to challenge. Quite apart from the wider issue of equity, they should not waste the education budget in this way.
  The one interesting point that the Secretary of State made was that, in all cases, this House must prevail. That is the true arrogance of power. No revising Chamber in

  151
  any circumstance will be listened to by this Government, not even when, as in this case, it is supported by students, vice-chancellors, the Scottish universities, legal experts and every Opposition party. Not one Labour Back Bencher who is keenly involved in this issue has made any plausible case in favour of the policy. Where are the former presidents of the NUS when students need them?
  The Secretary of State has tonight started the long retreat, but his offer of a review is completely inadequate. Why does he not offer Labour Members a free vote on this issue? That would be a proper concession. If he does not, we shall know that it is only the payroll vote, the ambitious-for-a-job vote and the Whips' lackeys' vote that are pushing through this absurd policy. We have won the intellectual argument and we have won the moral argument. I urge hon. Members on all sides to go into the Lobby against this miserable policy and save the Government from themselves.
  Mr. Wilson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) with his intellectual argument because he obviously has difficulty distinguishing between £16,000 and £23,000. I shall help him because I know that he is anxious to secure the intellectual basis of his argument. One figure is net and the other is gross. I appreciate that those are difficult concepts.
  Mr. Green: The Minister rightly says that £23,000 is the gross figure, and in doing so he is admitting that families with a gross income above that figure are the fat cats at whom he has sneered throughout the debate. Many families in Britain will find that interesting.
  Mr. Wilson: I am sorry, but I shall have to help the hon. Gentleman again, because he intervened too quickly. I was about to point out that anyone with that minimum financial level for contributions would contribute not £1,000, as the hon. Gentleman implies, but £50. If even in all the dishonesty and bogus—I use the word advisedly—indignation of this debate, Opposition Members are suggesting that any student from the rest of the United Kingdom who has decided to follow a four-year course in Scotland would be deterred from doing so by the prospect of paying £50 over four years, the synthetic nature of their indignation becomes even more apparent.
  I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Ashford welcoming, and singing a paean of praise to, the advertisement by the National Union of Students in The Guardian tomorrow. He will of course be aware that, under Tory higher education legislation, that advertisement would not have appeared because it would have been illegal. Perhaps the House can unite tonight at least in celebrating the freedom of speech granted by the Government against the will of the Tories.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: While the Minister is on the issue of the law, would he be good enough to answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? It is the Government's policy that, in the next Session of Parliament, after the Human Rights Bill has been enacted, the Minister responsible for a Bill will make declarations as to its compatibility with the European convention on
  152
  human rights. Has the Minister or the Secretary of State taken advice on that? In the Minister's opinion, is the proposal compatible with the convention?
  Mr. Wilson: One of the endearing features of our mutual friend, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), is that he asks the same questions at each succeeding debate, even though he was given the answer at the previous one. The answer at the previous debate is the same as the answer at this debate: yes, of course the Government have taken advice, and the very firm advice is that what takes place within the jurisdiction is not a matter for the European courts, which are intent on achieving equity between member states. I find it extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats, of all people, and other pro-Europeans who preach the doctrine of subsidiarity and devolution, have such difficulty when it comes to practising subsidiarity and devolution.
  One of the remarkable statements tonight came from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who gave a constituency example, the hon. Gentleman leaped to his feet and said, "But there are two different systems in Scotland and in England." That was a belated flash of enlightenment. This whole issue is about matching within one state two distinct systems—the Scottish and English education systems.
  Tory Members are all, by definition, from English constituencies. There are none from Scotland or Wales.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: That is outrageous.
  12 midnight
  Mr. Wilson: It might be outrageous, but it is true. If it is outrageous—
  Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that the usual channels have asked three colleagues to sit down to give that hon. Gentleman time to slander us?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  Mr. Wilson: If the hon. Gentleman will tell me later how I slandered him, I shall try to develop the theme.
  All the Tory Members who have spoken represent English constituents, yet none them has spoken up for his or her own constituents. I hope that their constituents have noted that. The irony is that, a fortnight ago, Tory Members were here speaking and voting in support of a diametrically different Lords' amendment, which would have given that concession not only to students from England attending Scottish universities, but to students from England doing four-year degree courses at all universities within the United Kingdom.
  The plot has now changed completely. The Tories now say that English students attending English universities do not matter at all; the only ones who matter are those attending Scottish universities. We know that, on average, all the Tory Members who have spoken have 10 times

  153
  more constituents attending English universities on four-year degree courses than Scottish universities, so why do not they speak for their constituents?
  Mr. Dalyell rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Wilson: I shall give way to my hon. Friend in due course, not when Tory Members tell me to give way to him.
  Thus, we have a remarkable discovery from the hon. Member for Havant that there are two different systems.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Wilson: We then had an equally remarkable statement from—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would help considerably if the Minister would say whether he intends to give way when people seek to intervene.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister to mislead the House by confusing Master of Arts four-year degrees in England with Bachelor of Arts four-year degrees in Scotland?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That, I think, is a matter for debate.
  Mr. Wilson: I do not think it was much a point of order as a point of ignorance.
  The second notable statement tonight was made by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh). He gave us a real, live spending commitment on behalf of the Scottish National party. Those of us who follow the Scottish press know that, within the past week, it has been revealed that every previous spending commitment by the SNP has been wiped from its internet site, because it has realised that someone might start adding them up. Now a new internet site is being opened, and the hon. Member for Angus has made the first spending commitment.
  Does the hon. Member for Angus, or any Opposition Member, know how much of the Scottish block goes towards subsidising, supporting, the presence of students from other parts of the United Kingdom at Scottish universities—something to which I have no objection? Does the hon. Gentleman know how much it is? Let me tell him. I assume that he has no idea that the net figure from the Scottish Office block spent on supporting students in the rest of the United Kingdom at Scottish universities is £65 million. That is not enough for the hon. Gentleman, so tonight the first spending commitment by the SNP is to commit it to spending, not £65 million, but £67 million, on supporting students from the rest of the UK at Scottish universities.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Wilson: In due course.
  154
  The third remarkable statement tonight was made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Falkirk, West.
  Mr. Wilson: I thought that I would never hear my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) say, to support his argument, that "only 32 per cent." of students coming from England and the rest of the UK to Scotland come from independent schools. I believe that 32 per cent. is quite a high percentage. I would not mind—I say this to my hon. Friend in good spirit—if that figure, in my view a remarkable one, were a little lower. If there were a few more students from Bannockburn high school or St. Modan's academy, I would not regard that as the end of the world. However, that is a matter of judgment for my hon. Friend.
  Perhaps most remarkable—
  Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Wilson: No.
  Perhaps most remarkable of all, we heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), pray in aid Lord Shore of Stepney in support of his argument—Lord Shore of Stepney, who finds a passing anti-European bandwagon, jumps aboard it and then finds, extraordinarily, that his views are being quoted with approval by the hon. Member for Bath.
  Mr. Dalyell: Lord Shore of Stepney was my good colleague for more than 30 years.
  Returning to the constructive suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, may I ask what is the time scale for the review, and what are the terms of reference? If there is a test case, as undoubtedly there will be, might we wait until we have the result of the test case in law before any action is taken?
  Mr. Wilson: I need hardly say that we intended answering, because my hon. Friend had already asked those questions, so of course I intended answering him. Let me turn to the subject of the proposed review. Let us be clear about this: the Government have always said that they would monitor the effects of the changes that are proposed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Hang on. We are very pleased—from a position of strength and from confidence in our views, we are very pleased—
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Behind you.
  Mr. Wilson: We are very pleased—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard. There are far too many interventions, particularly from a sedentary position.
  Mr. Wilson: Everyone knows the source of the Opposition's behaviour. I suppose that is all they have to console them.
  The review will be formal and independently chaired. It will take place in the early part of next year, in time for the following academic year, so that the arguments that

  155
  have been adduced on both sides of the House and in the other place over several weeks can be assessed and their impact on applications considered.
  If we are wrong, we shall accept that. We do not believe that we are wrong, and I do not sense one iota of such humility on the part of the Opposition. We believe that we are right, but, if matters are in doubt, we have a committee. The Scottish university principals, with whom I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow is closely connected, will be represented on it, as will the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. It will have independent chairmanship at its head.
  If the findings were that what we were doing had any of the effects claimed by the Opposition—something that we refute—we shall learn from that and act on it. That is an act of generosity and magnanimity on the Government's part, which I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow will support.
  On the question of legal challenge, it depends on the nature of such a challenge and the stage at which it was made. As I have repeatedly told my hon. Friend, the advice that we have received is that that challenge would not be successful.
  Mr. Wallace: When the Minister answered my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), he said that the legal advice that he had received was that the European rules did not apply to an internal arrangement within a member state, and that he was satisfied that the European Court of Justice would accept that.
  However, as the Minister well knows, the purpose of the Human Rights Bill, which is before the House, is to incorporate the European convention on human rights into domestic law. Therefore, those matters will be justiciable in the British courts. What legal advice has he received with regard to any possible challenge under the European convention on human rights that would be heard before a British court?
  Mr. Wilson: The advice is the same. There is no breach of human rights. I understand why Opposition Members and some in the House of Lords have tried to elevate the matter and make it something that it is not. A practical problem arises from the fact that, in the United Kingdom, there are two different educational systems with different school qualifications and honours degree courses of different lengths. That is what Lord Dearing's committee recommended and Sir Ron Garrick acknowledged. The recommendation was that we should take exactly the steps that we have taken. To try to leap from that to breaches of human rights is ridiculous. On that basis—
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have a genuine dilemma. Advice to Ministers is usually kept confidential. The advice of Law Officers to Ministers that what they are doing does not contradict the European convention is not advice that the House can normally obtain. In the present circumstances, the Government intend to incorporate the European law. Although the Minister said that it would be a purely domestic matter, it is accepted on both sides of the House and by Ministers that European students from outside the
  156
  UK would be treated differently from many students in this country. [Interruption.] If I may continue my point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is simply seeking to extend the debate. The point that he is raising is entirely a matter for debate.
  Mr. Bottomley rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with that point of order.
  Mr. Bottomley: My point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have dealt with that point of order.
  Mr. Bottomley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, my point of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with it.
  Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman can, as ever, be safely ignored.
  We have done exactly what Dearing asked us to do. There is a practical problem, which we have addressed. We are offering an independent review of how we addressed it. We can do no more, we should do no more and, on that basis, I ask the House to support us.
  Mr. Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, I am a relatively new Member of the House. The record will show that the Minister used the words "ignorant" and "dishonest" during his tirade. Could you advise me on whether those words are parliamentary? If not, should he withdraw them?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I am aware, neither was applied to individual Members of this House.
  I shall now put the Question.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 168.

  Division No. 335]

  [12.14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Borrow, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Allen, Graham

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Banks, Tony

  Browne, Desmond

  Barron, Kevin

  Burden, Richard

  Battle, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Caborn, Richard

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Benton, Joe

  Cann, Jamie

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Caplin, Ivor

  Best, Harold

  Casale, Roger

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Caton, Martin

  157

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hain, Peter

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Coleman, Iain

  Hill, Keith

  Colman, Tony

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cousins, Jim

  Hope, Phil

  Cox, Tom

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Crausby, David

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan

  Darvill, Keith

  Hutton, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jamieson, David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Doran, Frank

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Drew, David

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Edwards, Huw

  Kidney, David

  Efford, Clive

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Etherington, Bill

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  Laxton, Bob

  Flynn, Paul

  Lepper, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foulkes, George

  Lock, David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Love, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCabe, Steve

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gerrard, Neil

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Macdonald, Calum

  Godsiff, Roger

  McFall, John

  Goggins, Paul

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McLeish, Henry

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McWilliam, John

  Grogan, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Mandelson, Peter

  158

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sawford, Phil

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Singh, Marsha

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Michael, Alun

  Milburn, Alan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Snape, Peter

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Spellar, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mudie, George

  Stevenson, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stott, Roger

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Olner, Bill

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pendry, Tom

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Tipping, Paddy

  Plaskitt, James

  Touhig, Don

  Pond, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Pope, Greg

  Truswell, Paul

  Pound, Stephen

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Vaz, Keith

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Radice, Giles

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rammell, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rapson, Syd

  Watts, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  White, Brian

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rogers, Allan

  Wilson, Brian

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Woolas, Phil

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Rowlands, Ted

  Wray, James

  Ruane, Chris

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Salter, Martin

  Janet Anderson and

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Amess, David

  Boswell, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Baker, Norman

  Brady, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Brake, Tom

  Ballard, Jackie

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Brazier, Julian

  Bercow, John

  Breed, Colin

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  159

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burnett, John

  Livsey, Richard

  Burstow, Paul

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Butterfill, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Loughton, Tim

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Chidgey, David

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chope, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Madel, Sir David

  Collins, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cotter, Brian

  Maples, John

  Cran, James

  Mates, Michael

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Moore, Michael

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Day, Stephen

  Moss, Malcolm

  Duncan, Alan

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Oaten, Mark

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Öpik, Lembit

  Evans, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Paice, James

  Faber, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Fallon, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Prior, David

  Flight, Howard

  Randall, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Rendel, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Robathan, Andrew

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gibb, Nick

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gill, Christopher

  Ruffley, David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Salmond, Alex

  Gorrie, Donald

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gray, James

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Green, Damian

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Greenway, John

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

  Grieve, Dominic

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hammond, Philip

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hancock, Mike

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Harvey, Nick

  Steen, Anthony

  Hawkins, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Hayes, John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Swinney, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Syms, Robert

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Tredinnick, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Trend, Michael

  Tyler, Paul

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Wallace, James

  Keetch, Paul

  Walter, Robert

  Wardle, Charles

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Key, Robert

  Webb, Steve

  King, Rt Hon Tom Bridgwater)

  Wells, Bowen

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Welsh, Andrew

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Whittingdale, John

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Wilkinson, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Willetts, David

  Lansley, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Leigh, Edward

  Wilshire, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  160

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Woodward, Shaun

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. John M. Taylor and

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Mr. Edward Davey.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House disagrees to the Amendment proposed by the Lords in lieu of the words left out of the Bill in page 22, lines 31 to 39.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the amendment proposed by the Lords in lieu of the words left out of the Bill in page 22, lines 31 to 39: Mr. Damian Green, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Tony McNulty, Mr. Phil Willis and Mr. Brian Wilson; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

EC PRELIMINARY DRAFT BUDGET FOR 1999
That this House takes note of European Community Document Nos. COM(98)300, the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1999, and SEC(98)800, the Commission's Overview of the Preliminary Draft Budget; and supports the Government's efforts to maintain budget discipline in the Community.—[Mr. Pope.]
Question agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

INCOME TAX
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Oman) Order 1998 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 2nd June.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the draft Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport) (Hong Kong) Order 1998 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 2nd June.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kazakhstan) Order 1998 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 2nd June.—[Mr. Pope.]
Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Badgers
  12.27 am
  Mr. Roger Gale: I have the honour to present a petition co-ordinated by the National Federation of Badger Groups, representing 50,000 citizens of the United Kingdom. The petition reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the Citizens of the United Kingdom sheweth;—

  1) That the use of snares to trap animals is indiscriminate.

  2) That the use of snares causes great suffering and stress to all animals.

  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House will take all such measures as lie within your power

  1) To abolish all snares.

  2) To protect all animals from inhumane forms of trapping. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

  The use of snares is vile, inhumane and indiscriminate, and the petition has my full support.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Back Pain
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pope.]
  12.29 am
  Mrs. Eileen Gordon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to discuss back pain, an issue that affects many people's lives.
  I am lucky in that, to date, I have not suffered back pain. However, since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have gained empathy for people who do. I had not realised before my election that Members of Parliament are like nomads: they seem to spend a lot of time moving from place to place, carrying in bags what feels like everything they own. As I travel from my Westminster office, to my constituency office, to the House of Commons Library, loaded down with paperwork, I am conscious that my neck and shoulders ache at the end of the day. Indeed, shoulder and neck problems are among the commonest problems presented to the occupational health unit in the Palace of Westminster.
  Why is it that receptions that we have to attend seem to entail standing around for a couple of hours when every bone in our body tells us that we want to sit down? Then there are late-night sittings, when I try to rest between votes in armchairs that are totally unsuitable. Such sittings may be part of democracy—although not for much longer, I hope—but they are not much good for the back, so, although I have been lucky so far to have avoided back pain, I am not sure that it will not catch up with me later. Therefore, I come to this debate not as an expert, but just as someone who would like to share a few ideas and observations.
  When I was elected last year, one of the first events to which I was invited was a back pain awareness day organised by Peter Moore of the Havering branch of the National Back Pain Association. It was at that awareness day that I became aware of the scale of the problem, and of how many people are affected by back pain. The association issued "back facts", which show that there were some 117.56 million days of certified incapacity in 1995–96, 30,715 work-related back injuries, 33,000 work-related accidents and 500,000 work-related illnesses. The cost to industry is at least £5.1 billion, and to the national health service £480 million. The occupations with the highest incidence are, as hon. Members might expect, nursing, agriculture and construction.
  The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, designed to protect adults in the workplace, assume that loads of up to 20 kg that are held against the body will not be carried more than 10 m without rest. I want to talk about a group of people who are not covered by any regulations: our children.
  There has been a worrying increase in the incidence of back pain among young people. From studies, it looks as if many of the causes can be prevented. One such cause is the carrying of heavy school bags. When I was at school, which admittedly was a long time ago, children had their own desks where they could leave books and equipment. That is no longer the case in the vast majority of secondary schools. Children now seem to carry their whole lives around with them.

  163
  I remember my two teenage children staggering out of the house with bags that I could not even lift, plus, in my daughter's case, a cello. I felt sorry for them, but now I know that they could have been doing real damage to their still growing, immature spines.
  Some children carry around 13 per cent. of their body weight. In some cases, children carry 60 per cent. of their body weight—sometimes it is as much as 25 kg, or around three stone. The highest risk group are 11 to 12-year-olds carrying up to 25 per cent. of body weight. Forty-four per cent. of children carry those heavy weights for up to the 25 minutes that it takes them to walk to school, as well as carrying them around school.
  Children carry not only heavy weights but uneven weights. They tend to carry their bags on one shoulder, rather than distributing the weight more evenly by using both straps on a rucksack-type bag. Fashion has a lot to do with that—although some schools do not permit bags to be placed on both shoulders, as swinging a rucksack on to one's back could be hazardous. However, it is an even greater health hazard to carry an unbalanced weight. Schools must be made to realise that fact and the importance of wearing bags properly.
  Lockers in schools would help, as children would then at least not have to carry their bags around all day. However, only 40 per cent. of secondary schools have a locker available for each child in the school. I am proud to say that the school in which I serve as a governor—Marshall's park school, in Romford—provides a locker for each child, and, just as important, encourages students to use them. Schools that do not offer such a facility should seriously consider doing so.
  Perhaps parent-teacher associations could take locker provision on as a project. However, I think that lockers may be one matter on which the Government should consider regulating. Locker provision for new schools could be incorporated at the planning stage, by ensuring that corridors are built sufficiently wide to accommodate lockers.
  Young people think themselves immortal, and really do not think about what will happen in 20 or 30 years—and why should they? It is up to us as adults to build a framework that will prevent injury to our young people, either now or in the future. I believe that the Government should be considering regulations to protect our children that are similar to those protecting adults. Health and safety regulations, quite rightly, are very strict in trying to protect people at work. Our young people deserve no less than to have regulations determining maximum weights that should be carried. Some countries already do so.
  The National Back Pain Association recommends that the ideal bag weight objective is 10 per cent. of body weight. The association is also conducting trials on a specially designed bag. The challenge will be to make such a bag desirable to young people. I hope that head teachers and education authorities will support such initiatives to lighten the load of our students.
  Let us make no mistake about it: back pain can dominate and debilitate people, making their lives a misery. Chronic or severe pain can lead to severe depression and an inability to lead a normal life.
  164
  Back pain treatments were mediaeval—in which people had to lie on a board for weeks on end and rely on pain killers. My husband had to undergo such treatment, after his back seized up as he was running for a train. Although his pain was obvious, he was given no real advice on how to deal with it, or on rehabilitation. Thank goodness the old treatments are now discredited. For most back pain similar to that which my husband suffered, two days in bed is considered better than seven days—or even weeks—in bed. Longer spells in bed will cause back muscles to stiffen and lose strength.
  It is now recognised that self-care techniques, such as pacing—by performing tasks in a measured and controlled fashion, without overdoing or straining—stretching and relaxation, can greatly help with back problems.
  There are very positive developments in treating back pain. One excellent example is the input pain management programme at St. Thomas's hospital. After careful assessment, sufferers are equipped with techniques that help them to live with their condition, build up stamina and improve mobility. Many people disabled with back pain have been able with the programme's help to return to work. One person who was helped by the scheme said:
  "Before, I was lucky to be able to walk for 10 minutes without pain. I have just completed my first one-hour walk and felt that I could have gone on longer."
  I have mentioned St. Thomas's programme specifically not only because it was drawn to my attention but because I have read the excellent advice that it provides to its general practitioners. Moreover, it is only across the river from this place. I am sure that there are many other examples of pain management units, but I understand, however, that provision is patchy throughout the country. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at any similar schemes around the country, and to spread best practice so that equality of treatment is available.
  The British Medical Association in its "Home Healthcare Guide", issued to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the national health service, gives positive advice on back and neck pain, emphasising relaxation exercises and the need to exercise to strengthen stomach, neck and side muscles.
  Awareness, support and information are important. The Havering branch of the National Back Pain Association has hundreds of members. For those who miss the meetings, a video is available. For those depressed by chronic pain, there is a listening ear service, and for those who want more information there is a library and a newsletter. It is even on the internet.
  In the past, too many people with chronic pain felt isolated. Support groups take away that feeling. Nothing is worse than feeling that one is the only person with a particular problem. Again, I thank Peter Moore for his excellent work, and for staying here tonight and listening to the debate. He has been there himself and still suffers chronic back pain, but he has learnt to manage his pain, and he now works tirelessly to help others overcome their problems. Pain management, with rehabilitation and support, is the ideal combination for dealing with the problem.
  As I said, back pain is costing people a great deal in pain and loss of quality of life. It is also costing the country billions of pounds in lost production and health care.

  165
  There are ways in which back pain can be prevented, especially for young people, for whom serious problems that may not be evident for many years are starting now. I encourage my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the whole area of prevention, in partnership with the Department for Education and Employment. To help those suffering with back pain, my hon. Friend should encourage hospitals to set up pain management and rehabilitation units, and spread best practice.
  We are not talking about a few people here. Some 60 per cent. of adults suffer back problems annually, and 30 per cent. of adults become chronic sufferers. National Back Pain Week begins on 5 October, so it is appropriate that we have managed to debate the matter before the summer recess. The National Back Pain Association will be holding many activities, and the specially designed school bags will be available. Hopefully, all right hon. and hon. Members will take part in local awareness activities during the week, especially with local secondary schools.
  We all lead much more sedentary lives now. We tend to sit in front of the computer or television for long periods. Badly designed furniture increases the risk of back pain. That is true in schools, too. The need to keep up with technology leads to the ever-present demands to buy computers and software, but all too often children are sitting on badly designed chairs and working on unsuitable desks, not designed for computer work. Evolution has adapted us for many things, but it has not kept up with our soft lives—moving from soft beds to cars to desks and back again.
  I have highlighted only a few issues tonight, but I should be glad to provide any further information I can to my hon. Friend, whom I thank for listening so intently to me at such a late hour. Back pain is a big issue, and one that I am sure the Government take seriously.
  12.43 am
  The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) on introducing tonight's debate, and on the extremely eloquent and informed way in which she addressed the issue. She highlighted the problem of children and young people with back pain. I appreciate, as do other hon. Members, how debilitating back pain can be, and the effect that it can have not only on the general health of sufferers, but on their social, economic and psychological well-being as well as that of their families.
  As my hon. Friend said, back pain can be costly to employers and, if it is not properly treated, to the national health service. There are, however, fairly strict regulations for adult workers. It is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive to formulate guidance and to oversee the implementation of European and United Kingdom regulations.
  We do not think it necessary to legislate for how people should go about their everyday tasks or how schoolchildren should carry their books or other possessions. However, I take the point, which my hon. Friend made so forcefully, that we need to take account of the damage that many young people may be inflicting on themselves. Certainly we should do well to remember that the child with back pain today may be the adult with a chronic disability tomorrow.
  Nearly a third of the population will suffer some back pain at some time in the year; possibly half that number will consult their general practitioners about it. For a
  166
  small proportion—about 3 to 5 per cent. —of people, back pain will be a chronic condition, which will, in many cases, prevent them from working and require them to rely on disability benefits or to claim compensation through their employers or insurance companies, with all the difficulties that that involves.
  Back pain in adults can be serious, although it is generally short-lived. There are clinical guidelines on treatment and programmes of rehabilitation. Moreover, there are a number of research projects and, thanks to organisations such as the National Back Pain Association, to which my hon. Friend paid tribute, there are good sources of advice and information, including information on self-help, as she made clear.
  Back pain in children brings with it different considerations, such as the effect it can have on educational development and the carry-over of problems into adulthood. The Department of Health has noted reports of an increasing number of children being referred for treatment of back pain. Although the design and weight of school bags may play a part in that, other factors—such as physical fitness, good posture and healthy life styles—are also important.
  The reported increase in back pain is a matter of considerable concern for both the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment. For children to realise their full educational potential, they must be both physically fit and mentally receptive, as both Departments fully recognise—we have been working together on a number of initiatives aimed at achieving precisely that objective in schools.
  The Department for Education and Employment's White Paper "Excellence in schools" identified the importance of a good education for all children, especially those who were likely already to be disadvantaged because of their social background. The Government's consultation paper "Our Healthier Nation" has continued that theme, stressing the importance of the link between educational achievement and some of the social problems that teenagers, in particular, may face.
  When the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), and I launched the initiative on healthy schools in May, we were both aware of the need to promote better recognition of the link between health and education and to encourage schools to lay down foundations on which children could go on to lead healthy, active and productive adult lives. The problem of back pain is only one aspect of that, although it is important and of growing significance.
  I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concerns about the problems that pupils may experience in carrying heavy bags and the possible effects in later life. The National Back Pain Association has focused on the problem of heavy school bags and will, I understand, promote the sale of a specially designed school bag later this year.
  We are pleased to welcome that practical development, but we should remember that some children's decisions are defined by fashion and culture rather than any thought for their future health. Many children regard the odd twinge as a price worth paying to seem to their friends to be at the leading edge of fashion. There are clear parallels with parental battles over sensible footwear—not something to which a fashion-conscious 13-year-old will give a great deal of thought.

  167
  There may be a number of other possible solutions, such as having lockers, desks, or at least safe places available for children to store their books in school; or limiting children's need to move to different classrooms during the day. Those are matters for the school authorities, which must also take into account other factors, such as security and practicability. It is also for the school to plan its timetable and decide where and when lessons take place.
  It is important not to look at the problem of heavy school bags in isolation. The general health of children and young people will affect their susceptibility to back pain and other disorders, as will posture and life style.
  Although we need to recognise the prevalence of, and to do something about, low back pain in both adults and children, we also need to put it in the wider context of public health. Exercise and physical activity are acknowledged to play an important part in maintaining good health and helping to prevent not only serious conditions such as coronary heart disease or stroke, but minor disabilities that can cause distress and affect a person's mental well-being.
  In children and young people, in particular, physical activity is known to have multiple health benefits. Activities such as walking or cycling can improve the growth and development of bone and muscle, control blood pressure and promote the development of a healthy body weight.
  We in the Department of Health are not simply preaching about those benefits. Indeed, preaching is likely to guarantee that the message will fall on deaf ears. We are working with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department for Education and Employment to promote safe cycling and walking to and from school. We contributed to the DETR's White Paper on integrated transport, which aims to develop active modes of transport through, for example, dedicated cycle paths and better facilities for cycle parking at schools.
  Last year, we funded through the Health Advisory Council a symposium of experts known as "Young and Active", which brought together specialists to agree new recommendations on the amount and type of physical activity that should be encouraged in order to benefit children's health. We have asked the council to produce recommendations that will help to inform future departmental strategy on physical activity and young people. I hope to be able to launch a report later this year.
  That may seem to stray from the problem of children carrying around heavy bags of books, but I hope that hon. Members will recognise the need to see that problem in the wider context of healthy life styles for children and adults. People who are active tend to be those who were
  168
  active in childhood, and children with prolonged back pain are likely to find the condition recurring when they are older. We must not forget the beneficial effect that physical activity can have on low self-esteem, particularly for children from disadvantaged groups and those with learning difficulties.
  My hon. Friend's suggestion that legislation should limit the weight of children's bags is not likely to be the most practical or the best way to tackle the problem. Guidance to schools, parents and children is simpler and far more likely to be effective. The National Back Pain Association has produced guidelines for head teachers, and those have been welcomed. I should be happy to arrange for officials to meet the NBPA and other interested parties to discuss the most helpful way forward. That should be seen in the broad context of the Government's healthy schools initiative.
  The Government fully recognise the seriousness of back pain. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group made a major advance in a 1994 report that highlighted the condition and made practical recommendations. One was that rehabilitation programmes should be set up for patients who had had back pain for more than three months. The report put particular emphasis on the need for an active rehabilitation programme provided in a multi-disciplinary setting with access to a wide range of professional skills and close links to other services and organisations. As well as medical supervision and physiotherapy, a programme might include education and training in back function, and the teaching of the type of relaxation and coping strategies referred to by my hon. Friend.
  The findings of the advisory group were welcomed by both the professions concerned and the Department of Health. The report was distributed widely within the NHS, so that health authorities and trusts could consider action to improve services for people with back pain. As part of our plans to develop the new NHS, there will be greater emphasis on treatment and rehabilitation in the community. That should mean that most people with back pain can be seen earlier and closer to home, without the need for hospital treatment.
  Back pain is a major cause of absence from work in the NHS itself. Methods of treatment must improve, but so must occupational health policies on the welfare and well-being of NHS staff. I believe that there is now more awareness of the need to give greater emphasis to promoting good back care and preventing avoidable injuries. There is a clear incentive for employers to reduce back injuries—the resultant days off work, and risks of litigation.
  I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend for raising an important issue and for discussing prevention of injuries and the health of children.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to One o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what restrictions are placed on political advisers in respect of use of their official position to further private interests or receive benefits from third parties. [49656]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Special Advisers are required under paragraph 8 of the Civil Service Code not to misuse their official position or information acquired in the course of their official duties to further their private interests or those of others. They must not receive benefits of any kind from a third party which might reasonably be seen to compromise their political judgment or integrity.

  Freedom of Information Bill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received from(a) the Secretary of State for the Home Department and (b) the Minister without Portfolio in respect of the proposed Freedom of Information Bill. [50356]

  Dr. David Clark
  Both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio have continued to contribute to the discussions in the Cabinet Sub-Committee on the Freedom of Information Bill.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what target his Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meets that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49811]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will shortly publish figures showing the volume of correspondence which he, other individual Ministers and Agency Chief Executives received from hon. Members, the targets set for reply and the percentage of replies sent within target. Figures showing the average time taken by Ministers and Agency Chief Executives to respond to letters are not collated centrally.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49813]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The e-mail address of my Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit is mcu@ccta.gov.uk.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many members of the Home Civil Service have been on leave on full pay either between appointments or pending retirement from the Civil Service for(a) more than three months, (b) more than six months, (c) more than nine months and (d) more than one year. [28898]

  Dr. David Clark
  The information requested is not held centrally and is a matter for individual Departments. The figures for my own Department, including our Agencies, for the year 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998 are as follows:

  (a) Five (including two members of staff on long-term sick leave and one on maternity leave

  (b) Zero

  (c) Three

  (d) One

  Figures for previous years are not readily available.

  The Central Office of Information (COI) is a separate Department reporting to me. There were no cases in COI matching the criteria.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Coalfields Report
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the Government's response to the Coalfields Task Force report, "Making the Difference". [50402]

  Mr. Prescott
  Today, I will be announcing the Government's initial response to the Coalfields Task Force Report at the Coalfields Conference at Ollerton Miners Welfare in North Nottinghamshire.

  I will launch a detailed programme of action for the coalfields at a second conference to be held in the Autumn.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the range of issues to be covered in the Rural White Paper; and when it will be published. [48611]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are further considering the range of issues to be covered in our confirming review of rural policy.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which organisations attended consultation meetings with Ministers held in connection with the production of the Rural England White Paper, Command 3016. [48607]

  Mr. Meacher
  A number of seminars and other meetings took place in 1995 prior to the publication of the previous administration's White Paper, "Rural England" (Command 3016). They were attended by a range of organisations representing rural interests. A full list could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Homelessness (London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional costs are incurred within London in the provision of accommodation for the statutorily homeless; and what allowance he makes for this in the funding of London local government. [49440]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 1996/97, net current expenditure by authorities in London on homelessness was £68m, which is equivalent to £9.61 per head of population. The corresponding figure for spending by authorities elsewhere in England was £51m, which is equivalent to £1.22 per head of population.

  Different levels of expenditure may reflect variations in service and performance across Local authorities, not just costs.

  The need for expenditure by local authorities on the provision of accommodation for the statutorily homeless is taken into account in the calculation of the 'other services' element of the standard spending assessments and hence in revenue support grant entitlements. The formula used to determine the amount for each local authority is given in The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998/99 (HC506).

  Refuse Disposal (London)
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional costs are incurred within London in the provision of refuse collection and disposal services; and what allowance he makes for this in funding London local government. [49439]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 1996–97, net current expenditure by authorities in London on refuse collection was £76m, which is equivalent to £10.77 per head of population. The corresponding figure for spending by authorities elsewhere in England was £429m, which is equivalent £10.21 per head of population.

  In 1996–97, net current expenditure by authorities in London on refuse disposal was £96m, which is equivalent to £13.54 per head of population. The corresponding figure for spending by authorities elsewhere in England was £451m, which is equivalent to £10.74 per head of population.

  Different levels of expenditure may reflect variations in service and performance across Local Authorities, not just costs.

  The need for expenditure by local authorities on the provision of refuse collection and disposal services is taken into account in the calculation of the 'other services' element of the standard spending assessments and hence in revenue support grant entitlements. The formula used to determine the amount for each local authority is given in The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998/99 (HC506).

  School Costs (London)
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what additional costs are incurred within London in the provision of 4
  (a) nursery, (b) primary and (c) secondary education; and what allowance he makes for this in his Department's funding of such provision. [49418]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 1996–97, net current expenditure by authorities in London on the provision of nursery, primary and secondary education, and the corresponding figures for spending by authorities elsewhere in England was as shown in the following table.

  Authorities in London

  Authorities elsewhere in England

  Nursery and primary education

  £1,362 million

  £6,680 million

  Secondary education

  £800 million

  £5,540 million

  Special education

  £250 million

  £1,090 million

  Total per pupil

  £2,879

  £2,385

  Notes:

  1. Nursery and primary education cannot be separately distinguished

  2. Expenditure on special education cannot be divided between nursery, primary and secondary education

  3. Expenditure per pupil cannot be calculated for each category, because numbers are not split. The pupil number used relates to the total number of pupils aged 5–15 in education as at January 1997.

  Different levels of expenditure may reflect variations in service and performance across Local Authorities, not just in costs.

  The need for expenditure by local authorities on nursery, primary and secondary education (including special education) is taken into account in the calculation of the corresponding elements of the standard spending assessments and hence in revenue support grant entitlements. The formula used to determine the amount for each local authority is given in The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1998/99 (HC506).

  Connex South Central
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if a timetable for public consultation has been set in relation to the request by Connex South Central to the Rail Regulator for an extension of its current franchise from seven to 15 years; and if he will make a statement on the form such consultations will take. [49519]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a matter not for the Rail Regulator, but for the Franchising Director. The franchise agreement with Connex South Central allows for an extension of the franchise term to be negotiated with the Franchising Director. I understand that he has consulted the principal rail users' representatives on the enhancements proposed by Connex South Central. He will conclude his evaluation of Connex's bid in due course.

  Regeneration
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses have been received to the discussion paper on 'Regeneration Programme—the way forward'; when the consultation period will end; what is the timetable for the implementation of proposals on regeneration policies; and if he will make a statement. [49684]
  5
  Angela Eagle
  The discussion paper 'Regeneration Programmes—the Way Forward' was issued in November 1997. We received 145 written responses to the paper by the end of March 1998. Feedback was also received from regional seminars from a wide range of organisations and individuals involved in regeneration.

  The responses revealed a broad consensus on a number of issues including:
  the continued need for a regeneration programme that addresses the multiple causes of social and economic decline;
  that, whilst retaining the benefits of competition, there should be a greater emphasis on the needs of the most deprived areas;
  the need for a more collaborative approach to be taken by local partnerships and Government Offices to ensure a shared understanding of the regeneration needs of their areas;
  that schemes should take better account of existing strategies for promoting economic development and tackling depravation.

  The responses have been fed into the Comprehensive Spending Review of Regeneration Programmes, and it is hoped to announce proposals for future regeneration policies and programmes shortly.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he expects to make an announcement on the future of the Single Regeneration Budget; and if he will make a statement; [49730]

  (2) what proposals he has for the SRB Challenge Fund; and if he will make a statement. [49729]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the Regional Development Agencies Bill, it is proposed that management of the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge Fund (SRBCF) will be transferred from Government Offices for the Regions to the RDAs in April 1999. Different arrangements will apply in London, where it is proposed in the Greater London Authority White Paper that regeneration activity will become the responsibility of the Mayor, operating through the London Development Agency. Until the Mayor is established, the Government Office for London will continue to manage the SRBCF.

  It is too early to say whether there will be a new (fifth) round of the SRBCF. Any announcement will be made in the light of the Comprehensive Spending Review, the outcome of which will be announced shortly.

  Local Investment Fund
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of the local investment fund established in 1994 has been loaned to voluntary organisations; how many projects have failed and at what cost to the fund; and what action is proposed to replenish the fund. [49682]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department helped establish the Local Investment Fund with a one-off grant; the rest of the resources came from the private sector. The Fund makes loans to voluntary organisations, which cannot raise loans from conventional sources, to support their economically viable enterprises contributing to the regeneration of deprived communities.
  6
  I understand from the Fund that, since 1994, a total of £1.2 million has been lent, or committed, to eligible bodies. All the loans made so far either have been repaid in full or are currently on target to repay on schedule, so replenishment of capital is not an issue.

  Empty Dwellings
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will extend the powers available to local authorities to deal with empty and unfit privately owned homes. [49731]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are looking at the powers available to local authorities to tackle empty and unfit property in the private sector. We are conducting a review of the housing fitness standard and, alongside this, we are looking to see whether the current fitness enforcement procedures can be made more effective. We are also reviewing the efficiency of compulsory purchase and compensation law, including an assessment of the powers available to local authorities for dealing with housing.

  Travel (Cheltenham)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what percentage of journeys to schools and further and higher education colleges in Cheltenham are made by(a) bicycle, (b) motor cycle and (c) car; [50056]

  (2) what percentage of journeys to schools and further higher education colleges in Gloucestershire by district, are made by (a) bicycle, (b) motor cycle and (c) car; [50057]

  (3) what percentage of journeys to work in Cheltenham are made by bicycle; [50054]

  (4) what percentage of journeys to work in Gloucestershire, by district, are made by bicycle. [50055]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The percentages of journeys to work in Gloucestershire, by district, including Cheltenham, in 1991 are shown in the table.

  Districts in Gloucestershire

  Percentage travelling to work by bicycle

  Cheltenham

  7

  Cotswold

  5

  Forest of Dean

  1

  Gloucester

  6

  Stroud

  3

  Tewkesbury

  7

  Source:

  1991 Census

  Data are not available for travel to school and colleges in Gloucestershire.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the replacement of leaded petrol with the special grade of unleaded petrol containing lead substitutes will require adaptations to those engines in which it is used. [50025]
  7
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Engine adaptations should not be necessary for the majority of motorists who switch from leaded to unleaded petrol containing lead substitutes. This "lead replacement petrol" will be marketed with an equivalent octane level to that of leaded petrol and will contain a lead substitute that will provide satisfactory protection against engine wear under mixed motoring conditions. Increased wear of exhaust valve seats may arise in vehicles driven predominantly with high engine speeds or high loads. Should this condition occur, engine modifications would then become necessary.

  Carlisle City Council
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to present to Parliament the Local Government Boundary Commission's proposal on the new ward arrangement for Carlisle City Council. [49733]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have now made a preliminary decision to accept the final recommendations of the Local Government Commission for the districts of Cumbria. It is intended that the new arrangements will be established in time for the 1999 elections. Electoral Arrangement Orders are not subject to parliamentary procedure.

  Railways
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from railway operating companies on the introduction of direct services from the regions to mainland Europe. [49955]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Virgin Group have made proposals to the Government and to London and Continental Railways, which are responsible for the management and operation of the Eurostar business. These proposals are being considered as part of the review of regional services which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced in his statement to the House on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367–70.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Virgin Rail's proposals to run Eurostar trains on a regional basis. [49746]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367–70, that the consortium chosen by LCR to operate Eurostar had been asked to review urgently the feasibility of regional Eurostar services, and to report to the Government before the end of the year. He has asked that proposals from the Virgin Group should be considered as part of that review.

  Shipping (Investment)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage investment in United Kingdom shipping companies; and if he will make a statement. [49947]
  8
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are committed to reversing the decline in the UK merchant fleet and increasing employment and training opportunities for UK seafarers. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister established a Shipping Working Group late last year to look at ways to revitalise the British shipping industry. A shipping policy paper will follow publication of the White Paper on Integrated Transport.

  Mobile Telephones (Drivers)
  Sir Patrick Cormack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to make it an offence for drivers to use hand-held mobile telephones in moving vehicles. [49785]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 10 July 1998]: The police have advised that the offences of
  "careless and inconsiderate driving"
  and
  "failing to have proper control of a vehicle"
  provide them with sufficient powers to prosecute, where appropriate, people driving while using a hand-held mobile phone. The publicity campaign launched on 16 March by my noble Friend the Minister for Roads aims to educate drivers about the dangers of using phones while on the move.

  Number Plates
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations the Government have had with companies involved with the manufacture and distribution of vehicle number plates about the proposed change in format; and if he will make a statement. [49959]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 10 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) on 7 July 1998, Official Report, column 470.

  Local Authority Planning
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 June 1998,Official Report, column 330, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposals recently issued by the London and South East Regional Planning Conference on housing need in the region; and what steps he plans in response to the Conference's statement that insufficient housing provision will be made for single people on low incomes. [50244]

  Mr. Caborn
  The London and South East Regional Planning Conference (SERPLAN) is consulting on the draft strategy for the SE which assumes that a proportion of the new single households expected up to 2016 will not need separate accommodation. SERPLAN will need to consider the responses made to it during the consultation before preparing draft revised regional planning guidance. Draft guidance will be subject to a public examination in Spring next year before being issued by the Secretary of State. It is important that SERPLAN fully justifies the assumption it has made on single households, and that it makes clear the consequences of not fully providing for the housing needs of the projected number of households in the region.

  Integrated Transport Policy
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the disability organisations whom he consulted in drawing up his forthcoming integrated transport policy. [50002]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 10 July 1998]: Between August and November 1997, we carried out an extensive consultation as part of the fundamental review of transport policy. Over 25,000 copies of the consultation document were issued and over 7,000 organisations including the Disabled Persons Advisory Committee and members of the public responded in writing, a number of whom were disabled people or representatives of disability groups. In addition, Ministers attended a number of seminars to discuss a wide range of transport issues, including those of particular interest to disabled people, and we have held several meetings with disability organisations. The discussions and the written representations we received have played an important role in informing the development of our integrated transport policy.

  Vehicle Fuel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the average cost of converting(a) a bus and (b) a HGV to run on (i) compressed natural gas and (ii) liquidefied petroleum gas. [50331]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The cost of converting these vehicles to run on compressed natural gas is approximately £12,500 for small to medium lorries and buses rising to about £18,000 to £25,000 for the largest lorries and buses. Costs for conversion to liquefied petroleum gas, where suitable engines are available, are understood to be of a similar order.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what target his Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meets that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49814]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service Official Report, column 1.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49816]

  Angela Eagle
  My Ministerial Support Unit does not currently have an e-mail address; we hope to be able to receive electronic mail in the Department by the end of the year. I shall write to the hon. Member when the system is fully operational.

  Recycled Land
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his 10
  oral statement of 23 February 1998, Official Report, columns 21–31, what types of land he includes within his definition of recycled land. [49853]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As we explained in Planning for the Communities of the Future, which was launched by the Secretary of State on 23 February, the Government are currently setting up a National Land Use Database. This will provide a comprehensive national picture of previously developed sites including derelict land and vacant buildings, which may be available for development. We are in the final stages of drawing up the list of site types and characteristics which will be covered by that database, following which we will be commissioning local authorities to undertake the identification work.

  At the same time, we also announced that we would be issuing a discussion paper on the definitions of previously developed land and the issue of regional recycling targets. This will be available shortly.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the value of suburban and urban back gardens in the context of his target of 60 per cent. of development being concentrated on recycled land. [49855]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has not made a specific evaluation of the contribution back gardens can make to the supply of previously developed urban land for housing, although it is felt that this is likely to be small by comparison to other, previously developed sites. Developments on back gardens are included in the totals in the Department's monitoring the reuse of land; however, they cannot be separately identified.

  Eco Management and Audit Scheme
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if in developing his proposals for best value, he will ensure that the Eco Management and Audit Scheme for local government is recognised as an acceptable quality management system. [49893]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Quality Management systems, including the Eco Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS), will be important management tools in the delivery of best value. However, the extent to which they are used by local authorities will be essentially a matter for them to decide in the light of their own local circumstances and priorities.

  Where services under best value are to be provided by the private sector, local authorities may specify that contractors establish an EMAS, but in so doing they will need to comply with the EC Procurement Directives.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many local authorities have been accredited under the Eco Management and Audit Scheme; [49891]

  (2) what steps his Department is taking to promote the use of Eco Management and Audit within local government. [49892]
  11
  Angela Eagle
  At present, two local authorities are registered under the Eco Management and Audit Scheme for United Kingdom Local Government (LA-EMAS). The London Borough of Sutton has registered twenty-six separate units covering various operations, and Stratford-on-Avon District Council has registered all its departments and services apart from its Housing Service. The Housing Service will be included in Stratford-on-Avon's application for reregistration of all their services at the end of July. Hereford City Council, which was the first local authority to register all its operations, was obliged to withdraw from the scheme earlier this year when it ceased to exist as a separate authority. The new unitary council, the County of Herefordshire District Council, expect to register their Planning Services in 1999 and intend to register all their operations by the year 2003.

  My Department has produced a full range of free publicity about LA-EMAS, including guidance notes, case studies and a video. It also works closely with the Local Government Management Board to encourage local authorities to participate in the scheme, and is jointly funding a Help-Desk which provides information and runs workshops as well as monitoring the progress of authorities towards full participation. 53 councils (11 per cent. of all 472 local authorities prior to restructuring in April 1998) have committed themselves to achieving external recognition by either EMAS or ISO 14001. A further 106 councils are currently implementing an environmental management system but have not yet decided whether they will seek registration under EMAS or certification to the international standard ISO 14001.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the respondents to the consultation paper on improving local financial accountability explicitly supported its proposals to replace capping. [49890]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have received 387 responses to the consultation paper on improving local financial accountability which address capping issues, the majority of which support the end of crude and universal capping. We have received a wide range of views about what, if anything, should replace it and are still analysing these responses.

  Suburban and Urban Gardens
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the wildlife value and recreational opportunities presented by suburban and urban gardens. [49854]

  Angela Eagle
  Suburban and urban gardens have considerable local value for wildlife and such gardens cover an estimated 3 per cent. of Britain's land surface. Gardens form important wildlife habitats in urban areas and are the place where the majority of the public enjoy their day to day contact with nature.
  12
  It is difficult to determine the recreational opportunities that suburban and urban gardens provide. However, it is clear that they offer scope for a range of informal recreational activities which will vary according to the size and type of garden.

  Suburban gardens make excellent bird habitats and the number of different species they hold is often higher than that in nearby rural areas and always greater than that of the inner city. One in ten gardens has a pond and this has proved important to the common frog at a time when its population declined in many parts of the countryside. British town gardens have some of the best developed communities of plants growing on walls in Europe.

  Approximately 30,000 species of animals are found in Britain and it is believed that about 25 per cent. occur in gardens. A single garden in Leicester had 2,200 species of plant and animal recorded there between 1973 and 1986 and this is likely to be reasonably representative of many medium gardens.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy on development taking place in suburban and urban gardens. [49856]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Current planning policy on this issue is set out in detail in paragraph 26 of Planning Policy Guidance note 3 (Housing), which was issued by the last Administration. This states that:"Homes with large back gardens are a common feature in many urban, suburban and village areas. Sometimes it may be acceptable to develop back gardens for new housing which is in keeping with the character and quality of the local environment. Where development of back garden or back land is allowed, it will require careful planning. For example, there must be proper means of access, which is convenient and safe for both drivers and pedestrians, and adequate provision for car parking. There must be adequate space between old and new buildings to avoid spoiling the amenity of neighbouring houses, for example, by overshadowing. Sensitive design and good landscaping are particularly important if new buildings are to be fitted successively into small vacant sites in established residential areas. "Tandem" development, consisting of one house immediately behind another and sharing the same access, is generally unsatisfactory because of the difficulties of access to the house at the back and the disturbance and lack of privacy suffered by the house in front".

  The Government are currently revising PPG3, and will be issuing a draft for consultation later this summer.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the existing provision of secure cycle parking areas; and what steps are being taken to increase the provision of urban cycle routes. [49680]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The responsibility for on-street cycle parking rests with individual local authorities. Parking can also be provided at destinations such as schools, transport interchanges and workplaces by those responsible for the sites. Good-quality cycle parking is essential to overcome the fear of theft that is an important factor deterring more people from cycling. We have issued advice to practitioners to assist in the choice of the best locations for cycle parking in our Traffic Advisory Leaflet 7/97, "Supply and Demand for Cycle Parking".
  13
  The provision of urban cycle routes is also the responsibility of local authorities. We give advice on the design and construction of cycle facilities in our Local Transport Note publications on cycling and in our Traffic Advisory Leaflets which are issued to all local authorities.

  We are encouraging all local authorities to provide better facilities for cycling as part of our support for the National Cycling Strategy and its objective of increasing cycling fourfold by 2012.

  Vacant Housing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is undertaking to reduce the number of vacant housing units; and what plans he has to encourage the development of an empty property strategy through public-private partnerships. [49678]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The majority of empty properties are in private ownership. Our aim is to make better use of these as part of our strategy for planning for household growth in the future.

  We will continue to encourage local authorities to develop empty property strategies in their areas, in partnership with local public and private agencies. About 200 authorities have strategies in place or under development. My Department is providing funding to the Empty Homes Agency to work with authorities to bring more empty commercial property back into housing use and to assist rural authorities in drawing up successful strategies.

  We have made extra money available to local authorities for renovating and improving stock through the Capital Receipts Initiative. Capital funding is also available through the Housing Investment Programme, the Single Regeneration Budget and the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme.

  Brown-field Regeneration
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made in ensuring that Government targets for brown-field regeneration are met within the current unitary development plans. [49679]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government expect local authorities to make full and effective use of previously developed land both when allocating land for housing in their local plans and UDPs and when they decide planning applications. Authorities are making good progress towards that goal. Currently nationally over half of all new dwellings are being built on previously used sites.

  In February, the Government announced in Planning for the Communities of the Future that they expected local authorities to be able to raise the national proportion of new homes to be built on previously developed land to 60 per cent. over the next 10 years. The same document went on to announce that the Government expect regional planning conferences to draw up regional recycling
  14
  targets. This is because some regions will already be close to, or achieving, the national target, whilst others may be unable to match it because of their geographical and other circumstances.

  Fishing (Safety)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 7 July 1998,Official Report, column 461, what assessment he has made of the causes of fishing accidents resulting in the loss of life at sea in each of the last three years. [50388]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Marine Accidents Investigation Branch assesses the causes of all fishing vessel accidents where there is loss of life, as well any other, less serious, accidents. Individual investigations involve a comprehensive appraisal of all available evidence which might include the interviewing of survivors, underwater surveys of wrecks, and technical assessments of the vessels.

  Recommendations are made to those best placed to take appropriate action, and lessons to be learned are published in MAIB's Safety Digest which is distributed widely to fishing companies, skippers, fishermen's missions and associations, and the fishing press.

  The Safety Digest comprises individual reports as well as an overview statement relating to accidents in the fishing industry. Action is continuing on a number of fronts to improve the regrettably worsening fatality rate in the fishing industry and I am fully supportive of MAIB's role in this.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review his Department's policy on the non-recovery of bodies lost at sea. [50421]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The recovery of bodies is covered in the consultation paper on fishing vessel accidents and the recovery of those lost at sea. The responses to the paper will be carefully considered and the results of the consultation process announced before the end of the year. We will review our position in the light of those results.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he made of the representations he received on the proposed Code of Safe Practice for Smaller Fishing Vessels which was subsequently withdrawn. [50352]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The representations received on the proposed Code of Safe Practice For Fishing Vessels of Less than 12m Registered Length, following consultation in the summer and autumn of 1997, have been considered by the Steering Committee responsible for the development of the Code. Concerns about the complexity of the Code and the cost of compliance, together with points of details, are being taken into account in developing a revised code which will deliver a genuine improvement in safety without placing an undue financial burden on fishermen.
  15
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the proposed consultation paper on maritime safety in the fishing industry. [50389]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The consultation paper will be issued shortly.

  Roads
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what estimate he has made of the daily and hourly peak traffic flows along(a) the M42 from Junctions 7 to 11 and (b) the M6 (i) from Junctions 4 to 10 and (ii) from Junctions 10 to 16, (1) in each of the last five years and (2) at present; [50246]

  (2) what are the projected traffic flows along (a) the M42 from Junctions 7 to 11 and (b) the M6 (i) from Junctions 4 to 10 and (ii) from Junctions 10 to 16 in (1) 2000, (2) 2005, (3) 2010, (4) 2015 and (5) 2020. [50247]

  Annex 1: Annual traffic flows 1993–1997 and to May 1998

  To May 1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  1994

  1993

  Daily

  Peak

  Daily

  Peak

  Daily

  Peak

  Daily

  Peak

  Daily

  Peak

  Daily

  Peak

  M42

  J7A–8

  1—

  1—

  74

  6

  80

  6

  81

  6

  65

  8

  66

  5

  J8–9

  79

  6

  80

  6

  78

  6

  80

  6

  1—

  1—

  65

  6

  J8–10

  66

  5

  63

  5

  63

  5

  60

  5

  57

  5

  52

  4

  J10–11

  51

  4

  50

  4

  52

  4

  50

  4

  47

  4

  43

  3

  M6

  J4–4A

  98

  7

  98

  7

  94

  6

  91

  6

  87

  8

  66

  8

  J4A–5

  1—

  1—

  135

  9

  132

  9

  128

  9

  124

  9

  125

  9

  J5–6

  115

  7

  114

  7

  111

  7

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  106

  8

  J6–7

  134

  9

  131

  8

  126

  8

  120

  8

  111

  8

  116

  8

  J7A–8

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  J8E–8W (Ray Hall)

  91

  6

  99

  6

  98

  6

  97

  6

  95

  6

  97

  6

  J9–10

  144

  10

  150

  10

  147

  9

  129

  8

  139

  9

  1—

  1—

  J10–10a

  131

  9

  132

  9

  132

  9

  133

  9

  128

  9

  134

  9

  J11–12

  138

  9

  111

  8

  135

  9

  131

  9

  132

  9

  107

  7

  J12–13

  100

  7

  102

  7

  110

  7

  99

  7

  95

  6

  94

  6

  J13–14

  101

  7

  105

  7

  103

  7

  100

  7

  100

  7

  1—

  1—

  J14–15

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  97

  7

  94

  6

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  J15–18

  98

  7

  98

  7

  96

  7

  92

  6

  95

  6

  87

  6

  1No data

  Notes:

  1. All flows are two way, rounded to the nearest thousand vehicles

  2. All estimates averaged over available data for the year

  Annex 2: Traffic flows forecast from 1997

  11997

  2000

  2005

  2010

  2015

  2020

  M42

  J7A–8

  74

  81

  93

  106

  119

  132

  J8–9

  80

  88

  101

  115

  129

  143

  J9–10

  63

  69

  80

  91

  102

  113

  J10–11

  50

  55

  63

  72

  81

  89

  M6

  J4–4A

  98

  104

  113

  122

  129

  135

  J4A–5

  135

  143

  156

  168

  177

  196

  J5–6

  114

  121

  132

  142

  150

  158

  J6–7

  131

  139

  151

  163

  172

  181

  16
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated 13 July 1998:
  The Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson, has asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency to reply to your questions about past and current traffic flows and future projections for sections of the M42 and M6 motorways in the West Midlands. In his absence, I am writing on his behalf.
  The average daily and peak flows for M42 junctions 7 to 11 and M67 junctions 4 to 16 are shown on Annex 1 attached. The table shows traffic flows on individual links (ie from junction to junction). The flows for 1993 to 1997 are based on averages of the available count data over the whole year for each of the sections of motorway, whilst the 1998 estimate is an average based on available data between January and May.
  Forecasts of traffic flows over the same sections of M6 and M42 motorways are shown on the table at Annex 2. These have been produced by applying National Road Traffic Forecast (NRTF) central estimate factors (for urban or rural motorways as appropriate) to the 1997 annual estimates. They do not attempt to take into account any future changes in the road network or the effects of network constraints on the ability of the motorways to accommodate future traffic growth.
  I hope you find this information helpful.
  17

  Annex 2: Traffic flows forecast from 1997

  11997

  2000

  2005

  2010

  2015

  2020

  J8E–8W (Ray Hall)

  99

  105

  114

  123

  130

  136

  J9–10

  150

  159

  173

  188

  198

  208

  J10–10a

  132

  140

  153

  165

  174

  183

  J11–12

  111

  121

  140

  159

  179

  198

  J12–13

  102

  111

  129

  146

  164

  182

  J13–14

  105

  115

  132

  151

  169

  187

  J15–16

  98

  107

  124

  141

  158

  175

  1Two-way flow, 7 day average, 24 hours

  Notes:

  1. All flows rounded to the nearest 1,000 vehicles per annual average 24 hour day

  2. NRTF97 motorway central growth factors applied—rural/urban as appropriate

  3. Projections make no allowance for future network changes or constraints

  Airports
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the regulations of the allocation and operation of airport landing and take-off rights; and if he will make a statement. [50377]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The European Community has full competence for policy on the allocation of slots for take-offs and landings at airports. The legal framework for this is set out in EC Regulation 95/93 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports. We are still awaiting a proposal from the Commission to revise the current slots regulation. The UK intends to take an active role in responding to that proposal in the Council of Ministers.

  Retirement Homes
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what investigations he has made into the purchase of managed freehold retirement homes; if he will assess the advantages of regulating the contracts entered into by purchasers of these homes; and if he will make a statement. [50168]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have conducted no research into the purchase of managed freehold retirement homes. We are looking generally at the market for house purchases, but at present there are no plans to look at the purchase of retirement properties separately.

  Shipping
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those measures undertaken by his Department to support British shipping since 1 May 1997. [50434]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Deputy Prime Minister established a Shipping Working Group late last year to look at ways to reverse the decline in the UK merchant fleet and to increase employment and training opportunities for UK seafarers. A shipping policy paper, based on the work of the Shipping Working Group, will follow publication of the White Paper on Integrated Transport.

  My Department launched the new Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme on 1 April 1998. We have already allocated 30 per cent. more to the SMarT budget than the total grant payments under the previous training
  18
  schemes in 1997–98 and, whilst 465 new cadets were recruited last year, we have agreed funding for 643 new cadets this year on the basis of industry bids.

  Merchant Navy Day
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received calling for the establishment of an official Merchant Navy Day; and if he will make a statement. [49557]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since the election, there have been five written representations from the Merchant Navy Association, and eighty-nine from members of the Association writing in a personal capacity. Of the latter, fifty-one have been letters from MPs on behalf of their constituents.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures are taken to conduct post marketing surveillance on cases of suspected adverse reactions or pesticides incidents reported to the relevant authorities after initial investigation by those authorities in order to determine any long-term effects. [50343]

  Angela Eagle
  Investigated incidents of alleged ill-health involving pesticides are assessed by the Health and Safety Executive's Pesticides Incident Appraisal Panel (PIAP) so that new issues and trends can be identified. The independent Veterinary Products Committee's (VPC's) Appraisal Panel for Human Suspected Adverse Reactions (SARs) evaluates reports of SARs for the same purposes as PIAP. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides and VPC respectively are then informed so that any necessary action can be taken. In addition, the Government sponsor specific research projects to investigate possible health effects of pesticides and veterinary medicines, including long-term effects.

  Tesco
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what discussions (i) Ministers and (ii) officials have had, concerning the possibility of taxes or charges on car parking spaces at out-of-town shopping centres with(a) Tesco and (b) partners or employees of the firm Lawson Lucas Mendelsohn since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement; [50157]
  19
  (2) if he will list the occasions upon which ministers and officials have had contact with Tesco plc or their representatives or advisers. [50159]

  Mr. Prescott
  I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) of 10 July 1998,Official Report, column 649.

  We have carried out an extensive consultation as part of the fundamental review of transport policy. In addition, my Ministers and I have met with a large number of individuals and organisations and have attended a number of seminars to discuss a wide range of transport issues. The discussions and the written representations we received have played an important role in informing the development of our integrated transport policy.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many safety reports on Sellafield have been completed by the Health and Safety Executive over the last five years; and have been withheld from public release under the provisions of section 28 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. [47876]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), as the statutory nuclear safety regulator, produces a large number of internal documents each year which relate to safety at Sellafield. These are working documents produced as part of the dialogue between HSE and BNFL about what actions must be taken to comply with the law and to maintain or improve standards of safety. They can range from single page minutes to more substantial documents.

  Because they contain material obtained in pursuance of HSE's regulatory duties, most of these working documents are subject to the restrictions on their disclosure provided for under Section 28 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. It must be understood, however, that Section 28 also provides for exceptions to these restrictions, empowering HSE to make regulatory information public at any time if it believes that this is necessary to discharge its statutory functions to protect the health and safety of workers and the public.

  It is HSE's policy to be as open as possible about issues which arise in respect of nuclear sites. To this end, HSE site inspectors produce regular reports which are given to the Local Community Liaison Committee for each licensed site. In addition, HSE publishes reports summarising the important aspects of major decisions or investigations. HSE has published ten such reports in the last five years.

PRIME MINISTER

  Chief of the Defence Staff
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Prime Minister what meetings he had with the Chief of the Defence Staff between 25 June and 2 July; and if the meetings were at the request of the Chief of the Defence Staff. [49549]
  20
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Ministerial colleagues and I met a large number of people, both service personnel and others in the period prior to the publication of the Strategic Defence Review, the most open and inclusive review of Britain's armed forces ever undertaken and in particular, at my request, I met the Chief of the Defence Staff on 29 June.

  Rio Summit, May 1999
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister who will represent Her Majesty's Government at the Rio summit in May 1999 on Latin American, Caribbean and European countries, mutual concerns and the environment. [48629]

  The Prime Minister
  The date for the EU/Latin America/Caribbean Summit planned for Rio in 1999 has yet to be fixed. The Government will take a decision on UK representation once a date has been agreed.

  China
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise human rights issues during his forthcoming visit to China. [50424]

  The Prime Minister
  Yes.

  Lobbyists
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that details of all contacts, formal and informal, between Government ministers and lobbyists are recorded and made available for parliamentary scrutiny. [50169]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 10 July 1998,Official Report, column 600.

  European Aerospace and Defence Industry
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he has taken to co-ordinate Government activity in the restructuring of the European aerospace and defence industry. [50646]

  The Prime Minister
  I have established a new Ministerial Group (MISC5) to develop Government policy and co-ordinate related activity in this area. The Group will be chaired by the President of the Board of Trade.

  The terms of reference and membership are as follows:
  Ministerial Group on the Restructuring of the European Aerospace and Defence Industry (MISC5)

  Composition

  President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

  Secretary of State for Defence

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Paymaster General

  Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry

  Terms of Reference
  "To develop Government policy and co-ordinate related activity in promoting the restructuring of the European aerospace and defence industry."

  Constitutional Reform
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish a Royal Commission to consider reform of the House of Lords. [49749]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 6 July 1998,Official Report, column 357.

DEFENCE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49849]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit does not currently have an e-mail address; however, we plan to set one up shortly.

  Establishment and strength of Volunteer Reserve Forces on 1 April

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Royal Naval Reserve establishment

  7.5

  7.5

  4.7

  4.7

  3.5

  3.5

  3.5

  3.5

  3.5

  Royal Naval Reserve strength

  5.9

  5.9

  4.7

  4.5

  3.6

  2.8

  2.6

  2.7

  2.8

  Royal Marines Reserve establishment

  1.6

  1.6

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  1.0

  Royal Marines Reserve strength

  1.1

  1.0

  1.2

  1.1

  1.0

  0.9

  0.9

  0.9

  0.9

  Territorial Army establishment

  85.3

  86.0

  72.0

  68.0

  64.0

  59.0

  59.0

  59.0

  59.0

  Territorial Army strength

  71.5

  72.1

  70.1

  67.2

  63.6

  58.4

  55.9

  56.2

  55.6

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force establishment

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  1.8

  1.6

  1.6

  1.8

  2.3

  Royal Auxiliary Air Force strength

  1.6

  1.7

  1.7

  1.6

  1.6

  1.2

  1.0

  1.4

  1.6

  Notes:

  1. Figures are expressed in thousands to one decimal place

  2. Territorial Army figures do not include Non Regular Permanent Staff

  3. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the war appointable element of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve amalgamated on 1 April 1997

  Trainer Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 June 1998,Official Report, columns 265–66, what assessment he has made of the employment consequences for the UK of the award of the contract for the replacement of the Bulldog trainer aircraft; and what discussions he had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment concerning the costs to public funds of those consequences. [48040]

  Dr. Reid
  Assessments were made of the employment consequences for the UK for each of the bids for the Royal Air Force Light Aircraft Flying Task contract. These assessments included the consequences for employment at the University Air Squadron locations, the competing bidders and the aircraft manufacturers. Assessments were made in consultation with officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Government Office.

  Parliamentary Question
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to reply to the question from the hon. Member for Ludlow for answer on 19 June relating to the Bilderberg meeting (Ref. 46988). [50351]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I replied to the hon. Member on 10 July 1998,Official Report, column 659.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 6 July 1998,Official Report, column 355, concerning departmental vehicles, if he will supply such information as is available without incurring disproportionate cost. [49965]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member in due course and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Reserves
  Mr. Bruce George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was(a) the establishment and (b) the strength of (i) the Royal Naval Reserve, (ii) the Royal Marine Reserve, (iii) the Territorial Army and (iv) the Royal Auxiliary Air Force on 1 April in each year from 1990 to 1998. [47298]

  Dr. Reid
  The figures are given in the table.

  Departmental Holdings
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to paragraph 192 of the Strategic Defence Review, if he will include representatives of(a) the National Farmers Union, (b) the Tenant Farmers Association and (c) the Scottish Crofters Union as appropriate in respect of the management and disposal of Ministry of Defence rural holdings; and if he will make a statement. [50376]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have undertaken to consult a number of environmental and conservation bodies about our future rural estate strategy. We would be happy also to seek the views of the bodies listed and will contact them later in the year.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the need to improve access for humanitarian aid in Sudan. [50162]

  Clare Short
  The civil war in Sudan is preventing food reaching many starving people. Access to those in need is vital to the relief operation. I have had recent discussions with the Executive Directors of the World Food
  23
  Programme and United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) on this question. While the position has improved, we need to maintain pressure on the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army to ensure that enough access is provided to allow relief agencies to reach all vulnerable people. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, visited Nairobi and Khartoum on 14–16 July to help secure this access.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with(a) non-governmental organisations and (b) aid agencies in the past three weeks over the crisis in Sudan. [50164]

  Clare Short
  I met the Directors of Action Aid, Christian Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development (CAFOD), Save the Children Fund (SCF) and Oxfam on 23 June and the Executive Director of United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) on 9 July. My officials maintain frequent contact with all NGOs and agencies helping to alleviate the crisis in Sudan and regularly update me on the situation.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment her Department has made of the current need for further humanitarian aid for Sudan. [50163]

  Clare Short
  On 23 June, the World Food Programme increased its assessment of need and estimated that 10,573 tonnes of food need to be delivered each month until the end of October to stabilise the situation in the south. But, as more access becomes possible, new needs will emerge and we expect this figure to be revised.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support is being provided to(a) the Nuba Relief Rehabilitation and Development Society and (b) other agencies working in the Nuba region of Sudan to overcome food shortages; and if she will make a statement. [49693]

  Clare Short
  We have received no requests from the Nuba Relief Rehabilitation and Development Society for support. Access to parts of the Nuba region by the United Nations continues to be denied by the Government of Sudan. We, along with other Governments and the United Nations, are pressing the Sudanese Government to agree access to all areas. We provide financial support to the World Food Programme and the UNICEF Nutrition Programme in Sudan. These programmes work to overcome food shortages throughout the whole of Sudan, including those parts of the Nuba region to which they have access.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what contacts have been established with refugee Sudanese organisations based in the United Kingdom with particular reference to the Nubian International Relief and Development Council; what discussions have been held regarding the current political and economic situation in that country; and if she will make a statement. [49690]
  24
  Clare Short
  Officials have had discussions with United Kingdom-based refugee Sudanese organisations but the Nubian International Relief and Development Council has not approached the Department for International Development (DFID). I have had discussions with my Foreign and Commonwealth colleagues on the political and economic situation and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), the Minister for State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has been involved in discussions within the framework of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development SudanPartners Forum. He is in Nairobi tomorrow for discussions with the Government of Kenya and the Sudan People's Liberation Army and will be travelling on to Khartoum for talks with the Government of Sudan on 15/16 July.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support is being provided to Operation Lifeline Sudan, organised by the UN; what discussions have taken place with the Government of Sudan regarding access to the areas affected by famine; and if she will make a statement. [49692]

  Clare Short
  We have committed £24 million in support of Operation Lifeline Sudan activities since February. We have pressed the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army at all levels in Khartoum, Nairobi and London to allow full access to all vulnerable people. During our Presidency of the European Union, we led discussions on Sudan in the General Affairs Council and the Development Council which emphasised the need for all member states to make similar representations.

  Colombia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's work in assisting vocational education in Colombia. [48632]

  Clare Short
  We are currently supporting, at a cost of £771,563, the second phase of a project with the Colombian Adult Vocational Training Service (SENA) designed to enhance training programmes for farmers in post-harvest fruit and vegetable management. The aim of the project is to create income and employment opportunities for the rural poor, by facilitating an increase in the quality and marketable quantity of fruit and vegetables in the post harvest chain.

  In addition, a number of NGO projects which have helped to train Colombian community groups in marketing, business and other vocational skills have been supported through our Joint Funding Scheme.

  Know-how Fund
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the financial contribution to date of the Know-how Fund in developing a bakery training school at St. Petersburg, Russia; and how much further funding is currently planned. [49948]
  25
  Clare Short
  My Department has contributed £415,427 to date towards the development of the Leningrad Minibakeries Training Centre through a Know-how Fund project. The first phase of this project ended in May. The final cost to Department for International Development of the first phase will be approximately £480,000. A second phase of support began in June. We plan to provide approximately £100,000 of funding under this second phase, which will finish in June 1999. We have no plans for further funding beyond that date.

  Chernobyl (Children)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid her Department is giving in the current year to help children suffering the effects of the Chernobyl disaster; and if she will make a statement. [50037]

  Clare Short
  We are providing assistance for the effects of the Chernobyl disaster mainly through the multilateral agencies such as the World Health Organisation.

  In addition, in Belarus we are supporting Chernobyl charities through our Small Grants Scheme. We will fund a workshop in September 1998, through the Know-how Fund in collaboration with the charity Chernobyl Children's Life-Line, which will bring 12 people from Belarus to visit UK hospitals and social services here. Also under the Know-how Fund, and in collaboration with Chernobyl Children's Life-Line, we are preparing a project to support foster homes in Belarus.

  Schools (Computers)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support she plans to give to programmes to increase the number of computers in schools in developing countries. [49621]

  Clare Short
  As our White Paper makes clear, we are strongly committed to the key international targets of universal primary education and gender equality in

  Bilateral aid to Sri Lanka

  £000

  Technical co-operation (exc ATP)

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Financial aid (exc ATP)

  2,181

  4,848

  5,289

  1,654

  1,658

  1,260

  445

  1,163

  1,530

  896

  Generation and transfer of knowledge

  4,060

  5,498

  5,463

  4,979

  5,437

  4,645

  4,378

  4,122

  3,875

  3,367

  Grants and other aid in kind

  1,900

  1,832

  1,818

  4,274

  2,467

  1,941

  2,250

  2,058

  1,918

  2,371

  Aid and trade provision

  5,496

  7,230

  1,248

  2,845

  591

  573

  166

  67

  71

  127

  Programme aid

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Emergency aid1

  163

  350

  178

  194

  570

  282

  584

  519

  100

  —

  DFID debt relief2

  1,589

  1,589

  1,589

  1,589

  1,427

  1,174

  1,013

  764

  526

  350

  Total DFID programme

  15,389

  21,348

  15,586

  15,537

  12,149

  9,876

  8,836

  8,693

  8,020

  7,111

  CDC investments

  7,575

  4,157

  2,042

  2,042

  288

  6,740

  4,010

  2,787

  6,605

  12,526

  Other3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13

  —

  29

  1

  23

  —

  Total gross public expenditure

  22,964

  25,505

  17,628

  17,579

  12,450

  16,616

  12,875

  11,481

  14,647

  19,637

  1Emergency Aid includes disaster relief and short term refuge

  2This comprises only principal forgone under Retrospective Terms Adjustment

  3This is all drug related assistance funded by the Home Office and the FCO

  Source:

  Statistics Department Database
  26
  primary education by 2005. These targets will not be achieved unless we take advantage of appropriate technologies at all levels of education to up-grade teaching skills and enhance teaching and learning at all levels. In this respect books, journals and computer technology all have a significant part to play.

  The Department for International Development (DFID) education projects are being implemented in many of the poorer areas of developing countries which lack basic school infrastructure, such as secure buildings and electricity, to support computer technology. In such places, our priority is geared towards the attainment of basic literacy and the provision of at least minimum facilities.

  Nevertheless, we understand the increasing importance of computer technology in education. We support the Commonwealth of Learning (COL). Based in Vancouver, its purpose is to create and widen access to opportunities for learning via the application of communication technologies to education. We are funding a number of studies through COL to increase understanding of problems and practicalities of introducing new technologies and distance education in developing countries.

  A number of our bilateral education projects include the provision of computers in, for example, resource centres where they are used to deliver teacher education programmes.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will give a breakdown of aid to Sri Lanka by the Government in the last 10 years. [49683]

  Clare Short
  The breakdown of UK Government's development assistance to Sri Lanka over the last 10 years is set out in the table. Final figures for 1997/98 are not yet available. Details are contained in the annual publication of British Aid Statistics, copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the e-mail address of her Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49843]

  Clare Short
  The e-mail address is as follows:Enquiry@dfid.gtnet.gov.uk.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what target her Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meets that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49841]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to correspond electronically with(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public. [49842]

  Clare Short
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Banana Producers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what European Union funding is being provided to banana producers in ACP countries; and if she will make a statement. [49723]

  Clare Short
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport under what circumstances the public sector will be able to assume ownership of the redeveloped Wembley Stadium or claw back public investment. [49889]

  Mr. Banks
  All Lottery Sports Fund grant awards are subject to clawback provisions as a mandatory condition of award. Clawback provisions in relation to the stadium will be included within the projects formal Lottery Funding Agreement and can be invoked if this is broken.

  Television Licences
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people were prosecuted for non-payment of their television licences in South Yorkshire in the past 12 months. [49618]

  Mr. Fisher
  Prosecutions for television licence fee evasion are not recorded separately from other offences under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts of 1949 and 1967, although the great majority of offences under these Acts relate to licence fee evasion. Provisional figures for 1997, the most recent year for which information is available, show 2,544 prosecutions under the wireless Telegraphy Acts in the South Yorkshire Police Force area.
  28
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what would be the cost of introducing free television licences for all households containing a pensioner aged over(a) 70 and (b) 75 years of age. [48955]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 6 July 1998] [pursuant to his reply, 8 July 1998, c. 552]: The estimated cost of providing free television licences for all 'pensioner only' households where at least one member has reached the age of 70 is £288 million, and the estimated cost of free television licences for all 'pensioner only' households where at least one member has reached the age of 75 is £198 million.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will place in the Library copies of gender impact assessments which have been undertaken in respect of legislation introduced in this Parliament; if he will make it his policy to do so in respect of future legislation; and if he will make a statement. [47015]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My Department is committed to the mainstreaming initiative launched on 18 May which requires policy initiatives to be assessed for gender impact. We will report progress through the planned cross-Departmental Annual Report to Parliament, to be published after the end of this financial year.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Ukraine
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial assistance is being provided in support of change of use projects in the Ukraine to convert redundant missile facilities into satellite launch pads; if this funding provides for retraining local scientists to be able to undertake this work; and if he will identify the amounts of funding(a) arising from bilateral aid, (b) arising from EU aid and (c) co-ordinated by the EBRD. [44681]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There are no existing sites in Ukraine suitable for launching satellites. However, we are aware that there have been proposals that Ukrainian ballistic missile manufacturing facilities inherited from the Soviet Union, which have been doing some missile work under contract from Russia, could build launch vehicles for satellites, making use of their considerable expertise in rocket propulsion. HMG have no plans to fund any retraining of local scientists for this purpose and are not aware of EU or EBRD involvement in the venture.

  Correspondence
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the volume of correspondence sent to and received from hon. Members by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the periods(a) 1 January to 26 March 1994 and (b) 1 January to 26 March 1998. [47688]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Between 1 January to 26 March 1998, I received 1,329 letters from hon. Members. In the same period, I replied personally to 222 letters from hon. Members.
  29
  This reflects the long-standing convention that the Foreign Secretary answers letters from Cabinet (or ex-Cabinet) Ministers, Shadow Cabinet Ministers and Privy Councillors, and replies to some other hon. Members where there is special reason for doing so.

  On immigration issues, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State replies to Privy Councillors, and the FCO Correspondence Unit to other hon. Members. On consular issues, my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State replies to the majority of letters.

  The figures for 1994 are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49804]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This department handles its public e-mail via an interactive form on its Web site (www.fco.gov.uk). Messages are acknowledged electronically and then sent to the relevant internal address for appropriate reply.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what target his Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meet that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49802]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Public Service,Official Report, column 1.

  Diplomats
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the relative staffing levels of diplomatic representation abroad as between the UK and(a) France, (b) Germany and (c) Italy. [48206]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: A 1997 European Commission survey of Member States gave numbers of home-based Foreign Ministry staff serving abroad:

  Number

  UK

  2,400

  Italy

  2,816

  France

  6,000

  Germany

  3,619

  Nazi Gold
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names and addresses of those people who have had their claims honoured following the International Conference on Nazi Gold. [49522]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The aim of the London Conference on Nazi Gold (2 to 4 December 1997) was to establish a sound body of fact on gold looted by the Nazis 30
  from both occupied countries and individuals, on which governments and other bodies could base future decisions. It achieved this aim and the full Conference report will be published shortly. The Conference did not set out to establish claims procedures, or to settle individual claims.

  Cardiff Summit
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total cost of public events for the Cardiff Summit. [49645]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The only public event at the Cardiff European Council paid for by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was the reception given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for some 250 representatives of the local community, as well as exhibitors and sponsors of the "Wales, the Next Generation" exhibition, in the National Museum of Wales on 14 June. This cost £5,000 (ex VAT). The fireworks display at Cardiff Castle at the end of the dinner given by HM The Queen on 15 June could also be seen by many members of the public in Cardiff. It cost £28,085.11 (ex VAT), and was funded through sponsorship. Some other events were laid on for the public by the local authorities and other local bodies.

  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total cost to(a) the United Kingdom Government and (b) the European Union institutions of hosting the European Council in Cardiff, indicating separately the costs of the organisation of (i) the Youth Summit and (ii) other events associated with the Council meeting. [49755]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are still awaiting final invoices, but expect the cost to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of hosting the European Council in Cardiff to be about £6.6 million (ex VAT). There were also costs arising for the Home Office and the Welsh Office.

  The European Union institutions involved in the European Council met the costs of their own staff, senior officials and some office equipment. These costs are not readily available.

  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave a grant of £2,500 to the British Youth Council who were involved in the organising of the Youth Summit.

  I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer today with regard to the costs to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of other events at the European Council meeting.

  Mr. Thomas Trafford Ottowell
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the current validity of the claim by the late Mr. Thomas Trafford Ottowell, registered under the Board of Trade No. ED61544, for repayment of unlawful and arbitrary deductions by the German Government from his savings. [49521]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The British Government are not in a position to assess the current validity of this claim which appears to be more a matter for the Austrian or German authorities.

  Cuba
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the draft EU-US Understanding on Cuba of 18 May will require EU countries not to encourage investment in property nationalised from Cuban nationals who subsequently acquired US nationality. [50050]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The disciplines on investment in expropriated property agreed as part of the EU/US Understanding signed on 18 May include a denial of government support to new investment in properties expropriated in contravention of international law. Each case would have to be considered on an individual basis. There are no specific provisions concerning properties which belonged to individuals who were Cuban citizens at the time of their expropriation and who subsequently became US citizens.

  EU (Television Advertisements)
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many television advertisements have been funded by EU institutions in 1998–99 to date; what has been their nature; what has been the estimated number of viewers in each EU country; and how much they have cost. [49758]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This information is not readily available. We will make inquiries with the institutions concerned and I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to trace the assets of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under the control of Serbia and to ensure that these are returned on an equitable basis to the successor nations. [50349]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  None. It is for the five successor States to resolve questions of succession to assets and liabilities of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Negotiations continue under the auspices of the High Representatives special negotiator, Sir Arthur Watts, whose fees we cover.

  Latin American Students
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's current funded scholarships to Latin American students in British universities. [48630]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The FCO's Scholarship programme for overseas students comprises the British Chevening Scholarships (in co-operation with the Department for International Development), an annual grant to the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission for Marshall Scholarships, and a contribution to the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan. The principal objective of our scholarship programme is to win long term friends overseas for Britain. Scholarships are targeted at potential leaders, decision makers and opinion formers in about 150 countries.
  32
  In Latin America Chevening scholarships are used to promote our twin objectives in the region of the increased trade and investment and closer political ties, with an increasing emphasis on good government and human rights.

  Belarus
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the Government of Belarus regarding the treatment of diplomatic missions in Minsk. [50423]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 1 July 1998,Official Report, column 202. Since the recall for consultations to the British Ambassador in Minsk and the return to Minsk of the Belarusian Ambassador in London, the British Charge d'Affaires in Minsk, and the representatives of the missions directly affected by Belarusian action, have continued to make frequent representations to the Belarusian authorities, so far without success. In response to the continued failure of the Belarusian authorities to comply with international law, on 9 July the EU introduced visa restrictions on Belarusian Ministers, Deputy Ministers and senior officials in the Presidential Administration.

  Morocco
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Morocco about the fines imposed on Graham Hutt, Serge Dechoz, Kelly Vinikka and Antero Ylikangas, their arrest and interrogation; what discussions he has had with that Government about religious freedom in Morocco; and if he will make a statement. [50166]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have provided consular assistance to Dr. Hutt, but we have made no representations to the Moroccan authorities about his case, which is sub judice. He has appealed against his sentence and is free to leave Morocco pending the outcome. The others referred to are not British nationals. We do not have consular responsibility for them in Morocco.

  Moroccan law allows personal freedom of religion, as provided for in the Constitution. The Christian church is active in Tangier, Casablanca and Rabat, which has its own Roman Catholic cathedral. As well as the Christian community, Morocco is home to a large Jewish community.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Pakistan regarding sentences imposed as a result of its blasphemy laws. [50167]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our High Commission in Islamabad led an EU demarche to the Pakistan authorities on 14 May about the situation of religious minorities. We made clear the EU's concern about the death penalty imposed on Ayub Masih, a Christian, for blasphemy, and the negative effect such cases can have on inter-faith relations in Pakistan.
  33
  I raised the rights of religious minorities with the government of Pakistan during my visit there in June last year, as did my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in January this year.

  Human Rights Project Fund
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the projects approved for funding from the Human Rights Project Fund to date and the sums allocated in each case. [49485]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  More than 100 projects totalling over £3.5 million have been approved or approved in principle to date from the Human Rights Project Fund:

  Projects approved/approved in principle under the Human Rights Project Fund

  Post/department

  Project description

  Amount (£)

  Accra

  Building capacity of NGOs lobbying about the rights of the poor

  46,000

  Accra

  Radio programmes to raise awareness of women's rights

  40,000

  Addis Ababa

  Assistance to Ethiopian human rights conference

  46,060

  Addis Ababa

  Human rights training for regional officials

  24,300

  Addis Ababa

  Support for Ethiopian Women's Lawyers Association

  23,000

  Addis Ababa

  Provision of legal books for Federal Supreme Court

  10,000

  Addis Ababa

  Funding for gender and development officer

  5,000

  African Department (Equatorial)

  Support to UN Commission on Arms Flows to Rwanda

  50,000

  Almaty

  Media and governance workshop

  28,000

  Almaty

  Publication of booklets on human rights

  15,625

  Ankara

  Young Lawyer Exchange Scheme

  38,300

  Ankara

  Citizen's Advice Bureau pilot project

  27,400

  Beijing

  Professional ethics seminar for lawyers

  90,000

  Beijing

  Publicity about British policing methods and judicial system

  55,000

  Beijing

  Training video for legal officials

  35,000

  Beijing

  Human rights education project

  27,000

  Beijing

  Support for conference on impact of human rights conventions on national laws

  15,000

  Beijing

  Training for government legal officials

  15,000

  34

  Projects approved/approved in principle under the Human Rights Project Fund

  Post/department

  Project description

  Amount (£)

  Belgrade

  Assistance with TV documentaries on human rights

  30,057

  Bogota

  Support for rehabilitation of child prostitutes

  45,700

  Bogota

  Training of teachers about detection and prevention of child abuse

  18,500

  Brasilia

  Support to NGO working with street children

  23,000

  Brasilia

  Training for federal government human rights officials

  20,000

  Brasilia

  Support to centre for street children

  8,500

  Bridgetown

  Campaign to raise awareness about violence against women/children

  11,000

  Budapest

  Vocational training for Roma in prison

  2,900

  Cairo

  Support for women's legal aid project

  15,600

  Caracas

  Publication and distribution of report on human rights

  12,100

  Caracas

  Legal entitlement workshops for prisoners

  9,200

  Castries

  Training programme for prison officers

  13,500

  China Hong Kong Department

  Seminar on professional standards in the media

  107,639

  China Hong Kong Department

  Training course on the role of trade unions in a market economy

  57,633

  Damascus

  Human rights scholarships

  30,000

  Dar es Salaam

  Contribution to Arusha peace talks

  50,000

  Dar es Salaam

  Production and distribution of human rights booklets

  5,000

  Dominica

  Prisons and magistrates courts reform project

  14,190

  Durban

  Development of resource materials on women's rights

  7,500

  Durban

  Support for programmes for community conflict management and resolution

  7,500

  Gaborone

  Support for work on administration of justice on violence against women

  7,100

  Guatemala City

  Contribution to Truth Commission

  62,000

  Harare

  Provision of CCTV equipment to victim-friendly court

  2,300

  Human Rights Policy Department

  UNICEF/BBC World Service project on broadcasting to children in armed conflict

  100,000

  35

  Projects approved/approved in principle under the Human Rights Project Fund

  Post/department

  Project description

  Amount (£)

  Human Rights Policy Department

  Attachment of gender mainstreaming officer to OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights

  61,000

  Human Rights Policy Department

  Support for UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women

  25,000

  Human Rights Policy Department

  NGO training seminar on Framework Convention on National Minorities

  25,000

  Human Rights Policy Department

  Support for NGO working group on rights of disabled children

  15,000

  Human Rights Policy Department

  Launch of manual on protecting the rights of street Children

  5,000

  Human Rights Policy Department

  Participation in Oxford International Human Rights Course

  3,500

  Jakarta

  Assistance to National Human Rights Commission and Legal Aid Foundation

  25,000

  Jakarta

  EU human rights seminar

  22,500

  Jerusalem

  Palestinian rights programme

  348,000

  Kampala

  Support for Ugandan Human Rights Commission

  30,000

  Khartoum

  Publication and distribution of human rights material

  6,500

  Kiev

  Training seminars and publications on human rights

  60,770

  Kiev

  Support for human rights NGOs

  33,400

  Kiev

  Children's rights awareness project

  26,000

  Kigali

  Assistance to Ministry of Justice in connection with International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

  61,610

  Kingston

  Support for Jamaica Council for Human Rights

  14,500

  Kingstown

  Equipment for prison workshop

  5,500

  Kinshasa

  Support for Documentation Centre for Legal Studies at Ministry of Justice

  53,000

  Kuala Lumpur

  Participation in Oxford International Human Rights Course

  4,000

  Kuwait

  Human rights seminar

  15,000

  Latin America Department

  Participation by representative of Northern Ireland Office in Peace Conference in Bogota

  2,000

  Lima

  Contribution to Ad Hoc Pardon commission

  78,000

  36

  Projects approved/approved in principle under the Human Rights Project Fund

  Post/department

  Project description

  Amount (£)

  Lima

  Support for radio programmes on human rights

  70,000

  Mexico City

  Project to promote awareness of women's rights

  161,600

  Mexico City

  Production of TV documentary on children's rights

  10,000

  Mexico City

  Human rights of HIV/AIDS sufferers: education and awareness project

  10,000

  Moscow

  Support for Regional Human Rights Commissioners and NGOs

  25,000

  Moscow

  Support for education initiative by Presidential Commission on Human Rights

  25,000

  Moscow

  Support for regional monitoring of human rights

  25,000

  Moscow

  Youth Human Rights Film Festival

  25,000

  Moscow

  Human rights of HIV/AIDS sufferers: education and awareness project

  23,000

  Moscow

  Development of links between human rights NGOs and the mass media

  21,240

  Moscow

  Project to promote public access to information

  18,000

  Nairobi

  Medical aid to prisoners and torture victims

  50,000

  Nairobi

  Advocacy campaign to promote children's rights

  50,000

  Nairobi

  Support to International Federation of Women Lawyers (Kenya Chapter)

  20,000

  Nairobi

  Civic education workshops to promote awareness of role of MPs

  17,900

  Nairobi

  Participation in human rights seminar in Belfast

  5,000

  New Delhi

  Project to raise awareness of human rights in prison management

  85,000

  New Delhi

  Provision of books and information resources to human rights NGOs

  50,000

  New Delhi

  Training and development of counselling skills for legal NGOs

  38,000

  New Delhi

  Human rights training for civil servants

  27,500

  Phnom Penh

  Programme of support for street children

  51,160

  Phnom Penh

  Training for provincial authorities by Cambodian Institute of Human Rights

  24,540

  37

  Projects approved/approved in principle under the Human Rights Project Fund

  Post/department

  Project description

  Amount (£)

  Port Louis

  Media training

  8,000

  Port Moresby

  Establishment of NGO Liaison Office

  40,000

  Port of Spain

  Workshops to raise awareness of domestic violence

  5,000

  Prague

  Education of Roma children

  10,000

  Pretoria

  Participation in Oxford International Human Rights Course

  10,000

  Pretoria

  Strengthening links between African human rights NGOs

  10,000

  Pretoria

  Support for 2nd African Human Rights Conference

  9,000

  Pretoria

  Training for community newspaper reporters

  9,000

  Pretoria

  Media training

  6,300

  Pretoria

  All Africa Human Rights Moot Court Competition

  5,000

  Quito

  Promotion of women's participation in politics

  41,513

  Sana'a

  UK/Yemen criminal justice system initiative

  70,000

  Santiago

  Support for implementation of prison reform

  40,000

  Santiago

  Support for establishment of family and children's courts

  35,000

  South Asian Department

  Joint human rights projects with UK company

  50,000

  South East Asian Department

  UK/Philippines initiative on child welfare

  150,000

  Ulaanbataar

  Training for members of Mongolian prison service

  11,000

  Vila

  Assistance to Vanuatu Ombudsman

  7,500

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Council what target she sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meets that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to letters from hon. Members. [49880]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service,Official Report, column 1.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Council what is the e-mail address of her Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49882]
  38
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  My office's e-mail address is "ecrooks@cabinetoffice.gsi.net".

  Drug Action Teams
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the President of the Council (1) if she will make a statement about future funding to secure the continued existence of drug action teams; [50336]

  (2) if she will take into account the specific nature of drug issues in rural areas when future funding for drug action teams is determined. [50337]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  Decisions on resourcing for anti-drugs programmes will be announced in the Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper. Further details will be released in announcements at a later date.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Attorney-General what target his Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meets that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49838]

  The Attorney-General
  The target set for the maximum time in which letters are responded to is 15 working days. During the year 1997/98, the latest period for which figures are available, 88% of letters were answered within that target. The average time taken to respond to letters from an hon. Member was 13 days.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Attorney-General what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49840]

  The Attorney-General
  Although my Department does not have a separate Ministerial Correspondence Unit the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers has the following e-mail address:Islo@gtnet.gov.uk

  Counsel's Fees
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish the current year's budget for the Crown Prosecution Service together with his estimate of the amount to be spent on counsel's fees. [49213]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service's gross provision for 1998–99 totals £302,737,000. At this stage I estimate that the Department will spend £86,000,000 on counsel's fees. Expenditure on council's fees will be monitored throughout the year to refine the forecast outturn and an additional Supply provision will, if necessary, be sought.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Attorney-General what budgetary controls are exercised in the expenditure of public funds in payment of counsel's fees in work done by the Serious Fraud Office. [49216]
  39
  The Attorney-General
  In SFO cases the normal procedure is to ask 3 counsel to tender for the work. Hourly rates for preparatory work and a daily rate for court attendance are then agreed in advance. The number of hours spent in preparation is agreed with the lawyer in charge of the case and is an integral part of the SFO budgeting arrangements. It should be noted that the fee levels will not necessarily be the deciding factor but rather one of the factors in the choice of counsel.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the total budget for the Crown Prosecution Service for each of the last three years together with the amount spent on counsel's fees. [49212]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service's total provision for each of the last three years together with the amount spent on counsel's fees were as follows:

  £

  Year

  Provision

  Counsel fee expenditure

  1997–98

  320,752,000

  85,134,613

  1996–97

  320,307,000

  82,699,317

  1995–96

  315,817,000

  73,884,561

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the total budget for the Serious Fraud Office for each of the last three years and the amount of each of those budgets that was spent on counsel's fees. [49215]

  The Attorney-General
  The SFO (net of Appropriations in Aid) budget and expenditure on counsel's fees for each of the last three years are as follows:

  £

  Year

  Provision

  Counsel fees

  1995–96

  17,376,000

  3,245,642.57

  1996–97

  16,988,000

  3,091,045.09

  1997–981

  16,317,000

  22,574,842.03

  1This year's account has yet to be audited and the figure is subject to change

  2The fees paid to counsel excludes VAT which is to be recovered for the first time by the Serious Fraud Office

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Attorney-General what criteria are applied in agreeing fees with counsel's clerks. [49214]

  The Attorney-General
  Fees are determined by the Crown Prosecution Service either by reference to the rates and guidance set out in the CPS Fee Scheme, or in exceptional cases, negotiated individually. The CPS Fee Scheme is agreed annually with the Legal Aid and Fees Committee of the Bar Council.

  When agreeing fees in individual cases, the Crown Prosecution Service has regard to any unusual weight, gravity or complexity of the issues, and to the skill, standing, seniority or expertise of counsel appropriate to the case. The fee determined reflects the time actually and justifiably spent by counsel in both preparing and presenting the case for hearing, and provides fair and reasonable remuneration for the work done.
  40
  The Serious Fraud Office apply a different procedure, having regard to the complexity and weight of the work undertaken. It is described in my answer today to Question No. 49216, Official Report, column 39.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 25 June 1998,Official Report, column 564, what was the expenditure in 1996–97 on counsel's fees by (a) the Department of Trade and Industry and (b) HM Customs and Excise. [49217]

  The Attorney-General
  Having regard to the context of my hon. Friend's question, I have taken it to refer only to fees paid to prosecuting counsel. The expenditure by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1996–97 on counsel's fees for prosecution work was £824,540.10 (inclusive of VAT).

  The total fees paid by Customs and Excise to prosecution counsel in the same period was £7,141,612 (inclusive of VAT).

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Training Allowance
  Mr. Love
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on the provision of allowances for hon. Members to undertake training to assist in the fulfilment of their duties. [49688]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  There is no allowance specifically for Members' training.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Bloody Sunday Inquiry
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations she has received concerning the legal representation of witnesses at the Bloody Sunday inquiry; and if she will make a statement. [49722]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have received two letters from a representative of Madden and Finucane (Solicitors) and my officials have met a delegation from the Irish Government to listen to concerns. The level of legal representation is a matter for the Inquiry being conducted by Lord Saville and his team.

  "Partnership for Equality"
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the replies she received to the White Paper "Partnership for Equality" and what percentage of the total expressed opposition to the proposals with particular reference to the proposed establishment of a single commission dealing with all equality issues; and if she will list the groups expressing opposition. [48372]
  41
  Mr. Worthington
  Written comments on the consultative elements of the White Paper were to be sent by 12 June 1998 and by that date we had received 114 replies, as indicated in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on 17 June 1998,Official Report, column 254. A further 9 responses were subsequently received and a total of 123 were considered. Of those expressing a view on the proposed establishment of a single Commission 55 or 45 per cent. were broadly against. These were:

  Barnados

  Belfast and District Trade Union Council

  Belfast Travellers Education Development Group

  Commission on the Administration of Justice

  Chinese Welfare Association NI

  Commission for Racial Equality (NI)

  Craigavon Standing Conference of Women's Organisations

  Craigavon Travellers Support Committee

  Derry City Council

  Disability Action

  Equal Opportunities Commission (N)

  Falls Women's Centre (two responses)

  Fee Ching Leong

  Forum for Community Work Education NI

  Foyle Friend

  Greater Belfast Community Network

  Institute for Public Policy Research

  Jones and Cassidy, Solicitors

  Law Centre NI

  Mrs. K. M. I. Wilson OBE

  Multi Cultural Resource Centre

  NI Disability Council

  NI Forum of People with Disabilities

  NI Union of Supported Employment

  NI Anti-Poverty Network

  Northern Ireland Committee—Irish Congress of Trade Unions

  NI Council for Ethnic Equality

  NI Council for Ethnic Minorities

  NI Public Service Alliance

  North West Community Network

  NI Voluntary Trust

  NI Women's Coalition

  Opportunities for Women in Learning

  Payee Point Travellers Centre

  POBAL (Irish Language Group)

  Resource and Development Agency

  Roden Street Community Development Group

  Rural Community Network

  SACHR

  SDLP

  Sinn Fein

  Soroptimist International

  Soroptimist International (UK Programme Action Committee)

  Southern Travellers Early Years Partnership

  Strathfoyle Women's Activity Group

  The Rainbow

  The Women's Centre

  Training for Women Network

  Traveller Movement NI

  42

  UNISON

  Women's Forum NI

  Women into Politics

  Women's National Commission

  Women's Support Network.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the responses to the White Paper "Partnership for Equality" will be made public. [48373]

  Mr. Worthington
  The Government do not intend to publish the responses but arrangements have been made for copies of the replies, with the exception of one requesting confidentiality, to be placed in the Parliamentary Libraries.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what changes to the White Paper "Partnership for Equality" are being made as a result of responses received to the White Paper "Partnership for Equality". [48374]

  Mr. Worthington
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on 10 July 1998,Official Report, columns 665–66.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will allow interested parties to make changes to their submissions to the White Paper "Partnership for Equality" to take account of the publication of the Belfast Agreement. [48375]

  Mr. Worthington
  No. All but two of the 123 submissions on the White Paper were received after the Belfast Agreement was published and almost all respondents were therefore able to take the Agreement into account.

  Equality Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reduction in costs and manpower she estimates will occur as a result of the proposed establishment of a single Equality Commission. [48376]

  Mr. Worthington
  The proposal to establish a single Equality Commission was not based on seeking a reduction in costs and manpower. A new Commission would take on roles additional to those currently exercised by the Fair Employment Commission, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Disability Council. These new roles include responsibilities in relation to the statutory obligation on the public sector to promote equality of opportunity, changes to Fair Employment law proposed in the White Paper "Partnership for Equality" including the outlawing of discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services and functions comparable to those proposed for a Disability Rights Commission in Great Britain. No estimate of the costs and staffing of such a body has yet been made.

  Suicides
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations she has received concerning recent trends in the rate of suicide; and what measures she intends to take. [48378]
  43
  Mr. Worthington
  Representations have been received from one local councillor and from the Coroner for Greater Belfast. I am shortly to meet the Coroner to hear his assessment of recent trends in the rate of suicides, particularly in relation to young people. Additionally, a number of practical steps are being taken by the Department of Health and Social Services and by local health and social services boards and trusts to identify the possible root causes of suicides and prevent further tragic loss of life.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49837]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Unit's e-mail address is:mcu.lcd@gtnet.gov.uk.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what target he sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meets that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49835]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given him today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service Official Report, column 1.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the total cost to his Department of(a) considering and (b) processing successful applications for silk in 1998. [49267]

  Mr. Hoon
  The departmental expenditure apportionable to the procedure for considering applications for Queen's Counsel in 1998 is estimated to be £117,236. This comprises £65,975 for direct staff costs and £51,261 for indirect costs, such as a share of the costs of common services. The cost of processing successful applications (that is, the cost of granting silk to successful applicants) in 1998 was approximately £9,000, which was recovered through a fee paid by new Queen's Counsel.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what fee his Department would have needed to charge each applicant in 1998 to cover the cost of processing applications for silk. [49268]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Department would have needed to charge applicants a fee of £230 to enable the estimated departmental expenditure apportionable to the procedure for considering applicants for Queen's Counsel in 1998 to be fully recovered. The cost of granting silk to successful applicants is covered by the fee of £150 payable by new Queen's Counsel.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Oil Over-capacity
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the problems of physical storage capacity world-wide associated with the world-wide over-capacity in the production of oil. [48631]

  Mr. Battle
  Assessments of current surplus storage capacity are difficult to make due to a lack of complete information on the current levels of stocks. However, it is clear that global inventories are currently high. In their latest Monthly Oil Market Report, the International Energy Agency estimates that, for April 1998 (the latest month for which accurate data are available), total OECD industry and Government-controlled stocks of crude oil and products stood at 3,733 million barrels, 101 million barrels higher than at the same time last year.

  Football Hooligans
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received from employers on the taking of further measures against people who have been convicted of offences during the World Cup while in France, on their return to the United Kingdom. [48400]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My Department has received one letter.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has for encouraging the development of energy from waste technology. [49677]

  Mr. Battle
  To date, well over 200 schemes, with a total capacity exceeding 1,000MW, have been offered contracts under the first four rounds of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO-1 to NFFO-4) to generate power via waste-based technologies from sources including landfill gas, sewage gas, and municipal and industrial waste.

  In the short-term future, I expect to announce the fifth round of the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO-5) in the autumn. Subject to suitable bids being received, I am considering including three separate bands in the NFFO-5 Order for waste-based technologies—for landfill gas, for municipal and industrial waste, and for municipal and industrial waste using combined heat and power (CHP)— as well as separate bands for small-scale hydro and onshore wind energy.

  In the longer term, and in line with this Government's manifesto commitment to undertake a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources, I have been reviewing policy towards new and renewable energy, including considerations of what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10% of UK electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010 and how renewables can make an effective contribution to meeting requirements for future greenhouse gas reduction commitments. Further support for energy from waste technology is being considered as part of that review process. I hope to announce the outcome of that review this summer.
  45
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the EU White Paper on renewable energy. [49676]

  Mr. Battle
  We have given the White Paper careful consideration, along with our European partners. Under the UK Presidency, the Council of Ministers adopted a Resolution welcoming the White Paper and urging Member States to develop strategies to promote renewables in order to bring about a substantial increase in renewables throughout the EU.

  In line with this Government's manifesto commitment to undertake a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources, I have been reviewing policy towards new and renewable energy, including considerations of what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10% of UK electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010, and how renewables can make an effective contribution to meeting requirements for future greenhouse gas reduction commitments.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans her Department has to correspond electronically with(a) hon. Members and (b) members of the public. [49884]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The core Department has had facilities in place for some time to allow all staff to correspond electronically with any individual or organisation able to exchange E-mail via public networks such as the internet. The Department's Agencies have, or plan to have, similar facilities.

  E-mail addresses are included in the Department's letterhead and, additionally, will be published for key contacts. The Department is also connected to the Government Secure Intranet and able to correspond electronically with an increasing number of public sector organisations via that network.

  In line with the Government's target that:
  "25% of Government transactions should be capable of being handled electronically by 2002",
  we have active programmes of our own aimed at ensuring these facilities are used to best effect, and we are also involved in central initiatives to develop and extend the concept of 'Joined-Up' Government for wider business benefit.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the e-mail address of her Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49885]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My Department does not have a central Ministerial Correspondence Unit. Each Minister's Private Office handles its own correspondence. The relevant e-mail addresses are:

  beckett.tlo@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  battle.tlo@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  clinton-davis.tlo@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  griffiths.tlo@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  mccartney.tlo@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  roche.tlo@tli.dti.gov.uk

  simon.tlo@tlo.dti.gov.uk

  Joint Research Equipment Initiative
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much public money has been allocated to date to the Joint Research Equipment Initiative; how much more will be allocated; and what is the planned limit for public contributions. [49946]

  Mr. Battle
  In 1996, the first year of the Joint Research Equipment Initiative, £25 million of public money was allocated to the scheme. In 1997, this figure rose to £35 million. The amount of public money allocated to date for 1998 is £25 million.

  Future public contributions are dependent on allocations from the Science Budget and DfEE.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to announce the results of the third round of the Joint Research Equipment Initiative. [49945]

  Mr. Battle
  As stated in the JREI rules, which were available from the Higher Education funding councils' web sites until the closure of the competition on 31 May 1998, it is expected that the results of the third round will be announced by the end of January 1999.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many bids have been received for the third round of the Joint Research Equipment Initiative. [49944]

  Mr. Battle
  Applications are still being checked for eligibility, but initial indications are that some 400 applications have been received for JREI 98.

  Export Licence Applications
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of applications for export licences were processed by her Department within 20 days for the period 1 May 1997 to date. [48227]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: The Export Control Organisation (ECO) of DTI measures its performance against two aims:
  to provide a substantive response to an application within 20 working days of receipt for applications that need to be circulated to other Government Departments according to their policy requirements ('circulated' cases);
  to provide such a response within 10 working days of receipt for applications that are dealt with by DTI itself ('non-circulated' cases).

  In each case, full documentation in support of the application must be provided by the applicant at the outset for these targets to apply.

  ECO management data on the processing of licence applications are compiled on the basis of four-week periods. The accumulated data for the period beginning nearest to 1 May 1997 are for the period 3 May 1997 to 30 May 1997. The latest period for which management data are available is the period 2 May 1998 to 29 May 1998.

  To the nearest percentage point, 51 per cent. of circulated cases during the period were finalised within 20 working days.

  This information was taken from the Export Control Organisation's management data, which are compiled in order to monitor performance at processing applications

  47
  for Standard Individual Export Licences. The performance measures do not apply to applications for Open Individual Export Licences (due to the very wide variations between goods and country coverage of such licences), to licences covering Iran or Iraq or to exports which are subject to control solely because of United Nations Sanctions.

  Science and Engineering
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about the future of the science and engineering base. [50611]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As a result of the Comprehensive Spending Review I am able to announce a £1.1 billion additional investment. This will transform the Science and Engineering Base, modernise the UK's research performance, respond to the Dearing Committee's concerns about research infrastructure in universities, and help boost economic growth. It reverses the decline under the previous Government and is made possible by a path-breaking public private partnership with the Wellcome Trust. Up to 2002, the package includes:A £600 million fund for building new and refurbishing existing university laboratories, equipment and other essential infrastructural needs as identified in the Dearing Report, funded equally by my Department and the Wellcome Trust;

  Science provision settlement

  1998–99

  1999–00

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Total

  Cash baseline1 (£ million)

  1,349

  1,349

  1,349

  1,349

  —

  Additional programmes (£ million)

  —

  61

  150

  196

  407

  Infrastructure fund (£ million)

  —

  75

  100

  125

  300

  Total additions (£ million)

  —

  136

  250

  321

  707

  Total new science provision1

  1,349

  1,485

  1,599

  1,670

  —

  Percentage increase in cash terms over 1998–99 baseline

  —

  10.1

  18.5

  23.8

  —

  Percentage increase in real terms over 1998–99 baseline

  —

  7.3

  12.7

  14.8

  —

  The science budget net of these receipts is:

  Total new science budget (£ million)

  1,338

  1,474

  1,588

  1,659

  —

  1The CSR Settlement is for gross science provision which includes £11 million for EU receipts

  In addition, the Wellcome Trust are providing:

  £ million

  Contribution to infrastructure Fund

  300

  Contribution to X-ray source

  100

  Total Wellcome Trust Contribution

  400

  Total additional funding:

  £ million

  Science Budget

  707

  Wellcome Trust

  400

  Total

  1,107

  Departmental Environmental Policies
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what efforts she is making to raise awareness of environmental and sustainable issues within her Department; and if specific training will be made available to staff where appropriate. [50059]
  48£400 million for the Research Councils to meet the current and capital costs of new project funding in priority areas like life sciences;£100 million from the Wellcome Trust towards a new high intensity synchrotron X-ray machine which will help keep the UK at the forefront of research on the exploitation of the human genome;new arrangements to ensure that the Funding Councils and the Research Councils work closely together to deliver better value for money and transparency in the use of research funds.
  The UK's output of world class scientists and cutting-edge discoveries is second to none—and a guarantee of our economic prosperity and quality of life in the 21st Century. Our greatest asset is our scientists, but they need funding for their research and tools to do it with. Years of under-investment in laboratories and equipment—and in the people themselves—have jeopardised this inheritance. This major injection of funds reverses this decline that our predecessors allowed, ensuring that we have a modern and effective science base for the new millennium—particularly in the life sciences where the UK is a world leader.

  I am particularly grateful to the Wellcome Trust—the major charitable funder of scientific research in the UK—for the generous offer which has resulted in this pioneering partnership.

  Mr. Battle
  Like all my ministerial colleagues, I am clear about the important role that the Government's commitment to the objective of sustainable development must play in DTI's work. A range of actions has been taken to ensure that this is backed up throughout the Department, and more will be developed. This includes: circulation of copies of the recently published detailed advice on environmental appraisal to all directors and to staff at all levels, to be supported by staff training sessions; a series of seminars with prominent speakers from industry and NGOs to raise the level of understanding of sustainable development issues and the implications for our work; a Sustainable Development network throughout DTI and Government Offices to provide a focal point for two-way communication with the 50-strong Environment Directorate which provides a central contact point for advice and information to all staff on environmental issues; and a revised Green Housekeeping Guide which has recently been issued to all staff, as well as being made available on the Department's intranet, with the aim of both further increasing staff awareness of environmental issues and encouraging staff action that helps to ensure continuous improvement in the
  49
  Department's environmental performance. Alongside the DTI's contribution to the revision of the UK Sustainable Development Strategy, work is also underway on the development of a DTI sustainable development strategy. The DTI strategy will encompass all DTI policies and operations, including training to ensure effective implementation.

  Part-time Work Directive
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she estimates the Part-time Work Directive will take effect in the UK. [49869]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Part-time Work Directive was extended to the UK on 7 April with two years for implementation. It will therefore take effect in the UK by April 2000. We intend to consult widely on the best way to implement the Directive.

  Textiles Industry
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment her Department has made of the Commission's calculations relating to the need for EU anti-dumping tariffs on unfinished textiles; [49629]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact of the imposition of the anti-dumping tariffs on unfinished textiles on imports of grey cloth from (a) India, (b) Pakistan and (c) Germany; [49624]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the impact on employment levels in the United Kingdom textile finishing industry of the EU's imposition of anti-dumping duties on finished textiles; [49620]

  (4) what assessment she has made of the effects on the prices and output of finished textiles as a result of the EU anti-dumping tariff on unfinished textiles. [49623]

  Mrs. Roche
  The European Commission has imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of most unbleached cotton fabrics from China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey for a period of six months from 8 April 1998 because, in its judgment, such imports were being dumped and causing injury to Community weavers and the Community interest calls for intervention to prevent such injury.

  We, with a clear majority of Member States, advised strongly against this action.

  In our judgment, any injury to EU weavers has resulted predominantly from increased imports from countries outside the EU that are not covered by the anti-dumping investigation and that are not subject to the provisional anti-dumping duties. Any benefit to EU weavers from any reduction in imports from countries that are subject to those duties and resulting from those duties is therefore likely to be temporary.

  On the other hand, the imposition of anti-dumping duties, particularly if they are made definitive and remain in place for five years, is likely to result in some increase in the price of unbleached cotton fabrics, to the detriment of EU users of such cloth and, ultimately, of EU consumers. Moreover, manufacturers in the countries that are subject to those duties are thereby given a clear commercial incentive to bleach,
  50
  print or dye, and, perhaps, make up their cloth before export, to the detriment of the corresponding EU industries.

  The likely overall effect is a reduction in production and employment in the EU textile industry.

  While the likely direction of these effects is clear, reliable estimates of their scale cannot readily be made.

  UK imports of unbleached cotton fabrics from Germany are modest, and unlikely to be greatly affected by the imposition of anti-dumping duties on the import into the EU of such cloth from certain countries outside the EU.

  The Government will, for those reasons, vigorously oppose the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on unbleached cotton fabrics should the European Commission make such a proposal to the Council of Ministers.

  Casting Industry
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of(a) the imposition of and (b) the recent removal of EU anti-dumping duties on pig-iron on the British casting industry. [49627]

  Mrs. Roche
  The European Commission introduced anti-dumping measures on imports into the EU of hematite pig-iron from Brazil, Poland, Russia, and the Ukraine from January 1994, and on such imports from the Czech Republic from January 1996.

  We advised strongly against such action primarily because we were not satisfied that imports from those countries were the cause of any injury to EU producers of hematite pig-iron and because of the likely detriment to users of that pig-iron in the EU, the foundry industry.

  The European Commission's subsequent review of those measures, in essence, confirmed that our concerns were well founded. We therefore welcome the European Commission's repeal of those measures from 9 May 1998. This is likely to benefit the foundry industry in the UK and the rest of the EU.

  Planning (Overhead Lines)
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to review the Overhead Lines (Exemptions) Regulations 1990 and their interrelationship with normal planning regulations. [49745]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

  Nuclear Industry
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many reports on the nuclear industry are currently being withheld for reasons of commercial confidentiality under section 28b of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974; and if she will list their titles. [49475]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today, in answers from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), Official Report, column 19.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alcohol Sales (Young People)
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the purchase of alcohol by persons under 18 years old. [48416]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have received representations about preventing adults from buying alcohol on behalf of children, increasing the use of test purchases and closing the loophole affecting sales by company employees.

  Isle of Man and Channel Islands
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's handling of relations with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. [48418]

  Mr. George Howarth
  My right hon. Friend is the Privy Councillor with special responsibility for the Islands, and the Constitutional Unit of the Home Office is the formal point of communication between the United Kingdom and the Island authorities.

  Neighbourhood Nuisance
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his time scale for the introduction of new legislation to deal with neighbourhood nuisance. [48420]

  Mr. Michael
  We plan to implement the anti-social behaviour order provisions of the Crime and Disorder Bill with effect from 1 April 1999. We expect to implement the Bill's provisions for local crime and disorder reduction partnerships in September, so that the first crime and disorder audits can take place this autumn, to allow strategies to tackle locally identified problems to be in place by 1 April 1999. Youth Justice and other provisions of the Bill will also be implemented from this autumn onwards.

  Immigrants (Detention)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the review of immigration detention procedures to be complete. [48421]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The review is largely complete. I expect to announce our approach to detention in the proposed Immigration and Asylum White Paper.

  Illegal Immigration
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extent to which illegal immigration into this country is by way of other member countries of the European Union. [48422]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Significant numbers of illegal immigrants enter the United Kingdom from neighbouring continental countries within the European Union. We have been handicapped in returning many of them by the provisions of the Dublin Convention signed up to by the previous Government.

  Paedophile Activity
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the effects of his initiatives to reduce paedophile activity. [48423]

  Ms Quin
  There has been a significant change of approach since we implemented the Sex Offenders Act 1997 last September, with the police and probation services actively co-operating over public protection.

  New measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill, in particular the Sex Offender Order and the extended supervision of sex offenders, will help protect the public still further from the risk of known sex offenders re-offending.

  Prisons (Population)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current number of inmates in Her Majesty's prisons and the forecast change over the next 12 months. [48425]

  Ms Quin
  The current prison population is 65,754. If trends which have been observed in recent years continue, the total prison population is expected to average 65,700 during 1999, once the effect of Home Detention Curfew has been taken into account. Home Detention Curfew, as provided for in the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords], is expected to reduce the prison population by around 3,000 to 4,000 below where it would otherwise be. On this basis, the prison population is expected to be 64,500 at the end of June 1999.

  Young Offender Institutions
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the contents of current regimes in young offender institutions. [48426]

  Ms Quin
  In line with recommendations made by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons in his Thematic Review of young prisoners, a significant programme is underway to review and improve arrangements for holding young offenders within the Prison Service.

  Improved regimes are being developed in four Young Offender Institutions: Huntercombe, Werrington, Swinfen Hall and Onley. £2 million has been made available to allow for an increase in hours spent in purposeful activity; an improvement in education, work, offending behaviour programmes and Physical Education; and development of throughcare and resettlement. The results of this project will be assessed by comparing the progress of young prisoners in these establishments with those in a control group.

  As part of the Government's New Deal, "Welfare to Work" gateway courses are being trialed in 11 establishments. Seven of these establishments are Young Offender Institutions and two hold young offenders as well as adult prisoners. This scheme will benefit 18 to 24-year-old prisoners by improving their chances of finding employment after release, and therefore should assist the resettlement process.
  53
  The results from both projects will inform the development of regimes in other young offender in other young offender institutions.

  Police (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the number of beat policemen in Lancashire. [48427]

  Mr. Michael
  The Lancashire Police Authority made representations about the funding settlement for 1998–99, but it expressed no particular concern about the number of police officers on the beat. The previous Government's Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 gave chief constables the responsibility to determine the number of officers in each force within available resources.

  Provisional police manpower figures for March 1998 show that the number of constables in Lancashire increased by 12 over the previous 12 months to 2,504, and that there was an overall increase in police numbers of ten to 3,257. The Lancashire Police Authority will have a spending capacity for 1998–99 of £177 million. This is an increase of 3.8 per cent. or £6.4 million over 1997–98.

  Alcohol (Young People)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning links between under-age drinking and violent and loutish behaviour in town centres. [48428]

  Mr. Michael
  The public, police officers and local councillors have all indicated that alcohol-related crime and disorder, including that involving underage drinkers, is a significant problem. We have implemented the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 and will be legislating to clarify the law relating to adults buying alcohol for children and the use of children in test purchases. The Anti-Social Behaviour Order and other provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill will also help with specific local problems.

  It will be for the police and local authorities, with their partners, to assess the extent of such problems locally as part of the crime and disorder audit required under the Crime and Disorder Bill and to develop strategies to reduce violence and bad behaviour, including steps to deal with under-age drinking where necessary.

  Police (Disciplinary Procedures)
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had about reforming police disciplinary procedures; and when he proposes to implement changes. [48429]

  Mr. Michael
  I have regular discussions with the police staff associations and other interested parties. As my right hon. Friend announced to the House on 23 March 1998,Official Report, columns 21–24, new police discipline procedures will come into effect on 1 April 1999.

  Fire and Police Service Pensions
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reform fire and police pension arrangements. [48430]
  54
  Mr. Michael
  Consultation documents on the police and fire service pension schemes were published on 31 March of this year. We have invited comments by 31 July on the issues raised in the documents. We will take careful account of the comments we receive when we come to consider any changes to the pension arrangements for new entrants to the police and fire services and to medical retirement procedures.

  Police (Performance)
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what mechanisms he compares the performance of different police forces. [48431]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Secretary sets out his strategic development priorities (key objectives) for the police and the performance of different police forces is compared on the basis of their effectiveness in working towards these objectives and the other measures of effectiveness studied by the Inspectorate and the Audit Commission. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary has a statutory duty under the Police Act 1996 to inspect and report to the Secretary of State on the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces in England and Wales. In so doing, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) takes into account the performance of forces against the key policing objectives and performance indicators set by the Home Secretary, as well as against a wider range of performance indicators and criteria. HMIC also carries out thematic inspections on specific issues of public interest. Comparison of performance between forces is assisted by HMIC's model of Most Similar Force Analysis, which groups together forces with similar characteristics.

  The Audit Commission is required under the Local Government Act 1992 to collect data from police authorities which will allow comparison between different areas. The data are incorporated in the HMIC reporting process, and published separately by the Audit Commission on an annual basis.

  Prisons (Suicides)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has evaluated on the suicide rates in Her Majesty's prisons. [48432]

  Ms Quin
  Statistics on the number of self-inflicted deaths are collected and published each year in the Prison Service's Annual Report. The Prison Service examines each death in prison custody thoroughly to see whether any lessons can be learned and, where apparent clusters of deaths occur, considers whether there are any common factors. Research has identified that the first month of imprisonment (whether as a sentenced or remand prisoner) is a period of significantly increased risk of suicide. This particularly affects local prisons with a high proportion of remand prisoners.

  The Prison Service is also conducting research into suicide and self-injury to improve the understanding of self-injury and its relationship with suicidal behaviour. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons is also preparing a thematic report on suicides and self harm in prisons.

  Prisons (Hepatitis)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to reduce levels of hepatitis in prisons. [48401]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service runs an extensive education and counselling programme to make prisoners aware of the risks to health from communicable diseases and offers prisoners and staff who come into contact with them immunisation against hepatitis B. As part of efforts to reduce hepatitis and HIV, it is also piloting the reintroduction of disinfecting tablets in selected establishments from this month, as announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton East, (Mr. Howarth) the Under-Secretary of State.

  Probation Service
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage offender behaviour programmes run by the probation service. [48407]

  Ms Quin
  We have just issued guidance to all probation services on this subject. The guidance sets out a detailed programme of action intended to ensure real progress towards the goal that all offenders are supervised in ways which have been shown to be effective in reducing reoffending. This initiative (which has the full backing of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation) includes the development and piloting of new evidence-based supervision programmes and a new system for their independent accreditation.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to encourage offender behaviour programmes run by the Probation Service. [48399]

  Ms Quin
  We have just issued guidance to all probation services on this subject. The guidance sets out a detailed programme of action intended to ensure real progress towards the goal that all offenders are supervised in ways which have been shown to be effective in reducing reoffending. This initiative (which has the full backing of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation) includes the development and piloting of new evidence-based supervision programmes and a new system for their independent accreditation.

  Prisons (Drug Use)
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the results of random drug tests in prisons. [48410]

  Mr. George Howarth
  There has been a reduction in the percentage of random mandatory drug test samples testing positive for drugs, from 24.4 per cent. in 1996/97

  to

  20.8 per cent. in 1997/98. This reduction is a welcome indication of the Prison Service's success in reducing the level of drug misuse in prisons.

  Supervision of Offenders
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on arrangements 56
  for the post-release supervision of offenders who have been convicted abroad and have been released back to the United Kingdom. [48414]

  Ms Quin
  Offenders who have completed prison sentences abroad before returning to the United Kingdom are not subject to any compulsory supervision. We are concerned about risks to the public by certain offenders who have committed serious crimes and who are deported to this country, and are considering legislative options to address the issue. This will be done in consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Scottish and Northern Ireland Offices.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to continue to authorise the use of conductive loop tags. [49642]

  Ms Quin
  Any electronic monitoring equipment used in the new electronic monitoring services in England and Wales will need to satisfy the technical criteria specified by the Home Office prior to its authorisation for use.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the companies shortlisted for the national roll of tagging(a) use and (b) propose to use equipment supplied by Bolder Industries of America. [49641]

  Ms Quin
  No equipment supplied by Bolder Industries is currently used in the existing trials of electronic monitoring. Shortlisted bidders for the national electronic monitoring service are required to propose the equipment they intend to use in their bids, which are due today.

  Football Arrests
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from the United Kingdom have been arrested before and during football matches involving teams from England and Scotland played in the World Cup in France. [49567]

  Mr. Michael
  The information is not available in precisely the form requested. The information presently available indicates that 286 English and Scottish people were arrested in France during the World Cup Finals (up to 30 June), 275 of whom were English and 11 Scottish. Fourteen English people were deported or expelled from France, and 363 were refused leave to enter.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what sources of information are used in the preparation of the country assessment for Sri Lanka by the Information and Policy Unit of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, with particular reference to those relating to the human rights situation of the Tamil community; how often that assessment is reviewed; and if he will make a statement. [49686]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on 13 May 1998,Official Report, columns 127–28. The Sri Lanka country assessment is fully sourced and draws on information contained in reports produced by Amnesty International, Human

  57
  Rights Watch Asia, United Nations High Commission for Refugees Centre for Documentation and Research, as well as the United States' Department reports on Human Rights Practices in Sri Lanka. Details of these sources of information are contained in the bibliography which accompanies the assessment.

  It is intended to revise and update the assessment regularly at about six monthly intervals.

  Prisoners (Communicable Diseases)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 25 June 1998,Official Report, columns 587–88, in respect of plans to reduce the risk of the spread of communicable diseases in prisons, if he will outline the criteria that the independent academic team based at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine will use to evaluate the success of the initiative; and if he will list the prisons in which the pilot scheme will take place. [49488]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The purpose of the pilot scheme is to trial a variety of distribution methods for disinfecting tablets. The evaluation by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine will take account of:

  take-up rate of the tablets;

  the working of the various methods for distribution of the tablets, including whether or not they ensure anonymity;

  any obstacles to implementation; and

  any evidence of intended and unintended effects on existing regimes.

  The following establishments are taking part in the pilot scheme: Askham Grange; Coldingley: Cookham Wood; Garth; Highdown; Holloway; Long Lartin; Norwich; Stoke Heath; Welstun; and Woodhill.

  Prisons (Closed Visits)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many closed visits have taken place in prisons in England and Wales during the last 12 months. [49478]

  Ms Quin
  Governors have discretion under Prison Standing Order 5 to impose closed visits on any prisoner where security or control considerations so require. The decision to impose closed visits on a prisoner is taken on the basis of information available in each case and is kept under review. Figures for the number of prisoners subject at any one time to closed visits and the number of visits held under closed conditions are not held centrally.

  CS Sprays
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have been prosecuted for misuse of CS sprays since January 1996. [49492]

  Mr. Michael
  This information is not available centrally. Of all the complaints investigated by the Police Complaints Authority from 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1998, there were two cases in which police officers were prosecuted for misuse of CS. In both cases the officers were found not guilty.

  Vehicles (Spray Suppression)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been prosecuted for driving a vehicle whose spray suppression devices have failed to comply with Regulation 65 of the Road Vehicle (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986(a) from April 1987 to March 1992 and (b) since April 1992. [47765]

  Mr. Michael
  Prosecutions for this offence cannot be distinguished from other similar offences connected with defective vehicles in the statistics collected centrally.

  Most offences of this nature are dealt with by the issue of a prohibition notice, but figures kept by the Vehicle Inspectorate (an executive agency of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) do not separately distinguish offences of defective spray suppression devices from offences connected with defective wings and wheel arches.

  The Government recognise the importance of this issue and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), has outlined the steps being taken in the United Kingdom and Europe to improve the standards of spray suppression.

  The Home Office is co-operating with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on a variety of issues and this issue will be included in future discussions between Ministers.

  Security Service Files
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of security service files which are no longer required to be held for operational purposes; [50390]

  (2) pursuant to his oral statement of 25 February 1998, Official Report, column 346, how and when he proposes to carry out his undertaking concerning security service files. [50353]

  Mr. Michael
  During the debate on 25 February, my right hon. Friend undertook to make a statement on Security Service files before the summer recess. That remains his intention.

  Police Communications
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what support his Department is giving in order to improve police communications systems. [48417]

  Mr. Michael
  The Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP) is intended to replace all radio infrastructures for the police service with the new generation of digital radio communication systems from 1999 onwards. The project is being managed by the Police Information Technology Organisation (PITO), which became a Non-Department Public Body in April this year. Under the PSRCP, a national co-ordinated approach is being taken to the planning, design and implementation of the new communications systems, and PITO has been supporting all police forces in England and Wales to achieve this. This next generation of communications systems will utilise new radio spectrum we have secured for the service which will overcome many of the current
  59
  operational difficulties, including radio interference within existing bands. A Business Case for the implementation of the project will be completed this year, and a decision taken on whether to proceed.

  PITO is also responsible for managing the contract for the Police National Network (PNN), the police service's own national data and telephony communications network. The Organisation is in the process of procuring a second generation PNN which will be available by summer 1999. The new service will build on the success of the existing network and will offer the next generation of telecommunications infrastructure for policing, criminal justice and public safety throughout the United Kingdom. It is envisaged that it will offer the latest intranet features and will incorporate the Emergency Communications Network.

  Mental Ill Offenders
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 1998,Official Report, column 326, what progress has been made on improving the level of information provided to the victims of crimes committed by people with mental disorders. [49266]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on 29 June 1998,Official Report, column 18.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences he has issued for cannabis to be grown, processed or supplied for medical research; when they were issued; and if he will make a statement. [49721]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Records show that two licences have been issued for cannabis to be grown, processed or supplied for medical research. The first was issued in 1982 and the second in 1998.

  Prisoners (Education)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what evidence he has obtained as to the proportion of the prison population who are deficient in(a) literacy and (b) numeracy; and if he will make a statement on the provision of education in prison with respect to these problems for (a) adults and (b) young offenders. [50112]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service derives its knowledge about literacy and numeracy rates from the results of the basic skills screening test which prisoners may be invited, but are not required, to take. These suggest that between 60 and 75 per cent. of prisoners have basic skills needs deficiencies: 60 per cent. of prisoners have poor literacy skills; and 75 per cent. of prisoners have poor numeracy skills.

  Prison education focuses on the Prison Service Core Curriculum, which comprises basic educational skills (literacy and numeracy), life and social skills and information technology skills. All prisons and young offender institutions are required to offer this programme,
  60
  which has been designed to help prisoners find a job on release, resettle themselves into society and cope with life after prison without re-offending.

  The Prisons Board has recently endorsed an education policy framework for prison education which is consistent with the Government's wider education priority of improving basic skills and improving the skills in the national labour force.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what target his Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meet that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49805]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service,Official Report, column 1.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49807]

  Mr. Straw
  Anyone wanting to contact the Home Office by e-Mail can do so by using—gen.ho.@gtnet.gov.uk. At present, there is no separate e-Mail address for my Department's Ministerial correspondence unit.

  Prisoners (Methadone)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of the Prison Service in respect of prisoners who enter custody with existing methadone prescriptions; and to what extent the implementation of this policy varies between prisons in England and Wales. [50251]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Prison Service health care standard for the management of opiate misusers calls for abstinence to be achieved wherever possible. The standard does, however, allow for the provision of methadone maintenance for those remand prisoners who are already on maintenance treatment and require its continuation.

  The Prison Service will begin actively to monitor the implementation of its health care standards from September 1998 and information about the extent to which the implementation varies across the prison estate will become available after that.

  Police (Drug Problems)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on co-operation between Colombia and the West Midlands police on drug problems. [48633]

  Mr. Michael
  Colombia is the world's largest producer and distributor of refined cocaine. Western Europe and the United Kingdom are major targets for this illicit trade. We believe that constructive anti-drug co-operation and assistance can help their law enforcement authorities counter the problem more effectively. Law enforcement co-operation between the United Kingdom and Colombia is excellent. Since 1989 we have provided £15 million of
  61
  equipment and training to Colombia. I am not aware of any current links between West Midlands Police and Colombia on drug problems.

  Prisons (Midwifery Services)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what proportion of prisons make use of community midwifery services to provide antenatal and postnatal care within prisons; [50038]

  (2) what proportion of women's prisons have agreed joint local protocols with their nearest hospital for the care of pregnant prisoners. [50034]

  Ms Quin
  All prisons which hold pregnant women provide a community midwifery service through the local NHS Trust. All but two of those prisons also have locally agreed arrangements for hospital care for pregnant prisoners.

  Of the two which do not, one has a local protocol for the care of pregnant women agreed with the NHS midwifery service; and the other is in the process of agreeing an arrangement with the local hospital.

  Terrorist Offences
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1976 the number of persons accused of terrorist crimes in the United Kingdom tried under the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act 1975 in the Irish Republic specifying in so far as the information is readily available to him the offence alleged, where it was committed and the outcome of the trial. [46743]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have been asked to reply.

  The extraterritorial legislation that would allow persons to be charged and tried in the Republic of Ireland is the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976, not the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 which applies only in Northern Ireland. Accurate figures for 1976–1990 are 16 persons tried and 12 convicted. It has proved difficult to establish the offence and location. However, since 1990 the figures are as follows:

  Date

  Offence

  Where

  Result

  1991

  Membership of unlawful organisation

  Rosslea

  Acquitted

  1992

  Attempted murder

  Belleek

  12 years

  1992

  Attempted murder

  Belleek

  12 years

  1995

  Attempted murder

  Belleek

  12 years

TREASURY

  Bank of England, Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rent-free period applied under the lease of the new Wales office of the Bank of England at Scott Harbour, Cardiff Bay. [49446]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 7 July 1998]: Under the terms agreed to take a lease on offices for its Wales agency in Cardiff, the Bank of England benefited from a rent free period of one month.

  Family Incomes
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the highest possible level of family income which will be supplemented by working families tax credit and/or child care tax allowance. [47484]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The highest possible level of family income which will be supplemented by the WFTC depends on the number, and age, of the children in the family. For example, a family with two children under 11 and maximum eligible childcare costs will still receive some WFTC with family income of around £31,000.

  Tax (Hypothecation)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the introduction of a conscience element in income tax collection to enable revenue from people who request it to be allocated to budgets other than defence. [46776]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]: One representation has been received on this matter from the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of administering a system in which income tax revenue from people who request it is allocated to budgets other than defence. [46775]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 22 June 1998]: The Government have no proposals to allow income tax to be hypothecated either toward or away from individual departmental budgets and have therefore made no estimate of the costs of administering such a system.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what target his Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meets that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49817]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service,Official Report, column 1.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49819]

  Mrs. Liddell
  www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

  Personal Investment Authority
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau Limited about their system of charging companies against which complaints are made for their services. [50165]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 15 June 1998,Official Report, column 105.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) of 23 June 1998,Official Report, columns 453–54, on heavily indebted poor countries, if he will list in respect of each country the creditors in the United Kingdom; if he will estimate how much is owed to each creditor; and if he will make a statement. [50161]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The export credit debts listed in the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on 23 June are all sovereign debts which are owed directly to ECGD. ECGD is owed a total of £5,389 million by the countries that were listed. In the case of the aid loans that are listed, DFID is the creditor, and is owed a total of £27.55 million.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the long and the short-term rates of interest in real terms at present relative to(a) 1996, (b) 1993, (c) 1987 and (d) 1984. [49619]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Information on nominal interest rates is contained in the ONS publication Financial Statistics. Real interest rates can be derived using figures for inflation which are detailed in the ONS publication Economic Trends.

  Financial Services
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the Financial Services Authority a statutory duty to improve the quality of financial services in the marketplace. [50078]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government's plans to reform the financial services regulatory structure are intended to deliver an improvement in the quality of financial services regulation to the benefit of both consumers and the industry. The statutory objectives of the Financial Services Authority will include protecting financial services consumers.

  Fiscal Indicators
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Treasury proposes to revise its latest published estimates of key fiscal indicators. [50615]

  Mr. Darling
  The second Industry Act Forecast will be published in the Pre-Budget Report later this year. The date of publication is not yet known.

  Office for National Statistics
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the efficiency with which the Office for National Statistics delivers its statistical outputs. [50672]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In order to ensure that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) provides the best service possible, I am today announcing a review of the way in which the ONS delivers its outputs in order to ensure that it makes best use of the resources available. This review will be taken forward by external consultants who will examine the efficiency with which the ONS delivers its outputs and will also examine the scope for radical 64
  changes for both direct service delivery and support services, for example through increased public/private partnerships, business process re-engineering and rationalisation.

  The review will be steered by a group with an independent chair. It is envisaged that it will report by the end of the year.

  Insurance Regulation
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the adequacy of arrangements for the regulation of the insurance industry; and if he will make a statement. [50083]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The planned legislation to reform the structure of financial services regulation will provide for the Financial Services Authority to assume responsibility for all aspects of the regulation of insurance companies.

  The Treasury is currently considering responses to the consultation document issued on 7 April on the regulation of insurance brokers and other intermediaries.

  MIRAS
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for 1996–97 the amount of MIRAS spent in Scotland and for 1997–98 and 1998–99 the estimated amount to be spent on MIRAS in Scotland. [47975]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [pursuant to her reply, 3 July 1998, c. 322]: The cost of mortgage interest relief in Scotland is estimated to be £180 million in 1996–97 and £200 million in 1997–98. The amount of relief given through the MIRAS—mortgage interest relief at source scheme—is estimated to be £170 million in 1996–97 and £190 million in 1997–98.

  These estimates are based on the regional distribution of the cost of mortgage interest relief from analyses of family expenditure surveys up to 1996–97. The estimates for 1997–98 are projections based on applying the same regional distribution as in 1996–97 to the total figure for 1997–98. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates below United Kingdom level for 1998–99.

SCOTLAND

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49825]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Department's e-Mail address is ceu@isd01.scotoff.gov.uk.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what target his Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meets that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49823]
  65
  Mr. Dewar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service,Official Report, column 1.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the value of capital expenditure in (i) real terms, (ii) cash terms and (iii) as a percentage of total National Health Service expenditure in Scotland that will be undertaken by the National Health Service in the years(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000, (c) 2000–2002 and (d) 2001–2002. [50160]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The public sector baseline for capital in 1998–99 is £136m which represents 2.9 per cent. of the total expenditure of £4,626m on the NHS in Scotland. In addition a further £180m of private sector capital is expected to be spent in 1998–99 on the NHSiS through the Private Finance Initiative.

  Provision for future years will be announced in due course as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Hospital Consultants
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many hospital consultants have been dismissed in each of the past five years; how many of these appealed against their dismissal; how many were reinstated following a successful appeal; and if he will make a statement. [49738]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on the number of consultants dismissed by Trusts and Health Boards in Scotland is not kept centrally. Since 1993, 12 consultants have appealed to the Secretary of State against termination of employment: 3 of these appeals were not upheld; 2 were withdrawn and the appellant reinstated; 2 were withdrawn since a settlement had been reached before the appeal was heard; 3 appeals were time barred; 1 appeal was judged outwith the Secretary of State's jurisdiction and 1 appeal has yet to be heard.

  The number of appeals heard each year is very small and many result in reinstatement or an amicable settlement before the full appeal procedure is concluded. Every effort is made to ensure that the appeal process is carried out as quickly as possible.

  Allotments
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what recent guidelines have been issued to local authorities about the designation and provision of allotment sites; and if he will make a statement; [49001]

  (2) what action he proposes to take to protect existing allotment sites; and if he will make a statement; [49003]

  (3) what recent representations he has received about the provision of allotments; and if he will make a statement; [49005]

  (4) what advice his Department gives to local authorities on the subject of the sale of allotment sites; and if he will make a statement; [49007]

  (5) what recent discussions he has held with COSLA on the drawing up of a best practice regime for allotments and its implementation by local authorities as
  66
  recommended in the Fifth report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee (HC560-I); and if he will make a statement; [49131]

  (6) what plans he has to modify the legislation governing (a) the provision of allotment sites and (b) the rights of allotment holders; and if he will make a statement; [49002]

  (7) what recent discussions he has had with representatives of COSLA about the annual publication of local authority allotments provision; and if he will make a statement; [49004]

  (8) what recent representations he has received about the sale by local authorities of allotment sites; and if he will make a statement; [49006]

  (9) if he will make a statement on the recommendation in paragraph 5 of the Fifth report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, (HC560-I); [49130]

  (10) what plans he has to collate the information on allotment provision held at local authority level in order to establish and maintain a data base on such provision; and if he will make a statement. [49161]

  Mr. Macdonald
  In Scotland, decisions on the provision of allotment sites are a matter for local authorities. The Scottish Office has issued no recent guidelines and Ministers have had no recent discussions with COSLA on the subject. The Scottish Office has received three representations within the past year about the protection of allotment sites: two about the Dalmuir plots in Clydebank, and one about the Craigentinny plots in Edinburgh.

  The Government are considering the recommendations contained in the Fifth Report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, and will publish a response in due course.

  Geriatric Unit (Greenock)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects a contract to be signed for the construction of a geriatric unit at the Larkfield Site, Greenock; and if he will make a statement. [49736]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust are aiming to sign a contract for the new facility at Larkfield in October.

  Residential Development (Gourock)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the Chief Reporter's report and recommendations anent the application for a residential development at Levan Farm, Gourock; and if he will make a statement. [49739]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Chief Reporter of The Scottish Office Inquiry Reporters Unit expects to have his report and recommendations regarding the application for a residential development at Levan Farm, Gourock with me within the next few weeks. Given that I am to take the decision on this matter, it would not be appropriate to make a statement at this time.

  Trust Board Committees
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to issue guidelines anent trust board committees being open to the public; and if he will make a statement. [49737]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) (National Health Service Trusts) Order was laid before Parliament and became effective on 6 February 1998. This made it statutory for all UK NHS Trusts to hold their Board meetings in public. Guidance from the Management Executive of the NHS in Scotland on the implementation of this amendment, with particular regard to Committees of Trusts, was issued to the main health bodies in Scotland on 15 April and 5 June. Copies of this guidance have now been placed in the Library of the House.

  Patients (Costs)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average cost per day of keeping a person in hospital in the most recent year for which information is available(a) for all patients and (b) for patients suffering from diseases of the respiratory system, excluding influenza. [49719]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The latest year for which information is available is 1996–97. In that year the average cost per day of keeping a patient in hospital for all specialties was £170. In respiratory medicine the average cost per inpatient day was £185. Figures for respiratory medicine excluding influenza are not available.

  Pharmaceutical Services (Costs)
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost to the NHS in Scotland of pharmaceutical services, net of prescription charges, for each year from 1985–86 to 1997–98, separately identifying costs arising from prescriptions from(a) dispensing doctors, (b) pharmacies and (c) hospitals. [49717]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information for Scotland for the financial years 1987–88 to 1997–98 is set out in the table. Costs for 1985–86 and 1986–87 are not available because the data were not collected electronically, in financial years prior to 1987.

  The total costs shown include the ingredient costs of drugs and appliances dispensed through community pharmacies, dispensing doctors and appliance suppliers, dispensing and other fees, and the reimbursement of certain other costs, including VAT. The costs are net of prescription charges paid by patients and prescription charges recovered from patients under health board post-dispensing/checking arrangements.

  The sums collected in respect of the sales of pre-payment certificates have not been taken into account because they are not deemed to be the payment of a charge under the NHS (Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Regulations 1989, as amended.

  It is not possible to cost separately prescriptions written in hospitals and dispensed in community pharmacies.
  68

  £ million

  Year

  Total costs

  Costs dispensing doctors

  Costs pharmacies

  1987–88

  219.54

  7.81

  210.27

  1988–89

  244.80

  8.97

  234.44

  1989–90

  273.41

  9.93

  261.58

  1990–91

  300.49

  11.21

  286.96

  1991–92

  337.12

  13.03

  321.35

  1992–93

  378.41

  14.65

  360.24

  1993–94

  409.53

  16.14

  389.18

  1994–95

  444.76

  17.47

  422.57

  1995–96

  481.73

  18.10

  457.23

  1996–97

  521.85

  19.96

  495.77

  1997–981

  568.47

  21.44

  539.58

  1provisional

  Respiratory Diseases
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each month in(a) 1994, (b) 1995 and (c) 1996 admissions to hospitals for (i) asthma, (ii) bronchitis, (iii) pneumonia, (iv) influenza, (v) hypertensive heart disease, (vi) ischaemic heart disease and (vii) myocardial infarction for the age bands (1) 0 to 14, (2) 14 to 64 and (3) 65 years and over. [49720]

  Mr. Galbraith
  As the information requested is rather lengthy I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prescriptions were issued for treatment of respiratory diseases, excluding influenza, in the most recent year for which information is available; and what was the cost to the National Health Service in Scotland in the same period of drugs to treat (i) asthma, (ii) pneumonia and (iii) bronchitis. [49718]

  Mr. Galbraith
  It is not possible to identify separately drugs used in the treatment of influenza, pneumonia and bronchitis because these drugs are also used in the treatment of conditions other than respiratory disease and the NHS prescription form does not indicate the medical diagnosis for which a drug has been prescribed.

  Table 1 shows the number of prescriptions for drugs contained in British National Formulary Chapter 3: Respiratory system, which were dispensed by community pharmacists and dispensing doctors in 1997–98. The table does not show prescriptions dispensed in respect of Diamorphine Hydrochloride, Methadone Hydrochloride and Morphine Hydrochloride, which are indicated for cough in terminal disease.

  British National Formulary Sections 3.1 (Bronchodilators), 3.2 (Corticosteroids) and 3.3 (Cromoglycate and related therapy) contain drugs for use in the treatment of asthma. Table 2 shows the number and cost of prescription items dispensed in respect of these drugs, some of which may also be used in the treatment of other conditions. The costs shown are based on the value of ingredients before the addition of dispensing fees or deduction of any discount or patient charges.
  69

  Table 1: Respiratory disease—number of prescription items dispensed; British National Formulary Chapter 3

  Year

  Prescription items dispensed

  1997–98

  5,163,048

  Table 2: Asthma—prescription items dispensed and cost; British National Formulary Sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3

  Year

  Prescription items dispensed

  Ingredient cost (£)

  1997–98

  4,010,219

  54,800,656

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what target his Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meets that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49844]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service,Official Report, column 1.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49846]

  Dr. Howells
  The e-mail address for the Department for Education and Employment's Ministerial Correspondence Unit is:dfee.ministers@dfee.gov.uk.

  Key Stage 2
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the relative difficulty of this year's and last year's Key Stage 2 tests; and if the percentage mark required to achieve Grade 5 has been changed. [50387]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This is a matter for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his latest estimate of the cost of loans to higher education students measured in terms of cash accounting and resource accounting over the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02. [50648]
  70
  Mr. Blunkett
  The estimated cost of loans is as follows:

  £ million

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Cash accounting

  1,150

  1,550

  1,750

  Resource accounting

  650

  950

  1,050

  Difference

  500

  600

  700

  Estimate are for loans outlay net of repayments under cash accounting. Figures are for England and Wales and are rounded to the nearest £50 million. They are in current prices.

  Methods of implementing resource accounting are still being determined. These figures reflect the latest conclusion from the Financial Reporting Advisory Board and the National Audit Office.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to make Regulations for 1998–99 governing student loans made under the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990. [50647]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State laid the Education (Student Loans) Amendment Regulations 1998 before the House on Friday 10 July 1998. These will enable loans to continue to be made to students already attending courses of higher education on the same terms as before. Regulations governing loans for students entering higher education for the first time in September 1998 will be made shortly, as soon as Royal Assent to the Teaching and Higher Education Bill is received.

  Permanent Exclusions
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many permanent exclusions there were from schools by local education authority area in each of the last five years broken down by ethnic origin; what strategies are being developed to reduce the number of pupils excluded; and if he will make a statement. [49685]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information on permanent exclusions by ethnic group from schools in each local education authority is set out in the following table. Data on exclusions were not collected centrally before 1994–95. The 1996–97 data are currently being analysed and will be available later this year.

  The Government are tackling exclusion by implementing the recommendations in the Social Exclusion Unit's Truancy and School Exclusion report, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The report highlighted the over-representation of certain ethnic minority pupils among those excluded from school, and included recommendations to tackle this, including the promotion of community mentoring in ethnic minority communities. In addition, a number of projects supported by grant paid under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 employ strategies designed to reduce exclusions of pupils from particular minority ethnic groups. These include home-school liaison, mentoring, and other strategies designed to motivate pupils to learn and to raise teacher expectations.
  71

  Number of permanent exclusions from maintained primary, secondary and special schools by ethnic group and Local Education Authority Area

  England 1994–95 and 1995–96

  Unclassified

  White

  Black Caribbean

  Black African

  Black Other

  Indian

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  City of London

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Camden

  6

  2—

  28

  24

  5

  5

  5

  9

  6

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Greenwich

  2—

  2—

  39

  52

  8

  12

  2—

  2—

  2—

  9

  2—

  2—

  Hackney

  2—

  2—

  9

  6

  9

  17

  2—

  7

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2—

  2—

  28

  24

  29

  21

  6

  6

  2—

  7

  2—

  2—

  Islington

  2—

  2—

  36

  36

  17

  15

  5

  7

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2—

  2—

  7

  12

  9

  7

  6

  2—

  2—

  5

  2—

  2—

  Lambeth

  2—

  2—

  12

  19

  31

  34

  2—

  7

  7

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Lewisham

  2—

  2—

  23

  29

  26

  32

  2—_

  2—

  11

  8

  2—

  2—

  Southwark

  2—

  2—

  31

  27

  38

  38

  20

  19

  5

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Tower Hamlets

  2—

  2—

  32

  24

  9

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Wandsworth

  2—

  2—

  25

  29

  42

  43

  12

  14

  2—

  6

  2—

  2—

  Westminster

  2—

  2—

  25

  20

  12

  25

  6

  13

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Barking and Dagenham

  2—

  2—

  52

  55

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Barnet

  2—

  5

  81

  44

  10

  10

  6

  10

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Bexley

  15

  2—

  39

  57

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Brent

  2—

  2—

  30

  20

  51

  66

  7

  14

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Bromley

  2—

  2—

  86

  85

  2—

  6

  2—

  9

  2—

  10

  2—

  2—

  Croydon

  2—

  2—

  76

  64

  34

  34

  9

  9

  6

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Ealing

  2—

  2—

  35

  32

  21

  25

  6

  10

  2—

  5

  7

  11

  Enfield

  2—

  2—

  44

  55

  24

  14

  2—

  7

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Haringey

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  27

  2—

  6

  2—

  5

  2—

  2—

  Harrow

  2—

  2—

  34

  27

  12

  12

  2—

  6

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  Havering

  2—

  2—

  58

  70

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Hillingdon

  2—

  2—

  57

  61

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6

  Hounslow

  2—

  2—

  58

  52

  8

  8

  2—

  5

  2—

  2—

  5

  11

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2—

  2—

  23

  35

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Merton

  2—

  2—

  20

  33

  9

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Newham

  2—

  2—

  21

  23

  16

  8

  5

  6

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Redbridge

  2—

  2—

  22

  18

  2—

  2—

  7

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  2—

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  2—

  2—

  28

  42

  6

  8

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Sutton

  2—

  2—

  34

  30

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Waltham Forest

  5

  2—

  51

  50

  14

  30

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  2—

  2—

  Birmingham

  8

  2—

  130

  170

  79

  85

  2—

  2—

  5

  2—

  2—

  7

  Coventry

  2—

  2—

  88

  71

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Dudley

  2—

  2—

  52

  47

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Sandwell

  2—

  2—

  76

  78

  18

  27

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  11

  6

  Solihull

  5

  2—

  33

  29

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Walsall

  2—

  2—

  41

  69

  5

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Wolverhampton

  2—

  2—

  39

  38

  18

  23

  2—

  2—

  2—

  12

  2—

  10

  Knowsley

  2—

  2—

  28

  38

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Liverpool

  2—

  2—

  116

  188

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  15

  7

  2—

  2—

  St. Helens

  2—

  2—

  30

  39

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Sefton

  2—

  2—

  46

  66

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Wirral

  2—

  2—

  50

  49

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Bolton

  2—

  2—

  89

  77

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  Bury

  2—

  2—

  57

  72

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Manchester

  6

  2—

  109

  147

  22

  36

  2—

  2—

  7

  14

  2—

  2—

  Oldham

  2—

  2—

  38

  60

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Rochdale

  2—

  2—

  29

  43

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Salford

  2—

  2—

  112

  102

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Stockport

  2—

  2—

  39

  68

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Tameside

  2—

  2—

  58

  67

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Trafford

  2—

  2—

  37

  27

  2—

  6

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Wigan

  2—

  2—

  51

  71

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Barnsley

  2—

  2—

  16

  38

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Doncaster

  2—

  2—

  100

  130

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Rotherham

  2—

  2—

  47

  36

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Sheffield

  2—

  2—

  71

  124

  9

  18

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Bradford

  2—

  2—

  100

  137

  2—

  8

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Calderdale

  2—

  2—

  23

  29

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Kirklees

  2—

  2—

  39

  49

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Leeds

  2—

  2—

  158

  152

  10

  12

  2—

  2—

  2—

  9

  2—

  2—

  Wakefield

  2—

  2—

  102

  99

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Gateshead

  2—

  2—

  33

  32

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  2—

  2—

  92

  114

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  North Tyneside

  2—

  2—

  60

  72

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  South Tyneside

  2—

  2—

  64

  89

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Sunderland

  2—

  2—

  48

  49

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Isles of Scilly

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Avon

  11

  3—

  201

  3—

  11

  3—

  2—

  3—

  9

  3—

  2—

  3—

  Bath and North East Somerset1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  26

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  City of Bristol1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  114

  3—

  12

  3—

  2—

  3—

  9

  3—

  2—

  North Somerset1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  29

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  South Gloucestershire1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  50

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  Bedfordshire

  2—

  2—

  103

  106

  14

  14

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6

  2—

  Berkshire

  6

  2—

  164

  191

  14

  16

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  2—

  Buckinghamshire

  2—

  2—

  79

  85

  2—

  9

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Cambridge

  7

  2—

  102

  115

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Cheshire

  2—

  2—

  167

  202

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Cleveland

  2—

  3—

  88

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  Hartlepool1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  17

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  Middlesbrough1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  21

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  Redcar and Cleveland1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  34

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  Stockton-on-Tees1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  39

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  72 73

  Number of permanent exclusions from maintained primary, secondary and special schools by ethnic group and Local Education Authority Area

  England 1994–95 and 1995–96

  Unclassified

  White

  Black Caribbean

  Black African

  Black Other

  Indian

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Cornwall

  2—

  2—

  81

  98

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Cumbria

  2—

  2—

  79

  106

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Derbyshire

  2—

  2—

  155

  234

  5

  2—

  2—

  7

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Devon

  2—

  2—

  135

  148

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Dorset

  2—

  2—

  115

  124

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Durham

  2—

  2—

  112

  125

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  East Sussex

  2—

  2—

  146

  144

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Essex

  2—

  2—

  201

  267

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Gloucestershire

  2—

  2—

  107

  131

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Hampshire

  11

  2—

  357

  454

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Hereford and Worcester

  2—

  2—

  123

  140

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Hertfordshire

  2—

  2—

  159

  231

  7

  13

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Humberside

  2—

  3—

  107

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  City of Kingston-Upon-Hull1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  44

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  East Riding of Yorkshire1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  32

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  North East Lincolnshire1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  43

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  North Lincolnshire1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  31

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  Isle of Wight

  2—

  2—

  12

  12

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Kent

  2—

  2—

  344

  424

  2—

  5

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  2—

  Lancashire

  2—

  2—

  298

  333

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Leicestershire

  2—

  2—

  157

  197

  8

  13

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  14

  Lincolnshire

  5

  2—

  112

  111

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Norfolk

  2—

  2—

  103

  120

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  North Yorkshire1

  2—

  2—

  86

  77

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  York1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  35

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  Northamptonshire

  2—

  2—

  132

  157

  11

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  8

  2—

  2—

  Northumberland

  2—

  2—

  66

  92

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Nottinghamshire

  2—

  2—

  203

  280

  12

  20

  2—

  2—

  12

  15

  2—

  2—

  Oxfordshire

  2—

  2—

  37

  43

  5

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Shropshire

  2—

  2—

  110

  139

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Somerset

  2—

  2—

  62

  71

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Staffordshire

  2—

  2—

  242

  247

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Suffolk

  2—

  2—

  104

  108

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Surrey

  2—

  2—

  198

  199

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Warwickshire

  2—

  2—

  73

  89

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  West Sussex

  2—

  2—

  113

  142

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Wiltshire

  2—

  2—

  103

  88

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Total

  183

  10

  8,785

  10,280

  769

  884

  146

  225

  182

  245

  98

  122

  Number of permanent exclusions from maintained primary, secondary and special schools by ethnic group and Local Education Authority Area

  England 1994–95 and 1995–96

  Pakistani

  Bangladeshi

  Chinese

  Other Ethnic Group

  Totals

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  City of London

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  0

  0

  Camden

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  54

  51

  Greenwich

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  14

  57

  90

  Hackney

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  23

  38

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6

  6

  73

  64

  Islington

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  16

  67

  75

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  8

  2—

  31

  29

  Lambeth

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  55

  66

  Lewisham

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6

  5

  68

  79

  Southwark

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  96

  89

  Tower Hamlets

  2—

  2—

  8

  22

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  59

  54

  Wandsworth

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  8

  7

  90

  103

  Westminster

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  8

  8

  59

  71

  Barking and Dagenham

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  57

  67

  Barnet

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  7

  108

  77

  Bexley

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  55

  61

  Brent

  7

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  104

  114

  Bromley

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  2—

  101

  111

  Croydon

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  9

  134

  119

  Ealing

  2—

  6

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6

  73

  96

  Enfield

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  9

  13

  85

  92

  Haringey

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  19

  49

  Harrow

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  55

  65

  Havering

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  60

  72

  Hillingdon

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  65

  71

  Hounslow

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6

  2—

  87

  88

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  26

  38

  Merton

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  35

  50

  Newham

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  2—

  54

  43

  Redbridge

  5

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  52

  32

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  34

  52

  Sutton

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  37

  32

  Waltham Forest

  14

  19

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  91

  113

  74 75

  Number of permanent exclusions from maintained primary, secondary and special schools by ethnic group and Local Education Authority Area

  England 1994–95 and 1995–96

  Pakistani

  Bangladeshi

  Chinese

  Other Ethnic Group

  Totals

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Birmingham

  28

  24

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  11

  50

  266

  339

  Coventry

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  2—

  104

  86

  Dudley

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  55

  51

  Sandwell

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  2—

  120

  121

  Solihull

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  41

  37

  Walsall

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  58

  80

  Wolverhampton

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  5

  70

  92

  Knowsley

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  29

  42

  Liverpool

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  142

  200

  St. Helens

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  30

  40

  Sefton

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  47

  68

  Wirral

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  52

  51

  Bolton

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  95

  87

  Bury

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  63

  77

  Manchester

  6

  7

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  152

  216

  Oldham

  9

  7

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  49

  76

  Rochdale

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  31

  47

  Salford

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  115

  103

  Stockport

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  40

  70

  Tameside

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  61

  68

  Trafford

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  47

  34

  Wigan

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  55

  73

  Barnsley

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  16

  39

  Doncaster

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  105

  133

  Rotherham

  2—

  8

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  50

  44

  Sheffield

  2—

  12

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  9

  94

  165

  Bradford

  18

  34

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  128

  187

  Calderdale

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  24

  34

  Kirklees

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  54

  60

  Leeds

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  182

  182

  Wakefield

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  104

  103

  Gateshead

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  34

  32

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  95

  117

  North Tyneside

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  60

  72

  South Tyneside

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  67

  92

  Sunderland

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  49

  49

  Isles of Scilly

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Avon

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  7

  3—

  246

  3—

  Bath and North East Somerset1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  28

  City of Bristol1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  139

  North Somerset1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  29

  South Gloucestershire1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  53

  Bedfordshire

  7

  10

  5

  6

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  137

  147

  Berkshire

  7

  13

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  204

  232

  Buckinghamshire

  9

  10

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6

  2—

  104

  110

  Cambridge

  2—

  9

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  115

  126

  Cheshire

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  178

  207

  Cleveland

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  90

  3—

  Hartlepool1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  17

  Middlesbrough1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  21

  Redcar and Cleveland1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  34

  Stockton-on-Tees1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  40

  Cornwall

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  81

  99

  Cumbria

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  79

  106

  Derbyshire

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  167

  257

  Devon

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  139

  148

  Dorset

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  116

  126

  Durham

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  114

  126

  East Sussex

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  151

  155

  Essex

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  210

  272

  Gloucestershire

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  6

  119

  142

  Hampshire

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  8

  376

  476

  Hereford and Worcester

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  127

  141

  Hertfordshire

  5

  6

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6

  6

  188

  266

  Humberside

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  108

  3—

  City of Kingston-Upon-Hull1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  44

  East Riding of Yorkshire1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  32

  North East Lincolnshire1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  43

  North Lincolnshire1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  33

  Isle of Wight

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  13

  13

  Kent

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  12

  362

  447

  Lancashire

  20

  21

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  326

  366

  Leicestershire

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  9

  12

  184

  240

  Lincolnshire

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  117

  114

  Norfolk

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  104

  122

  North Yorkshire1

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  88

  78

  York1

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  2—

  3—

  36

  Northamptonshire

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  5

  149

  176

  76 77

  Number of permanent exclusions from maintained primary, secondary and special schools by ethnic group and Local Education Authority Area

  England 1994–95 and 1995–96

  Pakistani

  Bangladeshi

  Chinese

  Other Ethnic Group

  Totals

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Northumberland

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  66

  93

  Nottinghamshire

  6

  7

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  7

  238

  330

  Oxfordshire

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  49

  47

  Shropshire

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  113

  148

  Somerset

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  62

  71

  Staffordshire

  5

  11

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  256

  268

  Suffolk

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  117

  112

  Surrey

  2—

  5

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6

  218

  215

  Warwickshire

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  77

  95

  West Sussex

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  120

  145

  Wiltshire

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  6

  2—

  113

  93

  Total

  208

  270

  46

  59

  11

  15

  241

  370

  10,669

  12,476

  1New Authorities from 1 April 1996

  2Fewer than 5 pupils

  3Not applicable

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Identity Cards
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which Minister is responsible for benefit identity cards; and what progress has been made with regard to their implementation. [50355]

  Mr. Field
  There is no benefit identity card.

  We are however concerned about fraud within the Social Security system. On some estimates benefit fraud could cost up to £7 billion a year. This is equivalent to an extra £10 a week to every single pensioner in the country. Or enough to cut the tax bill of every taxpaying household in the country by £435 a year.

  I am therefore pleased to announce that we are today publishing a Green Paper "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: Securing the Future" setting out our comprehensive anti-fraud strategy.

  The Green Paper sets out the four key aims of the Government's strategy and lists what actions we are currently taking to achieve these goals; what further action we will be taking this year, next year and beyond.

  The first aim is to develop an anti-fraud culture among staff and the public. We will be conducting a campaign to bring the scale and nature of fraud to people's attention to win public support for action to prevent the misuse of money which could go to those in real need. We will also build on the partnerships between the public and private sector to mount a joint crusade against fraud.

  Our second aim is to design and operate systems which minimise fraud. We will be reviewing benefits to determine the extent to which they can be more effectively designed to prevent fraud from occurring in the first place. We will also be seeking to prevent fraud through a more active management of new and continuing cases, as well as improved detection and more effective punishment of those who commit fraud.

  Our third aim is to create an environment in which work against fraud can flourish, by improving systems for funding and performance measurement, and securing greater co-operation amongst all parties in anti-fraud in central, and local, government, and in public bodies.
  78
  Our fourth aim is to develop a highly skilled anti-fraud profession. We need a new professionalism to combat the ever increasing sophistication of the serious fraudster. We will build up a highly skilled anti-fraud profession with common training and accreditation, and codes of conduct.

  For the first time there now exists a comprehensive cross-Government strategy against fraud rather than a piecemeal approach. We have timetabled our work in building up effective barriers to fraud. The Government are establishing a ministerial group under my chairmanship to help devise strategies to combat welfare fraud and safeguard taxpayers' money, and counter other forms of financial fraud affecting welfare services. We will also publish an annual Fraud Audit, describing our anti-fraud activities, estimates of the scale of fraud, and new policy initiatives.

  The Government are committed to making a difference to the level of fraud as a key element of their plan to create a modern welfare state in which the people can have confidence. The Green Paper is the first staging post towards a benefit system which is more accurate, more fair, more efficient and more secure.

  Income Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the early results from the research into pensioner non-take-up of income support have been consistent with the results from large-scale quantitative surveys undertaken by the Department with respect to(a) the level of non-take-up and (b) the distribution of non-take-up between different categories of pensioner. [50114]

  Mr. Denham
  The early results published 24 June 1998 offered an overview of key barriers and triggers to claiming Income Support amongst a specific group of pensioners—those apparently entitled to, but not claiming, the benefit. They were from qualitative interviews carried out to explore the reasons for not claiming Income Support and to identify possible means of encouraging pensioners to claim. As such, the results were not designed to provide the data that would be needed for such comparisons.
  79
  This is the first research carried out by this Department specifically into why pensioners do not take up the Income Support to which they are entitled. The purpose of the research, and of the nine pilots currently underway, is not to provide comparative data with previous information on non-take-up, but rather to establish why so many pensioners fail to take up the Income Support to which they are entitled, and to identify the most effective and efficient ways of encouraging them to claim.

  Together, the research and the pilot exercises will enable us to find ways of delivering more automatic help to the poorest pensioners.

  Median unclaimed amounts for pensioners by age, gender and marital status for 1995–96

  £

  Age

  Pensioner group

  60–64

  65–69

  70–74

  75–79

  80+

  All

  Pensioner couples

  16.80

  22.60

  5.20

  6.80

  9.50

  9.90

  Single male pensioners

  7.70

  10.10

  7.30

  8.30

  8.20

  10.00

  Single female pensioners

  4.90

  5.90

  5.30

  7.10

  12.40

  8.40

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10p. These estimates are based on the 1995–96 FRS and are almost certainly subject to some degree of error. The true amounts may be higher or lower and should therefore be treated with some caution. The age breakdowns for Pensioner Couples and Single Male Pensioners are based on small sample sizes and should therefore be treated with extreme caution

  2. "Pensioner couples" means both married and unmarried couples

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS) 1995–96

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what target her Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meets that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49894]

  Mr. Field
  I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answer today from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service,Oficial report, column 1.

  Staff in post, 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998

  Agency

  Permanent align="right"

  1 May 1997 Casual

  Permanent

  31 March 1998 Casual

  Permanent

  Difference Casual

  Headquarters

  1,431.3

  48.2

  1,688.3

  48.6

  257

  0.4

  Benefits Agency

  71,642.2

  3,668.9

  67,352.5

  4,029

  -4,289.7

  360.1

  Contributions Agency

  7,406.2

  639.6

  7,470.8

  584

  64.6

  -55.6

  Child Support Agency

  7,923.7

  373.8

  7,925.3

  357

  1.6

  -16.8

  ITSA1

  1,970.8

  83.9

  1,854.4

  70

  -116.4

  -13.9

  War Pensions Agency

  1,184.3

  25.6

  958.6

  16

  -225.7

  -9.6

  ISBs2

  1,121.5

  60

  1,118

  162.4

  -3.5

  102.4

  Total

  92,680

  4,900

  88,367.9

  5,267

  -4,312.1

  367

  1ITSA=Information Technology Services Agency

  2ISBs=Independent Statutory Bodies

  Notes:

  1. The figures for permanent staff include fixed term contracts

  2. The figures are consistent with those in the Departmental Annual Report

  3. Part time staff are shown as decimal figures, representing the hours worked as a proportion of a full working week

  80
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the median amount of unclaimed income support among(a) single male pensioners, (b) single female pensioners and (c) married pensioners who are aged (i) 60 to 64, (ii) 65 to 69, (iii) 70 to 74, (iv) 75 to 79 and (v) 80 years and above, based on the Department's Family Resources Survey. [50113]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is in the table.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the e-mail address of her Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49896]

  Mr. Field
  Ministers may be contacted at the following address: ministers@ade006.dss.gov.uk.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how staff numbers in her Department have varied between 1 May 1997 and 31 March 1998. [48884]

  Mr. Field
  The information is set out in the table.

  Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how long a claimant for disablement benefit in respect of occupational deafness must have worked; if additional hours worked in overtime may be included in this requirement; and what proposals she has to change the current criteria. [48938]

  Mr. Denham
  To qualify for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB) for Occupational Deafness (prescribed disease A10), a person must have been employed in one or more of the occupations prescribed, for at least ten years. An independent Adjudication Officer decides whether a claimant has met the ten year 82
  rule, taking into account the job history of the individual claimant. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which advise on the Industrial Injuries scheme, are currently undertaking a review of the list of prescribed diseases, including occupational deafness. We shall of course consider any recommendations which they make.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of households in Gloucestershire, by district, have an elderly dependant needing care. [49257]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available.

HEALTH

  Pharmacists
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the potential cost to the National Health Service of trends in closures of community pharmacies. [48233]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: The overall number of community pharmacies in England and Wales has remained virtually unchanged over the last three years. It is difficult to estimate the cost, if any, to the National Health Service of any particular closures that have occurred during this period.

  Pen Needles
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when pen needles will be available to diabetes sufferers on prescription; [47998]

  (2) if will make a statement on the use of pen needles as a method for diabetes sufferers to administer insulin. [47919]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 1 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) on 28 April 1998, Official Report, column 121.

  Diabetes
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people suffering from diabetes there were within the Durham Health Authority Easington District locality area in each year since 1995. [49281]

  Ms Jowell
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Beef on the Bone
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the risk to human health of eating beef cooked on the bone; and what the estimated incidence is of health problems from this cause. [49631]

  Ms Jowell
  In its advice to Ministers on 3 December 1997, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) said that Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) infectivity had been found in the dorsal root ganglia and bone marrow of cattle and there was a small risk of BSE-infected material entering the human food chain. On the basis of the risk assessment concerning the various factors involved in the transmission of BSE to humans available to it, the Committee concluded that there was a 95 per cent. chance of no cases of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and a 5 per cent. chance of one case arising from this exposure in 1998.

  Taking account of this advice, and that of the Chief Medical Officer that he would be very concerned if any
  84
  tissues that had been shown to transmit BSE were knowingly allowed to remain in the human food chain, we introduced the Beef Bones Regulations.

  Breast Cancer
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into possible links between breast cancer and pesticides containing Lindane. [50060]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has not commissioned any research into possible links between breast cancer and pesticides containing lindane.

  The independent advisory Committee on Carcinogenity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COC) reviewed the available data on breast cancer in women and levels of lindane in serum and breast fat tissue in 1995. COC concluded that there was no clear evidence of an association between serum and fat levels of lindane and breast cancer. COC recommended that the matter be kept under review.

  The Department of Health is conducting a search for any new scientific data on lindane and, if fresh information is uncovered, this will be referred to COC for further consideration.

  Children in Care
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what proportion of children looked after in residential care are from ethnic minority groups; [49712]

  (2) what proportion of children adopted from care were from ethnic minority groups in the last year for which figures are available; [49713]

  (3) what proportion of children looked after by local authorities for more than two years were from ethnic minority groups in the last year for which figures are available; [49714]

  (4) what proportion of children looked after by local authorities are from ethnic minority groups broken down by age and gender. [49715]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 10 July 1998]: The information is not currently available in the format requested, but the Department will be carrying out a pilot exercise later this year to collect ethnic origin data for looked after children, from a sample of authorities.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the maximum waiting times faced by individuals between a referral from a general practitioner and an appointment with a consultant; what guidance he has issued as to maximum acceptable waiting time; and what are his policies to reduce such waiting times. [50005]
  85
  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 10 July 1998]: The latest available figures show that, during the quarter ending 31 March 1998, 96 per cent. of patients were seen for their first outpatient appointment within 26 weeks of general practitioner referral.

  Guidance issued to the National Health Service with the additional £417 million to tackle waiting lists made clear that reducing inpatient lists should not be achieved at the expense of outpatient waiting times. In addition, The New NHS White Paper guarantees that by the year 2000 everyone with suspected cancer will be able to see a specialist within 2 weeks of their GP deciding they need to be seen urgently and requesting an appointment (by April 1999 for breast cancer).

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49852]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department does not yet have an e-mail address; plans to establish one are being considered.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what target his Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meets that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49850]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service,Official Report, column 1.

  Dentists
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures his Department intends to take(a) to increase the proportion of the adult population which is registered with a dentist and (b) to mitigate the effects of the introduction of tuition fees on student dentists' debt levels. [48377]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are aware that registering with a National Health Service dentist can be a problem for adults in some areas of the country which is why, in September 1997, we introduced the Investing in Dentistry scheme. We have made £19 million available through the scheme to help dentists expand existing practices and to set up new ones in areas where access to NHS dentistry is most acute. To date we have received over 480 Investing in Dentistry proposals from health authorities. In the longer term we will be piloting the personal dental services which will provide health authorities with the flexibility to tailor dental services more closely to local need. I recently announced 15 pilot schemes, involving over 150 dentists, to be launched in October.

  For medical and dental students who enter training from 1 September 1998, the NHS will meet tuition costs and fund means tested bursaries in years 5 and beyond.

  Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to invest in clinical drug trials in district hospitals to advance knowledge of cancer treatment. [50115]

  Mr. Milburn
  The main agency through which the Government support clinical trials is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body receiving its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC has an extensive programme of clinical trials on cancer including the use of treatments. These are conducted in many locations including district hospitals. Information on these trials is available from the MRC. Their address is 20 Park Crescent, London, W1N 4AL.

  Patients (Lifting)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to NHS nursing and auxiliary staff as regards lifting patients in and out of beds indicating if all(a) trusts and (b) authorities are required to insure nurses and auxiliary staff for back or related injuries sustained from lifting patients; and if she will make a statement. [49452]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Executive issued revised guidance in June 1997 on Health and Safety at work in the NHS, copies of which are available in the Library. The guidance covers manual handling, and refers to complementary guidance in the Health Services Advisory Committee booklet "Guidance on Manual Handling of Loads in the Health Services". It also reminded managers of their responsibilities under the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992.

  All NHS employees are covered by the National Health Service (Injury Benefits) Scheme. This is a statutory scheme providing benefits where an injury or disease, which is attributable to NHS employment, results in either temporary loss of earnings or permanent reduction in earning ability.

WALES

  Science and Mathematics Teachers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of(a) science and (b) mathematics teachers in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in Wales. [49562]

  Mr. Hain
  The latest available information indicates that, in 1996, there were an estimated 2,800 full-time teachers qualified to teach mathematics and 2,700 qualified to teach science at Key stage 3 and at Key stage 4. Comparable information is not available on primary schools.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what target his Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meets that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49826]
  87
  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service,Official Report, column 1.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49828]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Welsh Office Ministerial Correspondence Unit currently does not have an e-mail address.

  Numeracy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what ways he proposes to increase numeracy in the primary schools of Wales. [50344]

  Mr. Hain
  Raising standards of numeracy is at the heart of the Government's programme for raising levels of attainment in schools. We have already set stretching targets for Wales covering literacy and numeracy. We have allocated additional funds to support the In-service training of teachers. This summer, we will be piloting summer numeracy schemes. In the light of the report from the National Numeracy Taskforce, we are now considering what further initiatives in Wales might support this vitally important work in schools.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the learning of times tables in Welsh schools. [50346]

  Mr. Hain
  The National Curriculum in Wales places a strong emphasis on the learning of "times tables" for all the children from an early age. The learning of multiplication tables plays a central part in the development of children's understanding of the number system. OHMCI's latest annual report indicates that, in general, mathematics is well taught in schools in Wales. Standards are satisfactory or better in over 90 per cent. of classes in primary schools and over 80 per cent. of classes in secondary schools. The evidence available to us suggests that standards are improving but that much work is needed to reach the national targets we have set for the year 2002.

  A key feature which contributes towards improvement is an increasingly strong emphasis on the development of pupils' knowledge of multiplication tables and other number facts. Many primary schools include regular sessions of mental mathematics to develop pupils' capacity to think quickly and to recall their tables.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local numeracy experts he proposes to advise schools from April 1999; and if he will make a statement. [50345]

  Mr. Hain
  Many Local Education Authorities in Wales have already appointed numeracy advisors. The Welsh Office will be consulting with LEAs to determine whether the need to improve standards of numeracy requires an increase in the number of expert advisers in future.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on the examination of options for the disposal of waste arising from the over thirty months scheme; and if he will make a statement. [49716]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 July 1998]: Good progress has been made on this issue. The Intervention Board invited eight companies with a track record in combustion or in the handling of meat and bone meal (MBM) to submit proposals under the negotiated procedures of the EU Services Directive for the incineration of waste MBM from Over Thirty Months Scheme (OTMS) animals. Seven costed proposals were received and these have been evaluated by a Project Board, against criteria of energy recovery, appropriate technology, early deliverability, high volumes and reasonable costs.

  Negotiations continue with a view to the early award of contracts to the suppliers best able to meet the Board's requirements. Owing to the commercial sensitivity of these negotiations, it would be inappropriate to identify the companies at this stage but their names will be announced when contracts are signed. Burning under contract is subject to the companies obtaining the necessary planning and environmental consents from the relevant authorities in accordance with normal procedures.

  These developments reflect the Government's determination to find solutions which will lead to the destruction of the waste MBM stocks, which currently stand at 330,000 tonnes, while taking full account of the need to protect human health and the environment and at the same time keeping the cost to the taxpayer as low as is consistent with this. An announcement on plans to destroy the OTMS tallow stocks, currently standing at 174,000 tonnes, will be made in the autumn.

  British Cattle Movement Service
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many letters were sent by the British Cattle Movement Service where the name on the envelope did not match the address; and what was the cost of writing a second time to correct the mistake; [50042]

  (2) what was the cost of replacing the faulty software in respect of advertising the British Cattle Movement Service. [50043]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 July 1998]: The British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) issued approximately 109,000 leaflets giving details of the BCMS Helpline going live on 1 July, in the week beginning 29 June. We estimate that around 50 per cent. had the wrong name matched to the addresses. The letter of apology sent to livestock farmers, which again provided the BCMS Helpline details in case farmers had missed the previous publicity, cost around £45,000.

  The cost of replacing the faulty software was £256.45. The fault concerned mail address labels only, and was entirely unconnected with the integrity of the BCMS database.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what statistics his
  89
  Department collects on animal rearing practices in respect of meat products imported into the United Kingdom; and if he will publish them. [49523]

  Mr. Rooker
  Responsibility for approving countries from which meat products may be imported into the European Community, and for collecting information and statistics on practices within those countries to aid decisions on approval, rests with the European Commission. In deciding whether to approve countries, the Commission must, in particular, take account of information on the state of health of the livestock, other domestic animals and wildlife; the provision of information on incidence of certain diseases; the country's rules on disease prevention and control and how these are organised and implemented; the structure of the veterinary services; and legislation on the use, authorisation, distribution and marketing of substances which might be administered to livestock.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the public expenditure in the current financial year to support activities which will fall under the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. [48495]

  Mr. Rooker
  Those Ministry activities that are likely to fall under the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency are covered by MAFF programmes PP1:01, PP1:02, part of PP1:04, PP1:07, PP1:08, PP1:09 and EA1:06. Details of these programmes can be found in the MAFF/Intervention Board 1998 Departmental Report, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The total estimated provision for these programmes in the current financial year, after allowing for receipts, is approximately £55 million. This figure is for MAFF only and relates to direct costs; it makes no allowance for central service overheads associated with the work in question.

  Gender Impact Assessments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer of 24 June 1998,Official Report, columns 557–58, prior to 18 May, what mechanisms were used to determine how legislation passed in this session would affect women; what consultation he had with women's organisations; and if he will make a statement. [49083]

  Mr. Morley
  The guidelines to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women referred in her Answer were in place and reflected in Departmental guidelines prior to 18 May. The nature of the Department's responsibilities means that most of its legislative programme does not have a gender-specific impact. Nevertheless, in appropriate cases, national women's organisations have been consulted on proposed legislation.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many samples of fruit and vegetables grown in the United Kingdom were tested for organophosphate residues in 1997; and how many were found to exceed the maximum residue levels. [50371]

  Mr. Rooker
  The latest available survey information relates to samples collected in 1996. A total of 528 samples of various fruits and vegetables were analysed for up to 43 different organophosphate compounds. No residues exceeded the maximum residue levels (MRLs).

  I expect the 1997 survey report to be published in September.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many samples of white and brown bread were tested for OP residues in 1997; and how many exceeded the maximum residue levels. [50372]

  Mr. Rooker
  The latest available survey information relates to samples collected in 1996. 48 samples each of white, brown, wholemeal, wholegrain and ethnic bread were analysed for 10 different organophosphate compounds. No residues exceeded the maximum residue levels (MRLs).

  I expect the 1997 survey report to be published in September.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the test subjects and what other parameters were used to establish permitted levels of exposure to organophosphates in current use; and how many of these levels were established as a result of research in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America and (c) elsewhere. [50340]

  Mr. Rooker
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. As a general rule, it is up to the applicant to decide where to carry out the tests required by the regulatory authorities, provided that they are able to demonstrate that tests have been conducted to acceptable standards and under appropriate conditions. Guidance on the scientific studies required to support an application for approval of an agricultural pesticide is set out in the Registration Handbook available from the Pesticides Safety Directorate.

  For those pesticide organophosphate active ingredients for which an evaluation document has been published, the test subjects and other parameters (but not the country in which the test was carried out) will normally be quoted.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent the(a) synergistic and (b) potentiating effects of organophosphates combined with inert ingredients are taken into account when an OP product is licensed. [50339]

  Mr. Rooker
  When considering or reviewing applications for approval of pesticides, the impact on people and on the environment of both the active substance and the product are taken into account. In this way, the regulators allow for the consequences of any possible synergistic, potentiating or other combination effects.
  91
  If the effects which may arise from the proposed or actual use of the product are not acceptable, it is not approved.

  Foodstuffs
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what was the estimated total consumption of fruit and vegetables in the United Kingdom for 1997; [50341]

  (2) what is the estimated consumption by weight of bread in the United Kingdom for 1997. [50342]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following estimates are based on grossed-up National Food Survey data. They relate to imported and home-grown foods purchased by households for consumption at home; food eaten outside of the home is excluded as are fruit and vegetables grown privately.

  Estimated household purchases of:

  United Kingdom 1997 thousands of tonnes

  Bread

  2,190

  Fresh potatoes

  2,129

  Processed potatoes

  497

  Fresh fruit

  2,045

  Processed fruit1

  229

  Fresh vegetables

  2,084

  Processed vegetables1

  1,055

  1Excludes fruit and vegetable juices

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49810]

  Mr. Morley
  The e-mail address for the Department's Correspondence Section is C.corres@sec.maff.gov.uk.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what target his Department sets for the maximum time to respond to letters from hon. Members; what proportion of letters meet that target; and what is the average time taken to respond to a letter from an hon. Member. [49808]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service,Official Report, column 1.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to issue for public consultation his detailed proposals for changes to the pre-export procedures for live animals; and if he will make a statement [50573]

  Mr. Morley
  A public consultation document has been issued today. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The proposed revised procedures deal with veterinary inspections for the purpose of export health certification for consignments of sheep and pigs destined for fattening,
  92
  production or slaughter in other EC Member States. They seek to clarify the role of the exporter, the Department and the Local Veterinary Inspector (LVI) in the certification process. A summary of the revised procedures will be made available to the public. A key objective of the proposed revised inspection arrangements will be to ensure that unfit animals are rejected from export health certification.

  We intend to establish a new panel of LVIs appointed to undertake these particular export health certifications, from which the LVI to conduct each particular certification will be nominated by the Department. We will provide additional training for veterinarians supervising the export of animals. Where an animal is found to be unfit to travel to the intended destination, LVIs on the new panel will have powers to serve Notices under the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order. The serving of such Notices will ensure that the person in charge of the animal takes the action necessary to protect the welfare of the animal. We intend to encourage exporters to ensure that sufficient facilities and staff are available to aid the inspection of the animals to be certified. We intend to clarify the methods for checking the identity of animals which form part of the proposed export consignment. Finally, we intend to provide clear indicators for the minimum times to be spent by the LVI on the inspection and identification of animals.

  I announced on 18 November 1997, Official Report, column 116, that we intended to pay LVIs directly for inspection and certification of consignments, recovering the money by way of a charge (payable on application for certification) by exporters. We remain committed to introducing those changes so that the whole of the certification process for these types of animals can be demonstrated to be entirely independent. The consultation document sets out the general principles which we intend to apply for recovering the costs of these inspections and seeks information to enable us to make proposals about the detail of the changes to the financial arrangements. In order to enable us to calculate the costs of such a change and to come forward with detailed proposals, information is needed not only about current charges (which are a matter between the LVI and the exporter) but also about the likely effects of the proposed revised procedures on such costs. Once we have the responses to this consultation document, we will draw up a further consultation document which outlines our detailed proposals to change the existing financial arrangements, including the legislation necessary to give effect to such a change.

  The closing date for comments is 8 September 1998.

CABINET OFFICE

  Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what is the e-mail address of his Department's Ministerial Correspondence Unit. [49831]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The e-mail address of the Cabinet Office Ministerial Correspondence Unit is mcu@ccta.gov.uk.

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

Coal-related Lung Diseases
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that advances in medical science and engineering technology have substantially removed the dangers to health, in particular to lungs, of work in deep mining of coal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, coal-related lung diseases are progressive and irreversible. However, much can be done to relieve the symptoms through the use of drugs. In some cases patients can benefit from home oxygen treatment. It is not possible wholly to remove the hazards to health that arise from the deep mining of coal, but the current situation is a substantial improvement on the past. This is particularly true in relation to the risk of lung disease. The Coal Mines (Respirable Dust) Regulations 1975 have significantly reduced the incidence of pneumoconiosis among miners. The regulations are currently under review to ensure that they remain effective.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. Is the Minister aware that some noble Lords who have been concerned in Parliament with the issue of disablement, in my case for nearly 40 years, have observed many cases of severe occupational illnesses that are eventually recognised with compensation and they shall be reminded of that
2
on Thursday when the Pneumoconiosis (Compensation) Regulations are laid before the House? Can the noble Baroness assure the House that this is now all history and it is unlikely to be repeated on the scale of the past?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to point out the terrible and long-standing consequences of lung disease and sometimes the long time it has taken to recognise the risks that workers have endured in their particular occupations. The Government always look at ways to improve health protection. The evidence of British Coal health surveillance, in particular its programme of X-ray screening, shows that the introduction of the Coal Mines (Respirable Dust) Regulations 1975 has brought about substantial improvements. But we are concerned to ensure that the prevalence of this disease that has reduced dramatically since 1975 continues to decline. For that reason a review is being undertaken into the 1975 regulations to see whether action should be taken to improve their effectiveness.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, while the development of technology and the practice of safety in mines has led to the British mining industry being the safest in the world, is my noble friend aware that the extinguishment of the role of the colliery deputy, and therefore the lack of primacy in safety underground, is hardly helpful in maintaining that achievement? Does my noble friend also accept that there may well be too much sustained overtime worked underground which is hardly conducive to health? Further, does my noble friend agree that if the previous government had been a little more concerned about the health and safety of the coalfields they would not have been contracted at the speed they were?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's long-standing concerns in this area. The 1993 regulations which changed the position of deputies in the pits still provide that every person working underground must be under close supervision and that every part of any underground mine must be regularly

3
inspected. I understand that the additional flexibility as to who carries out those roles should not be taken as a cause for reduced safety standards. The changes were instigated as part of an overall ongoing review by the Health and Safety Commission of health and safety legislation as it related to the mining industry. It is in that context that the review with particular regard to dust, to which I referred earlier, is being undertaken.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers' Compensation) Act 1979 was one of the first Acts of the incoming Conservative Government?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I did not look in my briefing to see which political party introduced that particular Act. It was very important because it introduced no-fault compensation for a group of workers who needed it.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, can my noble friend advise the House about the Government's current stance in relation to vibrating white finger, which is an injury that is experienced by a good number of miners as a result of the drilling that they have had to carry out in deep mines?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I understand that that disease is being considered as part of the industrial injuries list. I shall take further advice on that matter and write to my noble friend.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister agree that over the years since the war enormous strides have been made in fighting pneumoconiosis; and that the levels of new incidents have been dramatically reduced? With regard to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, does the noble Baroness also agree that we lead the world in the technology for dealing with pneumoconiosis? Is full advantage being taken of that in technological exports?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out the progress that has been made. Prior to the 1975 regulations, the prevalence of ILO Category 2 simple pneumoconiosis and higher in the 55 to 59 year-old age group representing those who had worked in the industry for 35 years exceeded 4 per cent. By 1993 the level had fallen to 0.025 per cent. in that age group; so there is considerable progress. There are opportunities because of the technological expertise that exists. I am sure that those are transferable to other countries' coal industries.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, as coal mining is bad for the health of the workers, why do the Government continue to give subsidies to increase or encourage coal mining?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on 25th June the Government published a clear consultation document on their review of energy and the different factors to be
4
taken into account when looking at the sources of energy on which this country should depend. The period of consultation will end on 20th July. It would be wrong to speculate on the outcome of that process before we have had a chance to consider the representations made—including, I am sure, the representation that the noble Lord has just made, if he wishes to make it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that pneumoconiosis has been caused mainly by miners who shot-fire with explosives when cutting new galleries underground having failed to observe the regulation that they must not fire a further shot until dust has settled? When they failed to do so, they sometimes died. Will those regulations be enforced in future?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not wish to debate with the noble Lord about who was at fault here. There were clear indications that the prevalence of dust in mines was a factor that caused pneumoconiosis. The responsibility rests with the operating organisations to ensure that workers operate in safe conditions. The review will consider whether the 1975 regulations, which have made such a vast improvement, need any further tightening up.

Sri Lanka
2.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take the initiative in trying to bring the various parties in Sri Lanka to the negotiating table.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe a lasting solution to this tragic conflict in Sri Lanka can be reached only through a political settlement. We stand ready to help in the resolution of the conflict and would be prepared to facilitate talks if both sides asked us to play such a role.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am saddened by that disappointing Answer. Were the Government to take an initiative, does the Minister believe that it might do some good? I understand that his right honourable friend Mr. Cook might feel somewhat shell-shocked over sticking his finely-tuned nose into the affairs of the sub-continent. However, do the Government realise that we are strong friends with both major parties in Sri Lanka and that we support and nurture the Tamil Tigers in that country? We should therefore enjoy good relations with them. Under the last government, my honourable friend Dr. Fox made considerable progress, on his own initiative, in getting talks under way.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I may take two or three points. Her Majesty's Government clearly stand by. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be prepared to help settle any dispute in friendly countries, whether the India-Pakistan conflict or within Sri Lanka. However, our information is that a proactive move by us at this stage would not meet with a positive

5
response. The initiative from the former parliamentary secretary, Dr. Liam Fox, to which the noble Lord rightly refers, had some benefit: it led to a bipartisan approach from the two main political parties. But it was not negotiation between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lankan Government, which is the basis of this conflict.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a complicated situation involving at least four parties: the Government, the Opposition, the Tigers and the moderate Tamil groups? Intervention at this stage might well be counter-productive. Is it not better to proceed behind the scenes until such time that it becomes clear that there is a genuine wish among the parties involved for an initiative to be taken leading to negotiation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. It is precisely that complexity which led to the caution in my initial reply.

Parliament: Constitutional Safeguards
2.48 p.m.
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they propose to take to strengthen the safeguards against a government seeking to extend the duration of a Parliament beyond five years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we believe that the present safeguards are sufficient.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his somewhat complacent reply. Is it not obvious that if the hereditary Peers' right to sit and vote were abolished and nothing else done to change the composition of this place, the constitutional safeguard in the 1911 Act giving the Lords an absolute veto on Bills to extend the life of Parliament would be gravely weakened in that the Government could easily secure the creation of enough Peers to get such a Bill through? Would it therefore not be rash and irresponsible for the Government to press ahead with their plans to create a wholly nominated Chamber when history shows that decades could elapse before a comprehensive reform took place—decades during which a vital safeguard against arbitrary power would have been rendered virtually useless?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that my reply was complacent. Parliament has had its life extended on only two occasions this century; once in 1916, for obvious reasons, and once in 1940 for
6
the same obvious reasons. I agree with the noble Lord that a speedy reconstitution on rational bases of your Lordships' House is long overdue.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in view of the Minister's definitive Answer to the Question, is not the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, tilting at windmills?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, partly.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, has the noble Lord forgotten that in Cromwell's time the Parliament was extended?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, is right in saying that Cromwell's time was before the relevant Act. The Septennial Act was passed only in 1715, so the Lord Protector's many virtues would not have been interfered with by that Act.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we were to go forward as is proposed—or likely to be proposed by the Jenkins Commission—to a form of proportional representation which would entrench a Lab/Lib government for ever, future elections would not be necessary and therefore there would be no point in the safeguard?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that is the best recommendation for the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that I have heard in many a year. As everyone knows, it is true that there is overwhelming support for the Prime Minister and all his manifold deeds. But I believe that the public ought to have an opportunity—say, every five years—to reinforce their absolute confidence in Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, in recollecting that over the years Her Majesty's Government have granted many former Commonwealth colonies written constitutions, has the Minister considered that one part of a long-term programme of constitutional reform might be to provide this country at last with a written constitution?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is certainly an argument to be made for that. There are also arguments to the contrary. I did not understand that it was the present policy of the present Opposition that we ought to have a written constitution.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, since the Minister declared that the Government were satisfied with existing safeguards, would he be very careful not to remove them in such a way that your Lordships' House might become a mirror image of the House of Commons and thereby wholly amenable to the Party Whips—a dreadful prospect?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I can see no immediate or long-term prospect of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, being a mirror image of anyone

7
at all, nor indeed being subject to any whipping of any kind in any circumstance. The present safeguard is the Septennial Act of 1715. As I said in Answer to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that Act has worked extremely well over more than 250 years because it has been put on one side only twice; once in the First World War and once in the Second World War. That is not a bad record.
Lord McNally: My Lords, has the Minister noticed that hobgoblins such as threats of an extension of Parliament or needs for a government of national unity and so forth arise only when there is a non-Conservative government? Would not the best guarantee of our democracy be a functioning Opposition? Would it not be better, following the rather mediocre interventions from the Government Front Bench this Question Time—
Noble Lords: Opposition Front Bench!
Lord McNally: My Lords, the Opposition Front Bench—I will correct that in Hansard. Would it not be better if they followed the example of Miss Widdecombe in another place and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in this place and knuckled down to being an effective opposition because they have a long time to get used to it?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are no hobgoblins in your Lordships' House, whether hereditary or nominated. The fact is that I have not heard an intervention from the Opposition Front Bench on this pressing question. I am sure that we are all agog to have such a contribution.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Liberal Democrats have far greater experience in opposition than either the party in government or indeed ourselves and that it is therefore not surprising that they have used that experience to good effect during the course of the past 90 years?
Is the noble Lord also aware that there is a serious point behind my noble friend Lord Waddington's Question to which the Minister has not faced up? It is that if the hereditary peerage is to be removed—in other words, if the Government go ahead with their stage one without producing stage two—it will create a real danger that the life of Parliament could be extended against the interests of the people of this country.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have heard some pretty thin arguments in my time, but I have to say that that pretty well takes the biscuit. The hereditary Peers are not necessarily the sole or indeed significant bastion of our rights in this country. The Act has worked well in the past; it does not need alteration at the moment. Ingenious though the noble Lord is, I cannot see that the Septennial Act has much to do with the reform which is long overdue. As the
8
Lord Privy Seal said the other day, it is unfinished business since 1911. It has nothing really to do with it at all—has it?
Lord Annan: My Lords, has the Opposition Chief Whip forgotten that there is one safeguard in this House against abuse of this kind—the Cross-Benchers?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: And long may they remain, my Lords.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while in any way refusing to criticise the role of the Cross-Benchers, I invite the Government to answer the much more important question as to when they will make an effort to safeguard the rights of the British Parliament as a whole against the ever encroaching European legislation that is being inflicted upon us without, in many cases, any approval of our Parliament at all?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, life is really such fun! I did not imagine that even the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, could have got the European Parliament into this Question. But my answer to him is that the safeguards of the independence of this Parliament here in Westminster lie with the individual conscience and duty of every Member, whichever House he or she inhabits.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, is not the noble Lord overlooking the fact that the difference between the present situation and the situation which has appertained over the past few centuries is that if the hereditary Peers' right to vote and to sit is abolished and nothing else is done it will only need the Prime Minister to recommend the creation of quite a few Peers for the government of the day to dominate this House absolutely?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is of course the position, and over the past 18 years incumbent prime ministers have used their power of party patronage to increase their representation in this House. It has been the fact that, numerically, Conservative Peers have always formed the largest segment. That does not seem just, it does not seem rational and it ought not necessarily to be tolerated for all time.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the answer to the Opposition was actually given to this House last Tuesday in the debate and the decision on Scottish education fees when the existing Government were defeated, and would have been whether or not hereditary Peers had voted?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is factually correct. Whether that is the answer to the noble Lord's question, I am not quite sure.

Industrial Action: Extent of Controls
2.58 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether disproportionate industrial action in the public sector will be proscribed as unlawful unless submitted to mandatory arbitration with binding effect.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government see no justification for adding to the existing controls on industrial action.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Do the Government not believe that it is high time some steps were taken to deal with the sporadic and persistent strikes on the London Underground, which are disproportionate and which cause excessive damage and disturbance? Can he recall that when in opposition his party rejected every proposal in the Green Paper, No. 3470, to deal with such strikes in public sector services but that his right honourable friend, now the Prime Minister, then appeared to favour some form of mandatory arbitration?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I shall not comment on an industrial dispute which is taking place at present. The United Kingdom has some of the tightest controls on industrial action. Some groups such as the police and prison officers are prohibited from taking action and secondary action is banned. It would be unnecessary and unfair and almost certainly contrary to our undertakings under the ILO, of which we are members, to increase restrictions on industrial action.
As regards the Green Paper referred to by the noble Lord, yes, that was published in November 1996. I seem to remember that almost everyone felt that its recommendations were both unnecessary and undemocratic. In particular, the CBI and the Institute of Directors felt that way.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the term "disproportionate industrial action" could be used to describe any form of industrial action? Secondly, does he agree that employers, as much as trade unions, are reluctant to be subjected to compulsory or mandatory arbitration? Finally, will he confirm that trade unions are still subjected to industrial action ballots which were introduced by the government supported by noble Lords opposite?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I can confirm that trade unions are subjected to industrial ballots introduced by the previous government. I confirm also that this Government have no intention of changing that at this time. As regards my noble friend's other question, we
10
certainly encourage employers and employees to make greater use of conciliation and arbitration, pay review bodies and early recourse to ACAS.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, following that question and answer, will the Government actively encourage employers and trade unions to reach voluntary no-strike agreements with a commitment to arbitration if a dispute cannot otherwise be settled?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, certainly it is the Government's view, that employers, employees and trade unions should reach voluntary arrangements. If they believe that no-strike agreements are right for them, then the Government are quite satisfied with that. But it is not for the Government to say what those arrangements should be.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is no need for any imposition of statutory binding arbitration agreements because the trade union movement would like to return to the situation which existed in 1979, before the previous government abolished voluntary arbitration agreements? Would it not be a good idea if the present Government were to reintroduce them, particularly in the public sector?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, certainly in 1979 arrangements were in force in relation to arbitration. I believe that they were called ex parte agreements where one side or the other could insist on arbitration. However, those agreements have ceased since privatisation. As regards my noble friend's last recommendation, I repeat that it is a matter for the employer and employee. It is not for the Government to say what those arrangements should be.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, from a wealth of practical experience, makes a lot of sense and that his proposals warrant serious consideration? Is the noble Lord also aware that he did not answer my first Question, did not answer either of my supplementary questions, and that it is virtually a waste of time asking some questions in your Lordships' House?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, certainly my noble friend Lord McCarthy speaks sense and I know that he is highly regarded in the Labour Party. I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that my responses to his questions were unsatisfactory. I have tried to respond in a practical manner as far as the circumstances will allow.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as I am a member of the Association of University Teachers, I must declare an interest in this Question. Is the Minister aware that in the case of many trade unions, certainly my own, we

11
have no objection to the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway? The objection comes entirely from H.M. Treasury.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that observation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, if the Minister thinks so highly of the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, do I take it that he considers that industrial relations in the winter of 1978–79 were perfect?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I certainly do not consider them perfect. However, at present the industrial relations situation is very good. We have the lowest number of days lost due to strikes since 1891.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the noble Lord understand that his tribute to the legislation of the previous government is extremely welcome? Also, I offer him a word of congratulation on the answer he gave to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, although it was a disappointing answer for the noble Lord.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments.

Business
3.5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in view of the grouping of amendments this afternoon on the Third Reading of the School Standards and Framework Bill, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the stages of that Bill will be completed before the dinner break this evening. As a result of that, the Unstarred Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will be taken at the end of business. The Question will be allowed one-and-a-half hours instead of the usual one hour in the dinner break. Information on the timing of speeches in that debate is displayed on the speakers' list.

Landmines Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee (on re-commitment). Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 24 [School organisation committees]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we start today by returning to the school organisation committees and the role of the adjudicator. As it is some time since we discussed this very fully in Committee—it having been raised on Report at a particularly crucial time with regard to events in France—I thought it may be helpful to outline briefly again the role of a school organisation committee and its composition; to deal with the reasons why we on these Benches object so strongly to it; and, indeed, why I felt in Committee that there was widespread concern throughout your Lordships' House about it.
The intended role of a school organisation committee is to approve, amend or certainly to consider a school organisation plan to be prepared by the local education authority. The committee is to be composed of a number of groups—the LEA, the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the Further Education Funding Council and a number of others. The membership of each group can comprise a one-person group or one with up to seven members. However, the crucial point is that each group has only one vote on the school organisation committee, including the LEA. That, too, will have only one vote.
The final point is perhaps the most important one as regards our concern about school organisation committees; namely, any decision by such a committee has to be unanimous. One dissenting voice or one dissenting group—it could, indeed, be one individual voice if it is a group of one—would be enough to prevent the committee from making a decision. In the event of the committee being unable to make a unanimous decision, the matter would be referred to an adjudicator to be appointed by the Secretary of State. After due process, the adjudicator would make the final decision on the school organisation plan, but there will be no right of appeal from the adjudicator's decision.
I hope that that is a very brief but accurate description of the position. I intended it to be so, even though it is one about which I am most unhappy. I have no doubt that the Minister will correct any factual inaccuracies that I may have made in that brief summary. The reasons behind our objection to the process are that it is cumbersome, bureaucratic and, in the end, it is fundamentally undemocratic. It is either a 10 or an 11-stage process in full, depending on how the stages are allocated. But it begins with the LEA drawing up the school organisation plan.

13
I should like to spend a few moments outlining how that will happen. The plan is not something which will appear mystically and magically from the office of the director of education and be seen for the first time when it is delivered to the school organisation committee.
In drawing up the plan, any LEA—and most certainly a good one—will consult widely with all the partners and providers in local education. I am sure that the plan will be subject to widespread discussion and debate before it reaches the education committee of the LEA where it will again be debated and discussed in public, not only by the elected members of the LEA but also by the other people who are represented on education committees; namely, the Churches, the soon-to-be parent governors, and so on. It is to be hoped that the education committee will then agree the plan unanimously. I am sure that it will have to be formally agreed by the full council. That is normal practice in such major policy matters.
Therefore, before a school organisation plan is agreed by an LEA, it will have been subjected to very considerable informal and formal consultation with all the players in the local education scene. It will have been debated and discussed and it will finally have been decided upon by a democratically elected body. Then it will be referred to the school organisation committee for further consideration.
At earlier stages of the Bill, my noble friends and I moved amendments which suggested that there may be a useful advisory role here for school organisation committees which can bring together in a more formal way the partners who will already have been involved in the discussions. There is perhaps some use in having an advisory role. I am not wholly convinced in that respect, but I can envisage some scope for it. What I find hard to understand and accept is the fact that a school organisation committee set up statutorily should have the power to amend or, even worse, to override and reject a school organisation plan which will have been prepared in the way that I have described, and decided finally by the elected LEA.
However, school organisation committees will consider school organisation plans. The various groups that have an input will discuss it. No doubt all of them will have their own particular points of interest; indeed, one might say, their own agenda. The Government expressed the desire that that should be done in a spirit of co-operation and that consensus would be sought. As I have said before, I applaud that; and, indeed, I say it again. I very much hope that such matters will always be discussed in a spirit of co-operation and in an attempt to reach consensus and agreement. We will all be pleased where that succeeds. But after years of experience on an LEA—others with similar experience have said the same—I know that that is not always the case in the education world. Unanimity does not always rule naturally; nor is it always easily achieved. As we have heard during our debates, there are sincerely and deeply held views which are diametrically opposed to each other. It is not always easy to achieve unanimity.
We can speculate on how often a school organisation committee will reach unanimity, or fail to do so. I can bandy words with the Minister about whether or not the requirement for unanimity is, in effect, giving a veto to any one group. If one group can ensure that a school organisation committee is unable to reach a decision simply by withholding its vote, it seems to me that that amounts to a veto. When we discussed the matter previously, the Minister expressed some difficulty with that view, which I did not understand at the time. However, perhaps I will understand it when it is explained to me again. Is it the case that one group will have the ability to prevent such a committee reaching the required unanimous decision?
The Government have argued in favour of that process in that it devolves power and decision-making from the Secretary of State to a local level—namely; to a school organisation committee. But that is only true where agreement can be reached—and where agreement can be reached, a contentious issue is not usually involved. If there is a consensus, in a sense it matters a little less where the actual formal decision is taken. The crucial point is where a decision is taken if consensus does not reign and where unanimity cannot be achieved, however hard it is being sought. In that case, a decision does not pass onwards to the Secretary of State, who is perhaps imperfectly at a distance but is, at least to some extent, democratically accountable. He can be lobbied by Members of Parliament and others and is, albeit in a distant form, accountable for his decisions.
Under the proposals before us today, the final decision goes to an adjudicator. I have no doubt that the adjudicators will be given guidelines to follow in making their decisions. I do not doubt that it will be possible to talk to them and I am sure that interested parties will submit their cases. But, at the end of the day, the decision is not made by any democratically-elected or accountable person—however inadequate that democracy or that accountability may be—it is made by a person appointed by the Secretary of State who, incidentally, may or may not have any local connection. Indeed, he may have none.
Moreover, there is not even a right of appeal. When I first heard about these proposals, I compared them to the situation on planning where appeals against planning decisions usually go to an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. At least in that case it is ultimately the Secretary of State who makes the decision and there is some right of appeal. However, there is no right of appeal as regards the decision made by appointed adjudicators who are, presumably, accountable only to the Secretary of State—should they wish to have their appointments renewed at some stage.
Assuming that agreement is not reached, we are talking about what is ultimately an 11-stage process, which I believe to be cumbersome and bureaucratic. The first step in that process—and only the first—is the extensive consultation and discussion carried out by the LEA in preparing its school organisation plan.

15
The process ends with a decision taken by an adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State and accountable to no one for that decision. That seems to me to be fundamentally undemocratic.
I would be the last to pretend that our present system is the ultimate in democracy; indeed, demonstrably it is not. I accept that there must be some LEAs which probably do not consult as fully, as widely or as co-operatively as I would certainly wish them to do. The right solution is to improve and enhance the democratic process and, if necessary, to require LEAs to carry out the proper and necessary consultation. The right way to deal with the matter is to enhance the democratic process, not subvert it. However, that is what the Government propose. That is why we are today moving amendments which would remove the clauses dealing with the setting up of school organisation committees and the appointing of adjudicators. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, yet again I give my enthusiastic support to these amendments. I do not know where the support for the Government's proposals is coming from. It is certainly not coming from local authorities. That is the case whether one talks to a Labour councillor, a Liberal councillor, an Independent councillor or a Tory councillor. They are all of one mind. They believe they were elected to make these decisions and to be accountable to their local population. They feel that the bodies we are discussing constitute unelected placemen and women appointed at the whim of the Secretary of State. They are not accountable. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has explained so clearly, when a decision is referred to the adjudicator, there is no right of appeal. One only has to read the interim guidance on school admissions to appreciate the kind of power this body will have. I refer to all the decisions that flow from the school organisation plans and from education development plans.
I now discuss what I consider the unkindest cut of all. A number of decisions that come before a council are supported by all the parties on the council. Those decisions are now no more than recommendations. Decisions may be referred to a panel of unelected people who may take a different view on them. If they do not reach a unanimous decision, the matter is referred to the adjudicator, who can—this has now been confirmed by Written Answer—accept the majority recommendation from the organisation committee. He can also reject that and accept the minority view, which may represent the minority view of only one block vote on the organisation committee. He can also reject both of those views and propose a solution that is different from both of them. There is nothing democratic about that.
As regards admissions policies, there has been a real misunderstanding on the part of grant-maintained schools. They believed that when they became foundation schools they would be their own admissions authority. The Government have said that those schools will be free to determine their own
16
admissions arrangements. However, they will not be free to determine their own admissions arrangements because, if any other admissions authority disagrees with that—including the local education authority—that matter also is referred to the adjudicator, who finally makes the determination, which could be in conflict with that of the so-called admissions authority of the school.
Partial selection can be ended by the adjudicator, as can priority by aptitude. There is no accountability whatsoever. The power of the organisation committee and the adjudicator is unacceptable in a world that is supposed to be more democratic. The Government talk about democracy, open government, accountability and even about sharpening up accountability as regards local authorities. But, in practice, the Government do something quite different. I support these amendments extremely enthusiastically because we are discussing what is probably the most undemocratic proposition that has come from the Government in this past year.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I apologise as I did not manage to enter the Chamber in time to hear the first sentences of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, when moving this amendment. Everything happened slightly more quickly than I thought it would. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in speaking for the main Opposition, said that no one supported this measure. I thought it would be useful if I repeated what I said at an earlier stage of the proceedings; namely, that I certainly support this measure.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Peston: My Lords, occasionally people inside this Chamber like to have their views heard. I support the measure because I view it as an experimental procedure. I can envisage that some of the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has mentioned, could arise. However, it was, and remains my view, that the Government in endeavouring to devolve decision making in this area are doing the right thing. If we look at the matter positively, there is every reason to believe that the committees and/or the adjudicators will behave reasonably.
The whole point of arguing for devolving decision making—I do not take it for granted that local authorities will act in a totally barmy way, although on occasion they have done so—is that I believe it is reasonable for us to give this measure a fair wind to see whether local people at local level can reach some kind of agreement on this matter. I repeat the point—I hope that when my noble friend the Minister responds to the amendment she will also repeat this point—that the adjudicator is subject to all kinds of rules and regulations. At the very least he is subject to all the tradition and philosophy of administrative law, which means that he has to be reasonable. When he gives reasons, those reasons have to make sense. The idea that this is somehow a diktat flies in the face of all similar decision makers who act within administrative law.

17
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, may give us some examples of that philosophy not working. As an economist I suppose I am bound to take the view that one should always plan bearing in mind the worst case. However, I am convinced that it is sensible to take the final say away from the Secretary of State in settling this kind of dispute and to ask the local education authority to prepare the organisation plan. That is then examined by the body we are discussing, which tries to reach agreement on it, and only in the last resort, if it cannot reach agreement, the adjudicator is asked to determine the matter. We have every reason to believe that the adjudicator will be a reasonable, sensible person. I believe we should at least give that procedure a try.
To my knowledge what is proposed here is unusual in the realm of education. However, that does not necessarily mean that it is flawed. I accept that I speak as one poor soul inside the Chamber—it may he only myself in this Chamber who holds this view—but I think that this measure is worth supporting.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, the noble Lord has missed the point. As a distinguished scholar, he will be aware that many people have chosen between administrators, nominated bodies or democracies to decide matters. Many of us from this side of the House have criticised the working of local government. But at least you can chuck the rascals out! The Government have developed a double tier system. They have moved from local democracy—where you can chuck the rascals out—to an organisation committee, of which a substantial part is nominated, and, then, to an official, an intendant. That is a dirigiste policy, on which I have criticised the Government on many occasions. It is contrary to the tradition of English education. Local authorities have not always acted in the interests of either the Liberals, the Tories or the Labour Party. However, to implement this measure is contrary to everything that has happened in English education over the past 120 years.
I know that the noble Lord has a great regard for democracy. I am surprised that he has supported this measure. The adjudicator is appointed by the Crown and is subject to regulations issued by the Crown. We all know that he will be appointed to prevent the inconvenience experienced by the Secretary of State in the past when local MPs, local authorities and agitators protested when a school was closed. I admire the noble Lord, Lord Peston, in many ways, but I am surprised that he can defend such an authoritarian measure. That shocks me.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, in his "shock". Normally I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I wish to draw the attention of the House to some of the points made in defence of the proposal on 1st June. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made much of the fact that, in setting up school organisation committees, the Government were concerned to ensure true partnership.
18
He said that the provision of the committees was a matter of partnership between the different providers. He went on to say:
"The school organisation committees give formal effect to the existing partnership which is at the heart of these provisions. A fundamental element of any genuine partnership is that the views of all the partners have force. Therefore, it is not sensible that the local education authority over-rules the views of the other partners. If we arc to retain balance, one partner cannot be more equal than the others".—[Official Report, 1/6/98; col. 17.]
I suggest that in a democracy the democratically elected body has the right to overrule another party. The Government, last week and this week, have been doing just that in reference to other bodies, particularly in relation to school fees. The Government have said that the democratic body has the right to overrule all other bodies. That is what they have said in relation to the Scottish question On the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. Yet this Bill says something quite different; namely, that the undemocratic body, the school organisation committee, has the right to overrule a democratic body. The Government are very twisted in their interpretation of what is democratic. This matter is at the heart of the argument about school organisations and the adjudicator.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, went on to say that,
"Local education authorities and the other groups will effectively have the opportunity to secure that any proposals to which they are opposed are considered by the adjudicator".—[Col. 18]
The local education authority will be part of the organisation committee. If it objects, it can then go to the adjudicator.
The Government have spent a lot of time trying to persuade us that the adjudicator will be a local person. On questioning that a little further, we discovered that the adjudicator will not necessarily be a local person, and that he or she might deal with several areas in the same way as inspectors do under the planning system. It is a little rich of the Government to try to sell the proposal to us in this way on the basis that it represents decentralisation.
In a democratic system there is a hierarchy of democratically elected bodies. In this country we have parish councils; district and other councils; and Parliament. It may be the case that some of us in this Chamber would like to see a regional tier, but that does not exist at present. Democratic accountability goes right to the Minister at the top. That is how it has always been. The worst aspect is that not only will that democratic line of accountability go, but people who wish to object to the pronouncements of an adjudicator will have no right of appeal. That goes against everything that we have had in our democratic system in this country.
We do not dispute that it is important to have partnership between local authorities and those on behalf of whom they administer and who are affected by their decisions. No one disputes that. In many areas, local authorities implement that partnership very well, and we should like to see that approach enhanced. However, it cannot be enhanced by simply ignoring democratically elected bodies. That is our case. We must support the democratically elected bodies. You cannot,

19
just because you do not like what is happening, suddenly try to introduce a committee that is not democratic and say that it can overrule a democratic body. That is not the way that we do it. That is the purpose of our amendments. They are forceful, and I hope that we shall have the support of the whole House on this important matter.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, school organisation committees will form an additional and unnecessary layer of bureaucracy that will syphon funds away which could be better used in the schools themselves.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, this is the third time that we have debated these issues. Admittedly, on one occasion there was a great deal of excitement elsewhere. Much of this ground has been covered before. But I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I go over again the basics behind what we are proposing, not because the noble Lord, Lord Tope, was inaccurate in any way, but because they are fundamental to our reasons for persisting with our belief in these arrangements as the best way forward.
I start with the position as it is. Noble Lords will know that many proposals for change to school organisation are currently considered by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State takes decisions on all proposals relating to voluntary and grant-maintained schools; and all LEA proposals to which there have been objections. In addition, the Secretary of State may call in any LEA proposal for his own decision. Noble Lords opposite have spoken on a number of previous occasions of their experiences in dealing with such cases. We want to get away from that position. What we want, and what we have support for from consultation, is as local a decision-making process as possible. But it must be a local process based on partnership, reflecting in particular the significant contribution of the Churches over many years in the provision of school places.
Noble Lords opposite drew attention to the consultation and discussion between partners locally that is already undertaken in the development of proposals for change to school organisation. The Government entirely support that and hope that it will continue. Our proposals seek to build upon that partnership at local level. But the existing partnership is supported by the formal arrangements that I have just described in which proposals made by partners other than the LEA come automatically to the Secretary of State. Because the Secretary of State takes all decisions on cases where there is the slightest dispute, there is no incentive to resolve conflict locally.
I was surprised by the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. In giving effect to the principle of decisions at local level, building on local partnerships, we concluded that it was right to involve those other partners directly in the decision-making process. We also concluded that it was right to do so in such a way as to give their views the degree of force that they are now given: hence a school organisation committee, in which the key partners at local level are brought together to reach decisions at a local level.
20
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, and his noble friend Lady Maddock referred to the local education authorities. Our proposed new arrangements do not reduce the powers of local education authorities in respect of proposals for change to school organisation. LEAs will be responsible for securing that there are sufficient school places in their area; and for that reason will draft the school organisation plan. LEAs will retain their powers to publish proposals for all types of change to community schools and to decide any of their own proposals that do not attract objections. In that respect our proposals represent no change from the current arrangements.
Where they do introduce change is in the decision-making on those proposals that local education authorities have never had the power to determine: proposals of their own that attract objections, proposals made by voluntary schools and proposals made by foundation schools. Those proposals are currently removed from the local arena. From the noble Lord's remarks, it appeared that he did not completely understand that. I am sure that he does. However, I was surprised by his remarks in the light of that. In our proposed arrangements, these decisions will be made jointly by all the partners, with each having a direct voice in the decisions on those proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, seemed to be saying that decision-making can be devolved to the local authority, particularly since other partners have seats on education committees. The fact remains that in the provision of school places the LEA is only one partner. It makes decisions for only some of the schools in its area. Partnership works now because it is supported by the involvement of the Secretary of State in making decisions on voluntary and grant-maintained schools. The school organisation committee, through its membership and voting arrangements, maintains the balance in decision-making partners.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She invoked grant-maintained schools and foundation schools. I proposed an amendment for the Government to agree that they should be represented on the organisation committee, but the Government objected to it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, perhaps I may pick up the issue of membership of the committees. We have made it absolutely clear that the right way to organise the committees is not to have individual school representation in the way that the noble Baroness suggested. All schools have power to publish proposals of at least one kind within the new framework, including proposals to change categories. Voluntary schools covered by dioceses will be represented on the committee. We believe that it is right that other schools, particularly foundation and non-diocesan voluntary schools, should have a voice on the committee when proposals published by individual schools come to be considered. However, that is a level of detail for regulations rather than appearing on the face of the Bill.
School organisation committees and adjudicators will also be required to have regard to guidance from the Secretary of State. They will have to consider each case

21
on its merits and on the facts. A committee could not take a policy decision always to approve or reject proposals of a particular type, and our guidance will make sure that that does not happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, in particular, among other noble Lords, expressed pessimism that decisions would not be reached by school organisation committees. Proposals going to school organisation committees will cover a wide range of change, including the addition of nursery provision, an enlargement beyond a certain minimum limit, the amalgamation of two schools. Many of those are not at all controversial. LEAs already decide some 40 per cent. of proposals published and that will continue. The number of proposals published varies from year to year, but might amount, in a typical year, to some 600 proposals. That is an average of four for each LEA. Of course, that average covers a range. There are authorities where, in a given year, no proposals at all are published; and others where periodically there is a very large number.
I accept that some proposals may be particularly difficult. Many proposals to close schools are, but even in that case they are not all difficult. I do not accept that school organisation committees will not be able to reach decisions on such proposals. Of course they will be difficult sometimes. Of course there will be pressures on individual members and on groups of members on the committee. But it seems to me a positive outcome that there will be members of the committee presenting a range of views on a particular proposal. But, when it comes to a vote, I think that in the great majority of cases the committee will be able to reach a collective decision. I think that we ought to be a little more optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Tope, seemed to be.
I turn to the question of adjudicators. While the school organisation committees and the admissions forums provide the framework for local discussion and agreement, we have always recognised the need for a mechanism to cover occasions—which, as I have said, we anticipate will be relatively rare—when local agreement cannot be reached. We hope that it will not be necessary, but of course we must provide for it. We propose that the role should be filled by an adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State. We shall advertise the posts and recruit openly, following guidance set down by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
We have placed in the Library a statement on the adjudicator which describes in a little more detail his or her functions. The adjudicator will look again at proposals, comments and objections and the reasons for disagreement at local level. The adjudicator will consider all cases in the light of principles that are set out in public guidance from the Secretary of State and, as appropriate, in the school organisation plan and the code of practice on school admissions.
My noble friend indicated during discussion at Report stage—and I have written to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington—that the guidance will, for example, make clear that adjudicators are not expected to take decisions on proposals to which the Church groups on the school
22
organisation committee had objected and which would reduce the proportion of denominational school places within an authority.
Perhaps I may confirm what my noble friend Lord Peston rightly said and say to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that I do not think that is in any way an authoritarian set of arrangements. The adjudicator will make an independent judgment on the relative merits of each case, based on the facts and against those principles. Of course, he has to make a decision which is reasonable. In all cases, decisions will be judgments between restricted options and we should remember that.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that what we propose is undemocratic, in which he was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. During our most recent debate on the issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, acknowledged that,
"politics does come into this—quite often".
She went on to regret that,
"in some cases that happens more than perhaps it should".
However, elected members do not have a monopoly of reasonable common-sense decisions. That is what we shall expect of adjudicators. They must be separate from any concern that decisions have been prompted by political considerations.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. That is the problem with democracy, we all know that. One has to accept in a democracy that we do not always agree with those who make the decisions. It happens all the time. That is the point of what we are saying and of what I said before. The Minister has made my point for me.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the local education authority and its elected representatives will have every opportunity to express their views. It is not as if they are being shut out of the decision-making process, as was more or less implied by what the noble Baroness said.
Perhaps I may return to adjudicators. They must also be able to keep an objective perspective, be able to weigh competing arguments and be accepted for their ability to do so. Adjudicators will be assigned to cases on the basis of their availability and they will be excluded from considering cases in which they might be regarded as parti pris. They will also have to give reasons for their decisions and set them out in formal letters which give the decision and which indicate how, in balancing the information put forward, the individual decision has been reached. Since the adjudicator is the second stage of consideration, all the relevant information should already be available. However, if the adjudicator does exceptionally need to consider new information, naturally the parties concerned will have every opportunity to comment on it. That would only be right.
Adjudicators will also be able to invite oral representations from any party with an interest, although whether or not they do so will be at each individual's

23
discretion. Adjudicators may also hold public inquiries into cases if they wish and will be required to do so in considering any proposals published by the Secretary of State. Any additional information the adjudicator received would be copied to relevant parties for comment. So decisions will be clear, open and transparent.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington—who is holding another conversation—how can that be authoritarian? The focus of the arrangements is that there should be local decision making. I believe school organisation committees will reach decisions on the majority of proposals and that our objective will be achieved. Noble Lords opposite may accuse me of optimism. I prefer to think of it as trust in the ability of those responsible for providing school places locally to reach agreement on important issues.
However, we must of course provide a mechanism for resolution of those cases, which we hope will be very few, that cannot be decided by school organisation committees. We see greatest strength in there being an independent means of reaching the decision. That is what the clause is about.
Our proposed new arrangements secure decision-making on school organisation at local level; a principle for which there is wide support. They also provide, for those occasions where there is not local agreement, an independent means of reaching a decision. The Government believe that that is the right way to secure local decision-making. I hope that the reasons for that are now clear. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his opposition to these clauses and schedules.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to all who have taken part in this short debate. Perhaps I may speak first on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who has, in the past, described himself not as "old Labour" but as "Labour Gold". With that in mind, I was slightly less surprised at the views he was expressing. The noble Lord expressed the hope and the expectation that school organisation committees and adjudicators would act reasonably. Indeed, I think he said in parenthesis that it is not unknown for local education authorities to act reasonably.
All public bodies are under a legal duty to act reasonably. Sometimes a court has to determine what is "reasonable"—most of us regret that stage being reached, but that is the position. When it gets to that stage and a court has to decide what is and what is not "reasonable", it looks at the process and not at the policy decision. That is an important difference which is fundamental to our objections here. I have no doubt that the adjudicator or, indeed, the school organisation committee and, dare I say it, first of all the local education authority, will act and reach decisions in a way which they believe to be reasonable. But those decisions are seen to be reasonable only if you happen to agree with them. If you disagree with a decision, it may well appear to be unreasonable as a policy decision. We come back to the issue of where the final decision is made.
24
The Minister has said that aim is to reach agreement, to reach a consensus. I have said on every occasion that we have discussed this issue that that is the right approach. I am keen for that to happen. The Minister accused me of pessimism and claimed optimism for herself. One of us is being realistic; perhaps the other is not. Your Lordships will have to judge which of us is realistic and which is optimistic. However, there is common ground between us. There will be occasions—never mind how many—when try as it may, a school organisation committee will not reach the required unanimity and the matter will go to an adjudicator—an adjudicator who is not democratically elected, not accountable, but who is appointed by the Secretary of State.
It is said that the adjudicators will be wise persons—I am sure that they will be—that they will hear all the evidence that is put to them and make wise and balanced decisions. I am prepared to accept that until I hear or see otherwise. But one might just as well say that every decision by local government, or by central government for that matter, should go to a judge or—some of your Lordships may agree with this—to a permanent secretary who will weigh all the evidence, consider the matter carefully and make a balanced judgment. I am sure they would do so, but that is not what we describe as a "democratic" process. That is the heart of our objections to this process.
These matters are extremely important to people in any education area. We tend to talk about "local people", but everybody is a local person somewhere. These matters should be decided finally and ultimately after full consideration and consultation through a democratic process, not by a process involving appointees, however wise the appointed persons may be.
As the Minister mentioned, when we discussed school organisation committees, we did so during extra time on some event that was taking place in France. By the time we reached the question of adjudicators we were into penalty shoot-outs. I received a message from the Government Chief Whip—I hasten to say the Government Chief Whip, not my own—that on no account should we seek to call a Division. On that occasion at least, we concluded that the Government Chief Whip was correctly interpreting the wishes of the House and we did not call a Division. But these issues have, as the Minister rightly said, now been debated here three times. Considerable concern has been expressed. Indeed, I think it has grown each time the issue has been discussed.
Lord Carter: My Lords, when the noble Lord mentioned me did he say that I asked him to do something and the Liberals did it?
Lord Tope: My Lords, as the Chief Whip knows only too well, we are always reasonable people, prepared to listen to a reasonable case. When the noble Lord suggested to me that calling a Division during extra time or during a penalty shoot-out was not a good thing to do, I thought that was a reasonable point and I acceded to it. If the noble Lord makes a similar suggestion to me

25
now, I shall not accede to it. I think the time has come when we must test the opinion of the House on this matter.
3.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 173; Not-Contents, 104.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fookes, B.

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Addison, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ailsa, M.

Garel-Jones, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Glentoran, L.

Ampthill, L.

Goodhart, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Halsbury, E.

Annaly, L.

Hamwee, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Balfour, E.

Harlech, L.

Barber, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Henley, L.

Berners, B.

Higgins, L.

Biddulph, L.

Hogg, B.

Biffen, L.

Holderness, L.

Blaker, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Blatch, B.

Home, E.

Bowness, L.

Hood, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Hooper, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Ilchester, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Iveagh, E.

Burnham, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Butterworth, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Byford, B.

Kimball, L.

Cadman, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Caldecote, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Layton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Leigh, L.

Carlisle, E.

Liverpool, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Lucas, L.

Chesham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Coleridge, L.

Ludford, B.

Colwyn, L.

Luke, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cranborne, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cranbrook, E.

McNair, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McNally, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Maddock, B.

Davidson, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

De L'Isle, V.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mersey, V.

Dearing, L.

Middleton, L.

Denbigh, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Denham, L.

Milverton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mottistone, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elibank, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Moyne, L.

Elles, B.

Munster, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Eme, E.

Naseby, L.

Ezra, L.

Nathan, L.

26

Newby, L.

Saatchi, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Sandberg, L.

Norfolk, D.

Seccombe, B.

Norrie, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Northesk, E.

Sharples, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Strange, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Swinfen, L.

Pender, L.

Taverne, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Platt, of Writtle, B.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Prentice, L.

Tordoff, L.

Pym, L.

Trumpington, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Vinson, L.

Rawlings, B.

Vivian, L.

Razzall, L.

Waddington, L.

Renton, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Renwick, L.

Warnock, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Westbury, L.

Rochester, L.

Wigoder, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Romney, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Russell, E.

Wise, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Howie of Troon, L.

Arnos, B.

Hoyle, L.

Annan, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Barnett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Berkeley, L.

Islwyn, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Blease, L.

Jeger, B.

Blyth, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Borrie, L.

Judd, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kennet, L.

Burlison, L.

Levy, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Longford, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Marsh, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dixon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dubs, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Nelson, E.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Nicol, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Orme, L.

Fitt, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Gallacher, L.

Peston, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gregson, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hacking, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Rix, L.

Haskel, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hayman, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Serota, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

27

Simon, V.

Turner of Camden, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Stallard, L.

Weatherill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Winston, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.5 p.m.
Clause 25 [Adjudicators]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 25.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Proposals for establishment or alteration of community, foundation or voluntary school]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 27, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Proposals under this section shall include provision to ensure that any school making the transition to foundation, voluntary aided or community status shall retain at least the same level of financial autonomy as it had before that transition.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 seeks to ensure that any school making the transition to foundation status, voluntary aided or community status shall retain at least the same level of financial autonomy as it had before that transition. After all the amendments that have gone to and fro and all the amendments that have not been accepted by the Government, which aroused suspicions in the minds of grant-maintained schools about what exactly will happen on transition to another status, this is an opportunity for the Government now to be unequivocal on schools' financial autonomy.
The Government will have seen on Saturday a letter in The Times showing six signatures—there were many other signatures but The Times printed only six. The letter was from a large number of schools saying that the proposals set out in the School Standards and Framework Bill constitute a risk and that some of the proposals could damage some of the country's best schools. The level of financial autonomy enjoyed by grant-maintained schools is a matter they regard very seriously. Those schools fought jolly hard to become grant-maintained schools. They fought for that autonomy and now they wish to retain it.
I have to say at this point that I support very strongly indeed the extension to all schools of the kind of autonomy enjoyed by grant-maintained schools. I hope that that will happen, and very quickly. I am disturbed by the notion that it will be a phased in policy. I do not see any dangers because most of the schools that have enjoyed financial autonomy have dealt with the challenge well. In fact, there are measures both in this Bill and in previous statutes to cater for those schools which, for one reason or another, get into trouble, enabling financial management to be wrested away from them while matters are sorted out. Whatever the risks are, there is provision for dealing with them as they
28
arise. However, schools are suspicious about what will happen and what the practice will be when grant-maintained schools change their status to another category.
There are two particular areas of concern. The first, which I have just mentioned, is the phasing in of financial autonomy to schools that have hitherto not enjoyed that degree of autonomy. It would be helpful to hear unequivocally from the Government that, whatever the phasing in system and however long it takes, no grant-maintained school that becomes a foundation school or a voluntary aided school will have to go back to the base of that local authority area, that it will retain all this autonomy and that the other schools will be phased in to meet at least the level of autonomy mooted in the Fair Funding paper—and possibly more. The first assurance I want from the Minister therefore is to say that, however this system is phased in and whatever happens to schools that have not enjoyed this autonomy in the past, it will not affect the level of financial autonomy enjoyed by grant-maintained schools as of today.
The other area which gives cause for concern—the answers we have had to date from the Government only add to that concern and heighten it—is the proposition in the Fair Funding paper that schools, in choosing whether or not to accept local autonomy (local financial management), will be invited to vote on certain aspects of central funding or central services. The primary and/or secondary sectors will vote as a block to decide whether they want to provide the services themselves or have them provided by the local authority.
Suggestions have been put forward as to the kinds of service for which they would be voting. But whatever they are, if the requisite percentage—the document suggests 80 per cent.—of schools vote to have a service provided by the local education authority, there is no good reason, given that the viable economic unit has been reached, for all schools to have to accept that autonomy. If schools that were previously grant-maintained are not part of that 80 per cent.—or the percentage decided at the end of the consultation process—they should retain their autonomy to provide the service. In almost all these services the schools have proven beyond doubt that they are able to secure value for money and make decisions that are better suited to their own schools and their own situations. Therefore, they jealously guard the right to be able to make decisions for themselves.
In those two critical areas therefore, schools are concerned. Because the Government never stop reminding us that they believe that grant-maintained schools received disproportionately favourable funding, which implies—it can imply no other—that funds will be reallocated away from ex-grant-maintained schools, they would like to know what funds will be allocated away from them. The argument either has force or it does not. If it has force, then they will lose money because the Government say that they are going to amortize funding across the whole sector. I do not disagree with that, except to say this. The additional funding that goes to grant-maintained schools and that ought to go to them when they become foundation

29
and/or voluntary aided schools represents additional functions that their schools carry out. It is not there for any other reason. There is a rationale for it and, therefore, either the money is taken away and the functions remain or the functions are taken away, in which case it flies in the face of my amendment.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to ensure that during and following any transition, grant-maintained schools will not lose any financial degree of autonomy that they enjoy at this time. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this amendment seeks to pursue essentially the same objectives as the noble Baroness was seeking to pursue by other amendments tabled at the previous stages. Her concern—as she made very clear—is essentially to provide special protection for grant-maintained schools within the new framework.
I have to say that the amendment now tabled seems to be quite out of place in Clause 28, and I shall want to return to that aspect in a moment. But before I do so, I ought to address the issues of policy underlying the amendment, even though we have gone over the ground pretty thoroughly during the Bill's previous stages and I am not sure how much there is to add now. Indeed, the noble Baroness poses exactly the same questions as she has posed on several previous occasions and I felt I had done my best to try to answer them.
Throughout the debates on the school funding provisions of the Bill, the noble Baroness seems to have spoken of little else but grant-maintained schools. The Government are concerned to establish a funding system which will meet the needs of all schools, including the vast majority of schools which declined to apply for grant-maintained status despite all the energy with which the GM status was promoted by the previous government.
Our proposals for the detailed implementation of the funding provisions of the Bill have now been set out in the consultation paper Fair Funding, and it would not be right to pre-empt the view which we may take on this or that matter of detail once we have considered the responses we receive. The fundamentals of the new devolved funding system should, however, be clear. In this regard, either directly or indirectly, I shall be answering the question of the noble Baroness.
First, the funding arrangements must treat all school categories impartially. There may, at the margins, be some room for argument as to what that means in practice. In the light of responses to the consultation paper, we shall consider whether there are in fact any grounds for differentiation between one category of school and another. But as I say, this is very much at the margins. On the arguments as they stand so far, impartial treatment for the different categories seems to us—and I would have thought to most sensible people—to imply similar treatment.
Secondly, however, it remains our aim that all schools should receive this impartial treatment within a framework which reflects the experience of the grant-maintained sector as closely as possible, in terms
30
of the financial autonomy which schools enjoy. I have said that before to the noble Baroness and would like to reassure her again on that point. Autonomy, of course, has two aspects. On the one hand, it is about the freedom of schools to manage the funding allocated to them, subject only to whatever controls are reasonably necessary to protect the funding bodies' legitimate interests. In the new situation, it would be unrealistic to promise GM schools that nothing whatever will change, in the area of financial procedures and controls. We have to recognise that the LEA is statutorily accountable for ensuring that the funds which it allocates to the schools which it maintains are properly spent. That will apply in future to schools which are at present grant-maintained.
But we shall certainly make it our business to ensure that GM schools' existing arrangements are disturbed as little as possible. Any changes which LEAs may want GM schools to make will need to be justified in terms of necessity rather than convenience. And the Secretary of State will make vigilant use of his powers under Clause 56 and Schedule 14 to ensure that changes do not in any event have the effect of interfering with the right of governing bodies to decide how best to deploy their delegated funding for the purposes of the school. That, after all, is what autonomy is really about.
The other crucial aspect of financial autonomy is of course the balance between funding delegated to schools and funding retained centrally by LEAs. On that, we want the balance between delegated and centrally-retained funding to reflect the principle that funding should follow function: and in considering what that means, we shall wish to take a stringent view of the role of the LEA while ensuring that LEAs have access to the resources which that role requires.
What that will mean in detail necessarily depends on several factors. It will depend on the decisions we finally take on the division of responsibilities and associated funding, in the light of the responses to the consultation paper. It will depend on the level of financial resources available to LEAs, and on the decisions which LEAs take within those constraints. But our aim remains as we stated it last year in the Technical Consultation Paper on the New School Framework: to level up and now down, and to establish a funding regime which maximises self-management for all schools subject only to the need for LEAs to be able to carry out their essential tasks.
I now need to return to the terms of the amendment as tabled by the noble Baroness. Whatever one's view on the policy issues, it seems to me that the amendment misfires in two important respects. First, it assumes that financial autonomy is readily measurable. Of course, it will often be clear whether a particular change, or set of changes, will have the effect of reducing autonomy or increasing it. But that will not always be the case. It is not too hard to visualise a situation in which a funding body might wish to tighten some of its rules while relaxing others. In such a situation it may not be at all self-evident whether the net result is to enhance or reduce the independence of the bodies which are being

31
funded. It seems to me to be very unwise to try to write a provision into primary legislation which would leave such a wide margin for doubt and argument.
Secondly, and as I mentioned at the beginning, the amendment is quite out of place in Clause 28. The financing of schools is dealt with in Clauses 53 to 59 and their associated Schedules 14 and 15. Schools' autonomy will be determined mainly by the terms of the regulations made by the Secretary of State under Clause 54, and the terms of the LEA schemes which the Secretary of State is prepared to approve under Clause 56 and Schedule 14. Clause 28, however, is concerned purely with the making of proposals for the establishment or alteration of community, foundation or voluntary schools.
There is no other suggestion in Clause 28, as it stands, that these statutory proposals should say anything at all about the funding of the schools which are to be established or altered; nor is Clause 28 directly concerned with the possible movement of schools from one category to another. It is indeed very difficult to see how the discretions vested in the Secretary of State and LEAs by Clauses 53 to 59 could be constrained by the addition of a subsection of this kind to Clause 28.
I have taken note of the concerns on specific points which have been expressed by the noble Baroness on behalf of the grant-maintained sector at previous stages. We shall take these fully into account in reaching our final conclusions. I know that the noble Baroness in some ways would like me to pre-empt the process of consultation by saying here and now what the conclusions will be on all manner of detailed decisions yet to be taken. But from her experience I am sure she will realise why I cannot do this. I hope also that she will acknowledge that her objective could not in any event be achieved satisfactorily—or indeed at all—by the amendment which she has tabled. I hope very much that she will see fit to withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I stand chastised by the noble Baroness as not being very sensible. The noble Baroness is very sensible, so I simply concede to the very sensible noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I am not pre-empting consultation and neither is my amendment. We have no wish to do so. It is an interesting paper and there will be much to be said about it. In my amendment I simply ask to sustain the level of autonomy when such schools move from one category to another whatever happens. The noble Baroness said that the Government are concerned about levelling up, not levelling down. That is precisely what my amendment seeks: that the Government should level up to the autonomy of grant-maintained schools and not level down.
The first point I am making is that we are asking for a commitment from the Government that the GM schools will not lose out. The Government have consistently refused to give that assurance, so do not let us be surprised if the grant-maintained schools are concerned and suspicious about the Government's intentions.
32
As regards my amendment not being in the right place, given the midnight oil that I have burnt in considering these amendments in the last few weeks, it is not surprising that I make mistakes from time to time. I can see that this may well be one. When I was in the same position on the Benches opposite, if an amendment was carried by the House and it was incorrect or in the wrong place, it was for the Government to put it in the right place and to make sure that it was correct en passant. That was done frequently by my departments when I was working for the then government.
The noble Baroness was wholly inconsistent in saying that I was asking for more special protection. I am not asking for that, but simply that the schools should not lose something that they already have. As I understand it, the Government's notion of treating all schools the same is to treat all of them like GM schools. That is certainly what the Prime Minister has said. The "glitzy-ritzy" schools Minister is always talking about bringing all schools up to the autonomy level of the grant-maintained schools. I have to say to the noble Baroness that that is not special. We would like to see all schools enjoying the freedom, flexibility, financial and operational autonomy that has been enjoyed hitherto by grant-maintained schools. So it is not special; I am simply saying that those schools should not lose out with regard to their current position.
The Government have said that they are concerned about all schools; that is right. Again, my amendment does not prevent the Government from being concerned about all schools or treating them all in the manner of grant-maintained schools. The noble Baroness spoke about all schools being treated impartially. She said that she was addressing the particular point about whether grant-maintained schools lose out. If the noble Baroness is right that there shall be no partiality at all, even during the transition period, the only way that that can be read is that the grant-maintained schools must go down to the level of all the community schools and then be phased up with them. If there is no partiality, at least as an interregnum, we should allow GM schools to retain their autonomy and the autonomy of all other schools should be phased up to that level. I have to accept, given what the noble Baroness has said, that there will be no differentiation during and after the interregnum until the phasing of financial autonomy is complete.
In our earlier debates, the grant-maintained schools took the Government on trust. It is only in the final days of this Bill that they have found that its provisions do not match what they believed the Government to promise them when they become foundation schools. It was a streak of honesty, but it was very inconsistent with some of the other things that the noble Baroness said in the course of responding earlier to a similar amendment.
The noble Baroness also said that the Government wanted all schools to reflect the grant-maintained school set-up. That is certainly what the schools Minister and Mr. Blair have been saying during the past year. They would like that to be done as closely as possible. One cannot have it both ways. If there is to be no partiality whatsoever in the early stages where grant-maintained

33
schools keep their autonomy and other schools are phased up to that level, that cannot be delivered. It means that the level playing field will start on transfer.
The noble Baroness said that she cannot give a guarantee that nothing will change. I am asking that nothing should change as regards grant-maintained schools. If there is to be change following transition, it should he change for the better, not for the worse. That is a matter for the Government. It is a question of resources and of how the new proposals bed down. I am asking that grant-maintained schools (as they translate to foundation schools) and all voluntary aided schools should not lose out. I believe that it is possible that they will see a reduction in their level of autonomy, but not in the detail, as concerns the central services and functions for which they are now funded and which they are carrying out very well indeed.
Those schools opted for self-government and, as I said earlier, they went through a great deal of difficulty to reach that position. The noble Baroness said the Government cannot possibly put that safeguard on the face of primary legislation. I see no reason why that cannot be done. There is no technical reason. It is only a philosophical reason on the part of the Government because they do not want to put in place a guarantee that standards will not be reduced and become worse for grant-maintained schools as they transfer.
The critical point is that financial and operational autonomy are very important to such schools. If one is to believe the rhetoric, there is to be a levelling up to that level of autonomy. The noble Baroness said nothing about the 80 per cent. That was completely disregarded in her answer. She said nothing about the Government's view on the favourable allocation of resources to grant-maintained schools and what that means. She said nothing about the interpretation of that or about the practical application of removing from grant-maintained schools their favourable allocation. The noble Baroness did not refer to those matters. I am wholly dissatisfied with the answer, for the third time of hearing it. I now seek to test the opinion of the House.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Berners, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Biffen, L.

Ailsa, M.

Blaker, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Blatch, B.

Ampthill, L.

Bowness, L.

Annaly, L.

Brentford, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Astor, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Butterworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cadman, L.

Beloff, L.

Caldecote, V.

34

Camegy of Lour, B.

Marsh, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Coleraine, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Coleridge, L.

Mersey, V.

Colwyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V.

Mottistone, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Moyne, L.

Derwent, L.

Munster, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Donegall, M.

Naseby, L.

Elibank, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Elles, B.

Norfolk, D.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Norrie, L.

Erne, E.

Onslow ot Woking, L.

Fookes, B

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Gainford, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Garel-Jones, L.

Prentice, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pym, L.

Haslam, L.

Rawlings, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Renton, L.

Hemphill, L.

Romney, E.

Hogg, B.

Rowallan, L.

Holderness, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller.]

Home, E.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Hood, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hooper, B.

Strange, B.

Inchcape, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Swinfen, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Teviot, L

Lauderdale, E.

Trefgame, L.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Trumpington, B.

Lucas, L.

Vinson, L.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Waddington, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Westbury, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Dubs, L.

Amos, B.

Eatwell, L.

Annan, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ezra, L.

Avebury, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Barnett, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Fitt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gallacher, L.

Berkeley, L.

Gilbert, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Blease, L.

Glenamara, L.

Blyth, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Borrie, L.

Gregson, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Grenfell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hacking, L.

Burlison, L.

Harnwee, B.

Carlisle, E.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Haskel, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hayman, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Hooson, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hoyle, L.

Desai, L.

Hughes, L.

Dholakia, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Dixon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Donoughue, L.

35

Islwyn, L.

Razzall, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jeger, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Judd, L.

Rix, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Rochester, L.

Kennet, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Levy, L.

Russell, E.

Lockwood, B.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Sandberg, L.

Longford, E.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ludford, B.

Serota, B.

McCarthy, L.

Shepherd, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Shore of Stepney, L.

McNair, L.

Simon, V.

McNally, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Maddock, B

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stallard, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Molloy, L.

Taverne, L.

Monkswell, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Murray or Epping Forest, L.

Tope, L.

Nathan, L.

Tordoff, L.

Newby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Orme, L.

Whitty, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Winston, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.39 p.m.
Clause 39 [Additional functions of governing body]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 34, line 22, at end insert—
("( ) The governing body of a maintained school shall have a duty to facilitate and give reasonable assistance to parents who wish to establish an organisation within the school to represent parents when 20 per cent. of those parents have petitioned for it.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. Many noble Lords will be aware that this amendment is a redrafting of Amendment No. 107 which was moved on Report. That amendment sought the right of parents to set up a parents association at a school to be enshrined in legislation. The difference between that and the present amendment is that the new wording refers to 20 per cent. of parents who petition for such an association. This amendment is moved in response to concerns on the part of the Government and some noble Lords that possibly a few parents may hold everyone else to ransom. That was never the intention of what we sought to achieve.
The debate at Report stage became hung-up on references to CASE and its national policy and proposed national structure of interacting parent associations that would be federated to a countrywide body. The Minister was adamant that that was a step too far and that was a reason for rejecting the amendment. The aims of this
36
amendment are far more modest. We wish to remedy the situation that occasionally arises in which headteachers or governing bodies refuse the reasonable requests of a significant proportion of parents to form an organisation to represent them in a school. We and many others believe that such an organisation should be afforded reasonable assistance by governors.
The amendment speaks only of parents who wish to establish an organisation. We do not say that every school must have such an organisation. It is up to parents to decide whether or not to push for it. We acknowledge that there must be a substantial proportion of parents who are anxious to form such an organisation. In the short time that we have discussed this matter in the House we have received a considerable number of letters of support from various organisations, notably the Parent Teacher Associations of Wales, the Alliance of Parents & Schools, the Leicestershire Federation of Parent Teacher Associations and many other secretaries to parent groups.
At the previous stage of this Bill the Government also objected to the statutory responsibilities of governing bodies being placed on the face of the Bill. This happens elsewhere in the Bill. The imposition of home school agreements places far greater statutory responsibility on governing bodies than this amendment. It is difficult to understand why the Government believe it is right to put home school agreements in primary legislation and yet will not give parents the right in legislation to support governing bodies if they wish to form an association to represent them. Surely, it is inconsistent to give parents the sole right to decide on the future of selection but not to decide whether to have an organisation in the school to represent them. I hope that this time the Government will listen more carefully and see the merit in what is proposed. Both I and other noble Lords find it difficult to understand why the Government are so vehemently against this proposal. It is not as if it is a matter of great party policy that will undermine the whole Bill. It is all about enshrining in the Bill the right of parents to take part in supporting the school. That is something that noble Lords on all sides of the House agree is essential in seeking to raise standards in schools.
I finish by quoting a short passage from a letter written by the executive secretary of CASE who puts the matter rather well:
"Only last week I spoke to two parents who contacted CASE having been told they had no right to form an association. One of these was following a parental resolution to the governing body at a quorate annual parents' meeting. I know that bad cases can make bad laws, but all that this amendment will do is clarify the confusion about whether parents have the right to set up an association".
I believe that the case is well made by others outside this House and by many noble Lords. I hope that this time the Government can give just a little. We do not ask the Government to do very much.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I moved a very similar amendment at Committee and Report stages. The reference to 20 per cent. of parents requesting the establishment of an organisation has been added to this amendment to deal with the criticism made earlier that

37
a few awkward parents may cause trouble. I believe that the Government have been very unresponsive and extraordinarily inflexible. The Minister has said that the Government are all for parental involvement and want the total co-operation of parents in the running of schools and so on. Yet this amendment which gives them the right to form an association is denied. That is very odd given that when home school agreements have to be organised by the governing body, they are very much more complicated. The Minister also said that it would place a burden on the staff and head of the school. Staff would not be required to attend meetings. The parents would organise it themselves. They would require a room and what is called "pupil post" for children to take home messages about possible future meetings. I do not believe that it would be a burden but that it would encourage the involvement of parents.
One is told that there are schools in which parents have been denied the right to make such an association by a difficult head or governing body. I hope that this time, with the addition of the reference to 20 per cent., it will not be said that a few parents are making ridiculous demands on a governing body. I very much support the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I too support the amendment. Since Committee stage I have conducted a survey in my part of Lancashire. I have discovered that the majority of governing bodies and parents' associations wish this amendment to be accepted. Over the years I have spent a good deal of time looking at this problem and encouraging parents to take a more active role in the government and working of their schools. I believe that the Government make a sad mistake in not accepting this amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this is an important issue. We have already debated the involvement of parents in schools. Over the past 20 or 30 years we have seen much greater engagement by parents in the classroom and in the activities of parents' associations. This amendment is concerned with the small minority of schools in which parents are not welcome through the front door and where in meetings with headteachers they often feel intimidated about raising issues of concern. It is here that an association can help in allowing parents to raise matters of concern in a rather safer environment than before the headmaster in his office. Unfortunately, it is often in these kinds of schools that there is no parents' association or such association is inhibited from raising issues of this kind and is confined to raising funds for the school. It is also likely that in such a school the governing body is itself rather weak and beholden to the head.
I do not believe that the amendment will put all of that right. I doubt whether the requirement for 20 per cent. of parents to sign the petition is the right approach. To me it sounds rather bureaucratic, confrontational and, I suspect, over-prescriptive. But I believe that it is helpful to have some reassurance that governing bodies will at least he rigorously reminded that opportunities for parents to raise issues of concern is not a charter for troublemakers, but a sign of a healthy school environment.
38
Governing bodies need also to be reminded that a school without an active parents' association is not a complete school. If I were to devise a set of performance indicators to judge the effectiveness of a school governing body, at almost the top of my list would be an active and involved parent body.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it was most remiss of me not to have spoken on this subject on an earlier occasion. My only excuse is that the case was put so well by my noble friends and by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat and Opposition Benches. However, since this may be my last opportunity to speak on the issue, I feel that I must take it.
There was reference to awkward parents causing trouble. I suppose therefore that my wife and I and other friends were "awkward parents causing trouble". We suffered from the delusion that we were concerned parents, anxious to improve the quality of education in our children's school in Haringey. When we behaved in that way in our local primary school, it was the first time that I had been involved in anything practical in the world of politics. I was a hot-shot theorist telling everyone what they should do. When the issue concerned my children's education, it dawned on me that I had a responsibility to become involved.
However, to echo the words of my noble friend Lord Hunt, it was quite easy in Haringey—even though the head was determinedly against what we wanted—for middle-class, articulate parents to get their own way. With reference to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, we were brilliant fundraisers as well. Our head was not going to get up the noses of the people who were providing considerable sums of money for the school.
However, that is not remotely the reason why one supports the amendment. It is demonstrably the case that parental involvement is educationally productive. We want parents to be involved because that improves education. We want that not because parents replace or undermine teachers, but because parent involvement makes the teacher's task easier.
The Government whom I support—and I strongly supported them during their hard 18 years in opposition—would give the best possible signal to parents and to the world of education in general by making this provision a statutory imposition in the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said when introducing the amendment.
I speak for my own sake; I know that I am completely wasting my time. If I were not, my noble friend Lady Blackstone would have accepted a similar amendment earlier, or said that she would come back with an amendment of her own. None the less, those of us who have been involved can envisage what such a measure would provide. It would help those parents who often cannot speak for themselves. It would be wrong of me to let the amendment pass, even though I know that I am wasting my time, without offering it my total support.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I recognise that the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness,

39
Lady Maddock, seeks to address the concerns expressed during our debate on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and others, about the number of parents required to set up a parents' organisation. The Government never believed that the threshold was the major problem—that is the suggestion made in the amendment—and even if we had, I am sorry to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that her amendment is defective. I almost said "hopelessly defective" in order to secure her attention. The amendment states,
"give reasonable assistance to parents who wish to establish an organisation within the school to represent parents when 20 per cent. of those parents"—
in other words, those parents who wish to establish an organisation—
"have petitioned for it".
The amendment should have referred to 20 per cent. of all parents rather than the parents who have expressed that wish. I am afraid the amendment does not work in the sense that the noble Baroness intends.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Hunt. A petition sets a rather poor tone for the partnership between parents, the school and the governing body. We are all agreed—we always have been—on the importance of parental involvement in their children's education. I can say this in particular to my noble friend Lord Peston since we were involved together in these matters. I accept his excuse for not taking part in the Report stage; his reason for not doing so, as opposed to his excuse, was that there was a football match on at the time.
When on Report we debated an amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady David, we made it clear that the Government are committed to working with parents and to increasing parental participation. We are increasing that participation in other ways; for example, by encouraging parents to become more involved in what is happening in schools through, for example, our literacy strategy. We are increasing the number of parents on governing bodies; we are providing parent representatives on education committees; and we are involving parents through our proposals for home-school agreements. All of those changes implement commitments we made in our manifesto.
Of course we agree that parents should be consulted and have the opportunity to make their views known to the governing body. The changes I have already mentioned will mean that schools and governing bodies will need to develop new ways of working with parents. Governing bodies need to work in partnership with parents. By increasing the number of parent governors we hope to ensure that parents' views are firmly reflected within the governing body.
During the debate on her amendment on Report, my noble friend Lady David quoted the Alliance of Parents and Schools as saying,
"Many headteachers and governing bodies still do not permit parent groups within schools".
We have no evidence that head teachers and governors block the formation of parent groups. However, we would certainly be against such action. We would be
40
very happy to look at any cases which are brought to our attention where head teachers and governors have acted in this way.
I am sure that head teachers will want to follow the advice of their professional associations. The Secondary Heads Association has assured us that it supports the establishment of representative associations of parents which have the objective of supporting the school and giving effective expression to parental opinion. The National Association of Head Teachers has also assured us that it is not opposed to parent associations. Indeed, the NAHT has done much to encourage home-school partnership. It pioneered the whole idea of home-school partnership agreements.
I accept that there may be a few head teachers who have not yet accepted the need to involve parents in the work of the school. However, the requirement for all schools to have home-school agreements, drawn up in consultation with all parents of pupils of compulsory school age, will encourage schools to work more closely with parents. Our guidance—I am able to say this for the first time—on home-school agreements will highlight the value of parents' associations. It will also include examples of good practice to encourage governing bodies to give parents a voice. The draft guidance will be issued for consultation this month and I look forward to suggestions from parents' associations on how the guidance can best address that issue.
I suggest to noble Lords who have spoken with great sincerity and passion that it is more sensible for this provision to be in the form of guidance rather than as a more authoritarian duty laid down on the face of the Bill. I do not suggest that there is a great burden involved. However, the principle of local determination which runs through the Bill means that it is more appropriate to make provision through guidance than by legislation. I am not convinced that there is a need to formalise the school-parent relationship through primary legislation in the way proposed. I hope that I have assured noble Lords that we are committed to working with parents and to increasing parental participation.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. He delights in pointing out to the House the inadequacies of my amendments. I heard mutterings under the breath to the effect that someone thought that that was a little petty. I appreciate that the Government have not been in power for a long time. However, when Members who are not lawyers or draftsmen did not manage to get amendments right the previous government were in the habit of being rather more generous than the Minister has been today. Giving that as a reason for refusing the amendment does not go down well with people outside the House. I made my intention clear in my introduction and I believe that everyone outside will recognise that.
I am disappointed. The Government have the support of a large number of people; they have a huge majority in the other place; and they appear to be popular in the country. I do not understand why they are so diffident about giving in to suggestions from anywhere other than their own Benches. That is a terrible shame.

41
The Government have stated how they want to work with people and that they want school standards raised. I agree with them, but some of the most important partners in that are the parents. The Government appear to be saying, "Yes, we want parents to be partners and to help us raise standards, but only where we say and on our terms". That is a terrible shame. Although the Government are popular, it sends a terrible message from a government who do not need to behave in that way. I do not believe that people outside will understand.
I am not convinced by the Government's argument. We have received support from all sides of the House, even from Members on the Government's own Benches, and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
5.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 115.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

McNally, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Maddock, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Avebury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Carlisle, E.

Rochester, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Russell, E.

Dholakia, L.

Sandberg, L.

Falkland, V.

Thomas of Walliswood, B. [Teller.]

Geraint, L.

Goodhart, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McNair, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Davies of Coity, L.

Amos, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Barnett, L.

Desai, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Berkeley, L.

Dixon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Donoghue, L.

Blatch, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Blease, L.

Dubs, L.

Borrie, L.

Eatwell, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Fitt, L.

Burlison, L.

Gallacher, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Gilbert, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Glenamara, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Coleridge, L.

Gregson, L.

Courtown, E.

Grenfell, L.

Cox, B.

Hacking, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Haskel, L.

42

Hayman, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Newby, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Nicol, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Orme, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Paul, L.

Hughes, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Prys-Davies, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Islwyn, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jeger, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Judd, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Serota, B.

Kennet, L.

Sewel, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Shepherd, L.

Leigh, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Levy, L.

Simon, V.

Lockwood, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Loufthouse of Pontefract, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taverne, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Tenby, V.

Mallalieu, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Weatherill, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Whitty, L.

Molloy, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Monkswell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Winston, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.10 p.m.
Clause 63 [Staffing of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 47, line I, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Arrangements concerning the staffing of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools may be made in the instrument of government.
(1A) An default of such arrangements, Schedule 17 shall have effect in relation to the staffing of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13 to 23. For self-governing schools, there is no greater factor which influences standards than that of staffing. The quality of staff is absolutely crucial. Quality, recruitment and retention of staff are critical, particularly to a good school. The best schools fulfil that function very well and are, in the words of the Minister for School Standards, to be allowed to get on with what they do best without undue interference. But that is what Schedule 17 is: extensive and undue interference. It is incredibly bureaucratic. No business in the land would put in place an equivalent to Schedule 17 to allow that company to recruit the best staff available. Why should a school be any different? Speed is often of the essence; again, good companies know that. Often, in order to recruit a good and talented teacher who may

43
come onto the market unexpectedly, the school needs freedom and flexibility. It does not need any bureaucratic hurdles in its way.
It may be said—no doubt it will be said by the Minister—that some schools will steal a march over others and that the bureaucratic hurdles must be in place so that there is a level playing field. Local authorities, it is argued, need time to consider whether they approve the names on the list; approval must go down the line; and the school governors must consider what the LEAs have to say. That really is a nonsense. We are talking about freedom and flexibility for schools which care about the quality of staffing to employ the most suitable and talented staff and sometimes to do so very quickly.
My preference—and I repeat what I said at the last stage of the Bill—would be to see Schedule 17 removed altogether from the Bill. The schedule is a nonsense. I happen to know that at least one ministerial member of the Government agrees that it is a nonsense. But given that I cannot take Schedule 17 out of the Bill, or rather that it would be considered bad form to do so, I have made an honest attempt to rewrite it in such a way to provide schools with the freedom and flexibility to secure the most talented staff without impediment.
I looked at and re-read the arguments used by the Government on the previous occasion. Not a single defence was put forward against my amendment. There was nothing which made sense to the schools concerned about this matter. I should put right what I said a few moments ago about having rewritten the schedule. I have not done that. That has been done by grant-maintained schools—people concerned with the GM schools sector. They have drafted the amendment. They want to continue to be good schools and want to have the freedom and flexibility to recruit the best possible staff without bureaucratic impediments in their way. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I make only three brief points. First, in some ways we can see some merit in a critique of Schedule 17 as being extremely prescriptive on schools. On the other hand—and this is my second point—if there were to be any loosening of the schedule, I see no reason why that should be limited to certain classes of schools. The amendment seems to us more an attempt to continue special status for some schools rather than a loosening of the bonds imposed by Schedule 17.
My last point is that at present, with a case at law which reveals, if it does nothing else, that people's qualifications have not always been verified as carefully as they may have been, it is important to continue to impose upon local education authorities the responsibility for doing just that. I hope that the schedule will be used to that effect. Therefore, although we have broad sympathy for some aspects of the amendments, in general we do not support them.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Baroness indicated, similar amendments were tabled at an earlier stage. I apologise in advance that I shall have to repeat many of the arguments which the noble Baroness found
44
unconvincing. However, the major point is that the effect of the amendments would not be, as the noble Baroness claims, to protect the flexibility of a few good schools. But it would drive a coach and horses through the protection offered by Schedule 17 for all schools against abuse or maladministration in their staffing provisions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, delicately reminded us, sometimes under the existing system that goes wrong. We should not wish to do anything which removed the protection and guidance given by statute to all schools.
Schedule 17 is extremely important in that it provides a framework which makes clear the responsibility of voluntary-aided and foundation special schools in relation to their staffing. It reflects also what the noble Baroness wishes to see: namely, that LEA intervention should be in inverse proportion to a school's success.
It is not the case that Schedule 17 reduces schools' flexibility. But there is a difference between schools and private companies. Schools in the state sector are funded by public money. They are subject to a great deal of public interest and to scrutiny by local authorities, by Parliament and by the inspectorate. They also care for children. It is therefore extremely important that there are certain safeguards. Among those must be to safeguard the way in which teachers are appointed. Head teacher and deputy head teacher vacancies need to be advertised nationally. Classroom teacher posts need to be advertised, not necessarily nationally, if there is no possibility of an internal appointment. It is right and good for standards that schools establish a field from which to make appointments. It is no hardship that they should be required to adopt the good practice of advertising posts. It is not that we are restricting schools in that respect. Indeed, the schedule provides a system whereby those schools have the widest choice of excellent staff. Schedule 17 also provides a framework which minimises the danger of schools falling foul of employment law. It offers flexibility. For example, schools are unable to appoint temporary and agency staff. Without such a provision, such appointments would be unlawful. Temporary appointments should not be allowed to linger any longer than is necessary for a school to find a good permanent member of staff, but we need provision for short-term temporary appointments.
Schedule 17 gives a balance between flexibility and safeguards. Schools are already subject to safeguards through existing statutes and that is carried forward in Schedule 17, or through the pre-existing articles of government which are being abolished. Those provisions are broadly carried forward by means of the schedule. I deny the noble Baroness's claim that this is excessively bureaucratic. Most schools are familiar with the provisions because they were there before under articles of government.
I believe I need to say a little about the details of the amendments. I shall begin with Amendments Nos. 5 and 13. Incidentally, Amendment No. 13 appears to be defective as the intention presumably is to make arrangements in Schedule 12 pursuant to Section 63(1), rather than Section 63(1A). In view of the strictures of

45
the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I shall not make a great point of that. Nevertheless, I assume that to be the intention.
We do not consider that the amendments are either a sensible or a practicable way for foundation and voluntary aided schools to make arrangements for their staffing provision. There would be no guarantee that new practicable and workable provisions would be put in place. But, more importantly, there could be serious problems as regards reaching agreement with the LEA over the content of the instrument of government with respect to staffing matters.
As noble Lords will know, the Bill provides for the instrument of government of schools without foundation governors to be made and reviewed by the LEA in consultation with the governing body. Where there are foundation governors, the instrument will be made by agreement among the governing body, the LEA, the foundation governors and any trustees and relevant diocese. If there is a dispute, the Secretary of State will make a direction. However, we wish to avoid disputes. We want instruments to be made amicably. We certainly do not want to set up arrangements which will be almost bound to promote disagreement between LEAs and schools. That would be the effect of Amendments Nos. 5 and 13.
The remaining amendments seek to replace much of the provision in Schedule 17 regarding the appointment of teachers in foundation and voluntary aided schools. None of the amendments would be beneficial, either because they remove safeguards which we consider appropriate or because they are no improvement on what is already in the schedule. For example, Amendment No. 14 would remove the procedure in Schedule 17 for governing bodies to consider head and deputy head teacher appointments by setting up a selection panel, which is the usual practice. I know that a small number of church schools do use the whole governing body to consider senior staff appointments—indeed, we have made provision for that—but that is not the general rule and not something that other schools have requested.
I believe that the noble Baroness has still not yet realised what the full effect of Amendment No. 15 would be. Again, we are entering into the territory mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. By removing the need for a candidate for a deputy head teacher post to meet any staff qualification requirements, it would allow foundation and voluntary aided schools to appoint teachers, or anyone else for that matter, who are not qualified and who may be barred by the Secretary of State on misconduct or medical grounds. Surely we do not wish to remove such a safeguard.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 would increase from four months to one year the reference period for the appointment of a temporary teacher. This period would disapply the more detailed procedure that is required in making a substantive teacher appointment. The Government believe that teaching is so important that substantive posts should be properly advertised and filled. We do not believe that the four-month limit should be extended.
46
Amendment No. 18 would delete the requirement to inform the LEA of a teacher vacancy. We wish to promote co-operation and good relations between schools and LEAs. The noble Baroness appears to start from a position of wanting to cut off the flow of information and then stir up difficulties between them. Amendment No. 19 would delete the current provisions for the LEA to nominate a candidate for a vacant teaching post and includes the provision for the governing body to advertise the teaching post vacancy, unless a decision is made to fill it by other means, without being committed to appoint anyone who replies to the advertisement. That does not seem to us to be an improvement on the existing provisions in the Bill. At present, it is not compulsory to appoint someone who replies to an advertisement.
Amendment No. 21 would delete the current provisions for interviewing and deciding on teacher candidates where the governing body advertises a vacant post. Again, this does not seem to improve matters for the school; they will need a procedure. Indeed, the procedure set out in the Bill is very flexible. So, again, there would be no improvement in that respect. Amendment No. 20 would delete the current provisions to advertise a vacant teaching post and includes a requirement for teachers to be employed,
"under a written contract of employment".
That requirement would apply across the board and would cause a difficulty by preventing flexibility in that it would prevent schools from engaging supply teachers from teacher employment agencies.
By looking at the detail, I believe noble Lords will see that, far from providing flexibility for schools, the amendments would, on the one hand, remove some of the flexibility and, on the other, remove safeguards. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I seek clarification on something I believe my noble friend the Minister said. In my view, Schedule 17 is a very considerable addition to our legislation and one I strongly support. I thought my noble friend said that the contents of Schedule 17 either repeat what is already in statute as regards such matters or, indeed, improves what is already there. That accords with my view. Of course, parts of Schedule 17 are also about suspension and dismissal. Indeed, it makes the whole thing much more objective and open than it was before. Surely that is one particularly good reason why we should accept Schedule 17 as it is, rather than seek to amend it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe I said that Schedule 16 and 17 between them either repeat existing legislation and clarify it or put into legislation provision that was previously in articles of government and, therefore, accepted by schools. So we have clarity of provision in those two schedules are regards staffing and related matters. I am sure that most schools would welcome that clarity. Indeed, it provides flexibility and helps promote standards in appointment procedures and will thereby improve the standards of teachers.

47
It would be wrong to accept these amendments. They take the guts out of Schedule 17 to the detriment of quality in both areas. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and before I respond to his reply, can he explain in more detail how my amendments would prevent the employment of supply teachers?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords. As I see it, by virtue of its provision that,
"a teacher shall be employed by the governing body under a written contract of employment"
without qualification, Amendment No. 20 would prevent short-term supply situations being covered by a teacher from a teaching agency.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I still do not understand; indeed, I do not understand the impediment at all. Such schools have been employing supply teachers without the provisions contained in Schedule 17. I do not believe that there is anything in my amendments which means that any school would have no teacher for a class. However, be that as it may. I believe that there is a possible printing error in my Amendment No. 5. It should say:
"In default of such arrangements".
as opposed to,
"An default of such arrangements".
However, that is a minor point.
The Minister referred to Amendment No. 13 and said that it was faulty because it refers to Section 61(1A) and not to Section 63(1). Again, can the Minister tell me why? In fact, Section 63(1A) in the amendment refers to subsection (1A) in Amendment No. 5.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am not entirely sure that this interrogation is in order at this stage of the Bill. However, perhaps I may try to clarify the matter. Presumably the intention of Amendment No. 5 is to effect changes in Schedule 12 in relation to Section 63(1), to which the draft amendment applies, rather than Section 63(1A). Indeed, Section 63(1A) makes no reference to arrangements; it only refers to not having arrangements. Therefore, it should apply to the previous clause.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that Section 63(1A) refers to the new subsection (1A) in Amendment No. 5. The intention is that such arrangements which disapply the provisions of Schedule 17 to a certain number of schools would in fact apply where a school was in default of them. Those arrangements are set out in subsection (1) of Amendment No. 5 which says:
"Arrangements concerning the staffing of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools may be made in the instrument of government."
Thereafter, subsection (1A) should read:
"In default of such arrangements, Schedule 17 shall have effect".
48
However, that is a technicality. No doubt if I am wrong, the noble Lord will correct me in writing.
I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, was worried about the special treatment of some schools. Voluntary aided schools have enjoyed autonomy for a long time. Although the right reverend Prelate from time to time says that he does not want special treatment for voluntary aided schools, they have particular arrangements for employing staff in their schools and special arrangements as regards the nature of the staff they employ. Grant-maintained schools have enjoyed a good deal of freedom and flexibility which has been reflected in their articles of government. This Bill sets out to destroy that. Although there is now to be a model form of articles under Schedules 16 and 17, that is a strait-jacket because it comprises one model for all schools and it does not suit all schools. Some schools have enjoyed much flexibility but will lose it under the present arrangements.
I have enormous sympathy with the other point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I would be happy to see such measures made available to all schools. I believe that the more flexibility schools have and the more freedom they have to control the quality of their staff, the better. The degree of mistrust on the Government Benches of the schools which have enjoyed this flexibility so far is profound. They refer to some grant-maintained schools as good schools. They talk of excellent schools and of not permitting undue interference in excellent schools and of leaving them to get on with what they do best. However, the Minister argued against that view. We have one Minister saying one thing and another Minister saying another. The noble Lord referred to things going wrong. I say in defence of the schools that when they are using their own money to pay staff, they make a real effort to ensure that they employ the best possible staff. As far as possible, they do not employ poor quality staff as they are costly to the school.
I refer to the concept that an LEA remotely understands all the nuances and the needs of a particular school better than the school itself. That is not always the case. I refer also to the idea that the LEA has the monopoly of appointing staff. Manchester LEA has just received the most scathing report from Ofsted. The idea that Manchester LEA with its poor performance will become the arbiter of which staff are employed in schools is, frankly, a nonsense.
The noble Lord also said that schools may fall foul of employment law. Is there any suggestion that schools which have enjoyed this flexibility have fallen foul of the law? They are as subject to the law as the local authorities. We are all subject to the law. The law is the law. Those schools are subject to the law. One cannot suggest that schools will make mistakes in this area and will fall foul of the law but LEAs will not, and that the provisions set out in Schedule 17 will somehow prevent that.
My understanding is that talks are continuing between grant-maintained schools, the Prime Minister, the education advisers at No. 10 and education advisers in the department. I believe some progress will be made

49
on these issues. I believe there is an understanding inside No. 10 that this is a restrictive schedule and that something should be done about it. I believe there will be some movement on this at some stage even after the legislation has been passed and that ways will be found to loosen some of the ties. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 106 [Admission for nursery education or to nursery or special school]:
5.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 78, line 37, leave out from ("schools") to end of line 39 and insert—
("(7) Subject to subsections (8) and (9), nothing in this Chapter applies in relation to children for whom statements of special educational needs are maintained under section 324 of the Education Act 1996.
(8) Any provision made by, or (as the case may he) by virtue of, section 92 or 100(3) to (6) or this section applies, or (as the case may be) may be made so as to apply, in relation to such children.
(9) Such children shall, in addition, be taken into account for the purposes of——

(a) the reference in section 94(5) or (9) to a number of pupils, and

(b) the fixing of admission numbers under section 101 and the determination, variation and review of standard numbers under Schedule 23.

(10) In subsection (8) the reference to any provision made by this section includes a reference to subsection (4) only so far as it has effect for the purposes mentioned in subsection (9).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the House for bringing forward this amendment at this late stage. However, it is necessary because it clarifies the important question of whether children with statements of special educational needs admitted to a mainstream school should count towards the school's published admission number when determining whether other, non-statemented pupils should be admitted. The amendment also allows the Secretary of State to give relevant guidance in the code of practice.
The clarification is a little complex. I should explain that under Clause 94 one of the grounds upon which a non-statemented child may be refused admission to the school preferred by his parents is that his admission would cause prejudice to efficient education or the efficient use of resources; for example, because of the measures which would have to be taken to ensure that infant class size limits were met. But this ground may not be relied on by the admission authority unless the number of applications for admission exceeds the relevant standard number determined under Schedule 23, or any higher admission number fixed under Clause 101(1).
However, under Clause 101(6) as presently drafted, statemented pupils would not count towards a school's published admission number. Accordingly, in the case of an infant school with a single reception class and a standard number of 30, the admission authority would have to admit 30 non-statemented pupils up to that limit irrespective of whether it also had a duty to admit one
50
or several statemented pupils. At the same time, it would have to ensure that no child was in a class of more than 30. That may be a difficult circle to square.
The Government's view as reflected in this amendment is that statemented children who are known about at the time of the admissions round should be included in the count of pupils for the purposes of Clause 94. We think it would be artificial that the presence of such children cannot be taken into account when determining whether or not that would cause prejudice to efficient education.
Indeed, under the Education Act 1996, statemented pupils count towards a school's standard and admission numbers. Unfortunately, this was overlooked when what is now Clause 106 was drafted. This amendment is therefore designed to restore the position which applies under the 1996 Act.
The amendment would widen somewhat the scope of the guidance in the admissions code of practice. It would allow for guidance to relate to the admission of children with statements to mainstream schools and the effect on children without statements. The amendment also carries over the provision in the Bill for regulations under Clause 100 to require LEAs and governing bodies to publish information concerning the admission of children with statements. I believe this amendment is necessary. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord had the courtesy to apologise for bringing this amendment forward at this stage. I accept those words with thanks as they are the most appropriate ones that could be said at this stage. This Bill was written last autumn. It has been through all its stages in the Commons and this is its final day in this House, subject to toing and froing on amendments. I believe it is unprecedented for a Bill still to be rewritten up to the very last moment. No doubt if there were another day's discussion on the Bill, more amendments would be brought forward. The noble Baroness is obviously racking her brains for precedents. It would be helpful to hear of precedents of this number of amendments being brought forward at Report and Third Reading at the final stage of a Bill in the second Chamber, either here or in another place. I do not believe that this extent of rewriting of a Bill has occurred previously. The amendments that have been tabled at this late stage are afterthoughts which could have been thought of many months back.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am less concerned with the legalities of all this than with the substance of it. I must confess that—
Noble Lords: You cannot speak again.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Lord has brought forward an amendment. I can speak to that amendment and I wish to do so. In fact, I was asked by my noble friend to do just that. As I said, I am less concerned with the legalities than with the content of the measure.

51
I listened to the explanation of the amendments given by the Minister. I think I understood. In broad terms he was saying, as I am certain is the case as regards the publication of admission numbers, that the amendments respond to some of the concerns expressed by the special educational needs lobby over the course of the Bill. If I am right, and that is the intention, I very much welcome it. The provisions concern the publication of information about the admission of children with special needs and with statements. That is precisely what we or another group of Members requested in an earlier amendment. I hope the noble Lord can reassure me that I have the right end of the stick in regard to the other amendments, which I must say I found quite difficult to follow.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, further to the contribution made by the noble Baroness, I wish to ask one question. I understand that the admission number will be X plus the special places. Does the Minister confirm that? Is it the case that the standards that presently exist will be the same, plus the extra places for special educational needs? Or am I becoming totally confused? Perhaps the Minister will return to the matter. If that is the case, will consideration be given to the question of targets set and league tables? If extra children are coming in, it will affect the balance of the level of attainment for some children. I wonder whether a counter argument will be included in any other aspects of the Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I realised that the presentation was rather complicated because of the cross-references between clauses. I did not realise that I was quite so misunderstood as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggested. So far as concerns admission numbers and class sizes, statemented children who are taken in at the normal point of the admission round count as part of that number; they are not in addition to that number. In other words, when it comes to the issue of class sizes, statemented children are not 30 plus X number of statemented children; they are included within the 30.
There is the complication that, if statemented children arrive in an area and it is the parents' choice of school at a later stage, then they should be taken into mainstream education in that school if it is at all possible on other grounds. The school would be allowed to exceed the 30 size limit for only one year, if it came within the age range covered by the class size provision.
I do not particularly wish to reopen the issue of the 31st child. It has been dealt with ad infinitum at earlier stages. However, it affects the way in which the figure 30 is accounted for within the Bill. On this limited basis, I accept some of the strictures by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. In its original draft form the Bill failed to carry forward a previous assumption that statemented children would be included in the admission numbers, a calculation which would then "read over" to the class size amendment. We are correcting that presumption in restoring the earlier position.
However, I do not accept the more general strictures of the noble Baroness in relation to the number of amendments that we are bringing forward as compared
52
with the record of the previous government. I recall earlier in the debate my noble friend Lady Jay referring to an example when no fewer than 40 amendments were brought forward at Third Reading in this House. The Bill was before my time, but, as I recall, it had passed through the other House. I have just been passed a note indicating that the Education Reform Bill 1988, with which the noble Baroness will be familiar, added extra full clauses after it had been through the other place. So I do not think that we are behaving unreasonably in this respect. This particular amendment is a clarification which everyone should welcome.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with the leave of the House I wish to make two points. The example given by the noble Lord in reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, occurred at the end of a Parliament. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege saw the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, personally, and all the team and those who were concerned with the amendments. A large amount of trouble was taken and agreement was reached that because it was the end of the Parliament, it was the only way in which to terminate the business. There was agreement across all parties. It is a very different example.
I wish to return to the point made by my noble friend Lady Byford. I am told that I can ask a question arising out of a particular point made by the noble Lord in this debate. I shall be advised by the Clerk. It is a question about a statemented child when the number goes beyond 30.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the opinion of the Clerk is that if it is a brief question on a matter arising from the opinion given by the Minister, it is permissible. However, it should be brief.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is brief. If a statemented child comes into a school in the course of a year, the child is, say, five, and the preference is that the child should attend that school, and that means taking the number above 30 if the child is accepted, the noble Lord said that that position would last for only one year. When the child becomes six, if the number still exceeds 30, does that mean that the statemented child has to be moved on to another school?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. It means, as in other discussions we have had on the 30 limit, that at the beginning of the following year the school should so organise its staff, and the local authority should provide sufficient resources, to ensure that none of the next year's classes exceeds 30 provided they come within the age range to which we are referring.
In response to the point raised by noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, on information, this clause will allow, as referred to in Clause 100, information to be carried through on this issue and the code of practice to be extended to cover these issues in the way she was seeking. With those clarifications, I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 113 [Procedure for deciding whether grammar schools should retain selective admission arrangements]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 84, line 1, leave out ("section 114") and insert ("sections 114 and 115").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8. These are small amendments. They come as a pair of similar adjustments. They correct a mistake in cross-reference, and that is all. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 84, line 7, leave out ("sections 114 and 115") and insert ("section 114").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 114 [Ballot regulations: eligibility of parents to request or vote in ballot]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 84, line 37, after ("are") insert—

("(a) registered parents of registered pupils at the grammar school or schools in question; and

(b)").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment addresses an issue that is causing enormous concern among the parents of children who attend grammar schools throughout the country, particularly in areas where they are one of a group of schools or are stand-alone grammar schools. The Government have not so far explained why there should be a distinction between franchises for the elections in an all-LEA ballot and where there is a group or a stand-alone school. Parents of children from nought to 16 in one franchise are allowed a vote—that is, of all primary and secondary school children, including children from birth to the age of five. Yet, where there are groups of schools or stand-alone schools, only the parents of children in feeder schools are allowed to vote—and even then only where there has been a tradition of sending five or more children over a period of three years. Not even a school where parents aspire to send their children is included. That was the point of an amendment turned down earlier by the Government. If a ballot goes against a school, the school ceases to exist. Yet the very parents of the children who attend those schools are not allowed to vote on the future of their own school. I find that absolutely incomprehensible. So, too, do those parents.
The convention of the Government all the way through this Bill has been not to accept any amendment at all. I hope that, even at this late stage, they will give some real thought to the pain and anguish that is being caused to parents whose children—I know it is not popular with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—for example, attend the King Edward schools, the Wirral grammar schools or some
54
Essex schools. Why do they not have at least a say in the future of the schools they have chosen and which their children attend? I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, this amendment appears to be about fairness and democracy, but I have a suspicion that it is about tailoring the electorate in order to achieve a particular result.
The ballots are not about closing grammar schools; they are about future admission arrangements. Pupils who are already at the school have passed that hurdle; it is not a matter for their parents how admission arrangements work in future. Many parents may claim an interest in the issue of whether existing grammar schools should retain their selective admission arrangements, but parents of pupils at feeder primary schools are the ones who have the strongest interest because they may be hoping that their children will go to the grammar school.
Parents of pupils who are already at grammar schools have less interest because their children will not be directly affected by the future admission arrangements. Their children entered the school as part of a selective entry and we expect that they will continue in a selective stream until they leave the school.
If parents of pupils at grammar schools were to have a vote, there would be a strong argument for including parents of pupils at other secondary schools. A line has to be drawn somewhere and, given that we are talking about the possibility of a ballot on future admission arrangements, we believe it right to limit it to parents of pupils at traditional feeder schools.
The principle of how we define a feeder school is set out on the face of the Bill, as a result of our amendments to meet the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, with the details filled in in the draft regulations which are currently out for consultation. As the noble Baroness knows, a feeder school is defined as a school which has sent five or more pupils in total to the relevant grammar school or schools over the previous three years. That definition was arrived at after consultation with a number of grammar schools. But we will want to bear in mind comments raised in response to the draft regulations before making any final decisions about what the right threshold should be.
In wholly selective LEAs, such as Buckinghamshire, Kent or Trafford, a wider range of parents have an interest in a ballot because a ballot in favour of change would affect the whole structure of secondary education in the area. That is why there is a difference. The noble Baroness asked about that. In such circumstances, the Government believe it is right to give the vote to parents at all primary and secondary schools right across the authority. However, where grammar schools are not part of an overall selective system, there is no well defined area across which one could say that the whole local education system would be affected by a ballot. It is therefore

55
right that ballots be defined in terms of the schools where parents may be considering sending their children to the grammar schools affected by the ballot.
That is why we propose that, for feeder ballots, only parents of pupils at the feeder schools will be able to petition or vote in a ballot.
At previous stages of the Bill, but not this evening, noble Lords opposite talked about "rigged ballots". Frankly, I can see no surer way of rigging a ballot than by including all grammar school parents, but not parents of children at other secondary schools. That is presumably why it is being proposed. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, those who voted on 1st May last year who believed they were voting for new Labour ought to read what the noble Baroness has said, not only today but also what she and her colleagues on the Front Bench have said as they have worked their way through the Bill. If ever there was unreconstructed old Labour in force, it is on these issues. The politics of envy are strong when it comes to such matters.
The noble Baroness scoffed at me for referring to "rigged ballots". The ballots are rigged. The only rigging of which the Government approve is that in favour of ensuring that selection ends. It is all very well to play with words, which the noble Baroness does well. She says that such schools will not close. One day it will be King Edward's Grammar School and the next day it will be Birmingham Comprehensive School. I have no quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because he is a believer in what is happening here. What will happen is that the children who thought they were attending an all-through grammar school will find, after they have been at the school for one or two years, that staff who were geared up for fast-track grammar school education are required to teach a full ability range in a comprehensive school. When a school is part of the way through the transitional stage, it will be neither one thing nor the other. That will blight the lives of both sets of children because it is not at all a happy arrangement.
Some schools will close. If the Minister says that no schools will close, she is wrong. Some will close; some will merge. Already Trafford, Kent and Buckinghamshire say that they cannot simply call a school "comprehensive" and carry on as though nothing had happened, just changing the intake of the school. Many such schools are too small to become comprehensive schools; they will change and some dramatically. Some, I am afraid, will go into the independent sector. I find that deeply depressing: it means yet another rung taken out of the ladder for bright young children from homes where parents cannot afford independent education.
The noble Baroness is plain wrong on all the issues. She said that some children will have entered such schools. Yes, they will. What happens if a school has
56
to close as part of the reorganisation? What then? Where do the children go? The Minister has already set her face against giving them five, six or seven years over which to complete the transition. She turned down my amendment asking for more time for schools to put proper reorganisation plans in place which would have provided proper transitional arrangements to protect the education of the children—both those in the grammar school stream and those coming into the all-ability stream.
The one argument the noble Baroness used is: this is about the future of the schools, so there is no case for asking secondary school parents to vote. Then why should secondary school parents vote in the other franchise? What is the logic? It is about the future of those schools too, so why should grammar school parents be given a vote but not the secondary school parents?
The noble Baroness is irritated by such arguments, but they are not only powerful but heartfelt among the parents of children in our schools. I find depressing that dismissive approach to people's real concerns. But they are not Labour's kind of people; they are people whose children have a particular need for a fast-track academic education. That amuses the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and irritates the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I think they ought to be ashamed of themselves. I commend the amendment.
5.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 130.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Fookes, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Annaly, L.

Glentoran, L.

Barber, L.

Greenway, L.

Beloff, L.

Harlech, L.

Berners, B.

Haslam, L.

Biddulph, L.

Hemphill, L.

Blaker, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Blatch, B.

Hooper, B.

Bowness, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Butterworth, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Byford, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cadman, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Calverley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Lucas, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L.

Coleraine, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Coleridge, L.

Mancroft, L.

Colwyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Cox, B.

Mersey, V.

Croham, L.

Middleton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Monson, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Elibank, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

57

Nelson, E.

Sharples, B.

Norrie, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Northesk, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Stewartby, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Strange, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Tebbit, L.

Prior, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Pym, L.

Trumpington, B.

Vinson, L.

Rawlings, B.

Vivian, L.

Rees, L.

Waddington, L.

Rowallan, L.

Weatherill, L.

Saatchi, L.

Wedgwood, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Wharton, B.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Amos, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Islwyn, L.

Barnett, L.

Jacobs, L.

Bassarn of Brighton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blease, L.

Judd, L.

Borrie, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Levy, L.

Burlison, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carlisle, E

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNally, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Maddock, B.

David, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Desai, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dholakia, L.

Molloy, L.

Dixon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Dubs, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Nathan, L.

Eatwell, L.

Newby, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Nicholson of Wrnterbourne, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Orme, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Paul, L.

Fitt, L.

Peston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gilbert, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gregson, L.

Rea, L.

Grenfell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hacking, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hamwee, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Haskel, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Hayman, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Russell, E.

Hogg of Cumbemauld, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hooson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Serota, B.

Hoyle, L.

Sewel, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

58

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Tordoff, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Whitty, L.

Taverne, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Winston, L.

Tope, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.8 p.m.
Clause 119 [Supplementary provisions about home-school agreements]:
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 119.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we brought back this amendment on Third Reading because we were not satisfied with the defence of this clause which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made at Report stage and we wish to explore the matter further.
We still feel—and this is the fundamental reason for bringing this amendment forward again—that the failure to attach any sanctions to the making or keeping of home-school agreements will greatly weaken their effectiveness. That is the nub of this amendment, and why we are asking for the removal of this clause.
When the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke, in essence he met this objection by laying emphasis on the theme of partnership. He felt that the ideals of the preceding clause, Clause 118, which defines the home-school agreements, would be better realised by the removal of any sanctions in Clause 119. In other words, as I understood the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, he saw the two clauses as a seamless whole, one putting forward the ideals, the other restricting sanctions and laying the emphasis on partnership.
I accept some of the noble Lord's defence in that I share his view that it should be laid down that a school should be hindered from making over-prescriptive demands on parents—he mentioned joining the parent teachers' association being a compulsory demand as one example. But where we part company is on Clause 119 which allows the schools little power over the enforcing of the agreements so ably defined in Clause 118, other than moral exhortation. They cannot—the noble Lord made the point very strongly—be used in any admissions procedure. At Report stage the noble Lord said that the Government 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.
Here we are beginning to touch on the nub of our objections on this side of the House. I remind noble Lords opposite about the ideals of the previous clause, which we all share. I emphasise that there is no argument between us as regards what is set out in Clause 118. That states what should be the essence of all home-school agreements. They should define a school's

59
aims and values; they should define responsibilities with regard to moral, cultural and social development; and they should define parental responsibilities and a school's expectation of its pupils. We have no objection to that. It is a good and hopeful thing for education.
When we place those values in relation to Clause 119, one can imagine the relationship between parents, pupils and the school if, before the child enters the school, the parents say to the head teacher and the governors, "We reject this document. We do not like it". That document sets out the very nature of the school that the child is to attend. I put a question to the Government, to which I hope they can supply me with a satisfactory answer: how can that child prosper when, prior to admission, the parents feel that they do not like the ideals of the school and are not prepared to sign the home-school agreement?
Also implicit in the clause is that if parents and pupils fail even to try to fulfil the ideals of the home-school agreement no sanctions can be applied; it is an unfortunate accident. Thus a school could face a situation where it will have to deal with one section of parents who rejected the home-school agreement before the child entered the school and another section who pay scant regard to it. We have to face those extreme examples if we are to interpret Clause 119 as it appears on the face of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not meet those objections, which is why I have brought the matter back at this late stage of the Bill. Apart from exhortation, the school can do little about that. I suggest that that will reduce the value and effectiveness of the home-school agreement.
At Report stage the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested that this amendment was specifically designed to satisfy the needs of the London Oratory School. I do not know why he said that. I know that the school is held in deep affection in the present Government, but I was surprised at the suggestion that we proposed an amendment purely in that school's interests. My children did not go there.
It is true that the Oratory uses these agreements to great effect and that is why the noble Lord's honourable and right honourable friends choose to send their children there. However, noble Lords opposite must remember that the Oratory School draws children not only from leafy and prosperous Islington, but also from the more difficult areas of Fulham and Hammersmith. The London Oratory has proved that enforceable home-school agreements are an important element in its great success with children from such areas.
That again touches the core of our argument. The purpose of removing the clause and allowing schools some sanctions over the keeping of home-school agreements is particularly directed at schools dealing with difficult children in difficult areas, often with irresponsible parents—parents who are not motivated by home-school agreements; who would not sign them and with whom the school has to deal. I remind the House again that Clause 119 can create a situation in which parents say, "No, we will not sign it. You have to take our child and, anyway, we will not keep the agreement".
The areas which we are discussing and which I mentioned at Report—at which time I received completely unsatisfactory answers—are the difficult areas in which the school has to work in an environment where the parents do not share the ideology or the hopes of the school. Both noble Lords opposite and we on this side of the House are trying to raise standards and help children to realise their true potential, particularly those who suffer from disadvantaged housing and parents who are not ideal. When dealing with such situations, exhortation is not enough. Ideas of partnership, such as those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, can be at best wishful thinking and, at worst, mere rhetoric. I can assure noble Lords opposite that many head teachers in such areas—not only of the London Oratory School—have seen value in home-school agreements with some sanctions which allow them to transform their schools and fulfil the hopes of many of their children.
As I said at the beginning, I see the Minister's point with regard to schools not requiring agreements or making impossible demands. But I do not see that it follows from that that we should deprive home-school agreements of any teeth whatever.
This is the last time I shall speak before the Bill goes to the other place. In the course of 13 days the Government have not accepted either a comma or a full stop of what I have said; but this is their opportunity to show generosity, kindness and regard for my intellect, which has managed to see me through my life thus far so I hope that they can see it further now. If the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—a man who has seen a lot of life—sees the value of my argument, he could bring forward a new clause. God knows, he transformed the Labour Party; why not help the schools? That clause could ensure that schools do not make excessive demands on parents, yet allow the schools to demand compliance with the ideals and objectives they set out in their home-school agreements. That will be impossible if parents refuse to sign and object to such agreements before the child enters the school.
Surely, to a man who helped transform a political party, that must seem sensible. It cannot be too much to ask that we send this Bill back to the House of Commons with a lovely smell and a marvellous halo around it. I beg to move.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, mentioned a number of areas where successful sanctions have been imposed on those who do not keep the home-school agreements—that was the theme of his speech. Perhaps he can tell us what some of those sanctions are.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, the sanctions are that if one does not accept the home-school agreement, the child will not be admitted to the school. In fact, it has rarely had to be used. The strange thing that happens is that when this occurs, it is almost a missionary act in such areas. It is true that it is a tank wheeled on to people's lawns, but it makes a demand on parents before the child enters the school

61
which, from what I have heard, makes the parents think. They see what the ideals of the school are and then follow them. It is saying, "If you do not do this, bad consequences will follow." The essence of what I am saying is that these are difficult areas in that parents have often not realised what is the ethos and what are the demands of the school. If schools say, "If you sign here, this is what is demanded of you", that has an effect in itself. I take the analogy of marriage. My marriage might not have lasted if I had been told, "It is only moral exhortation." But I was required to sign on the dotted line and be told, "'Til death do you part. Those whom God has joined together let no man put asunder". It does not work with everyone but it makes many of us think.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, perhaps I may just come back.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this is Report stage.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I shall speak to the noble Lord after the debate.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am totally confused by the procedure. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is trying to achieve but I suggest to him that what he proposes will not achieve what he wants. The very parents whom he wants to exhort to sign the agreements are the very parents who will not co-operate in signing up to them. Every school will have a home school agreement. What will happen to the children of unco-operative parents, parents who never go near the school? Much as I can see the merits of trying to get as many parents as possible to sign home-school agreements, the sanctions being proposed are extremely unsatisfactory for the children who will be on the end of them. It will be a challenge for every school to try to establish an ethos so that parents understand what the school requires of them.
I am reminded that when the poll tax was put forward many people believed that, however much one agreed with the arguments for it, it could not be made to work. I feel exactly the same about this amendment. However much people might agree with the arguments being put forward, to make this work would be to the detriment of the children whose parents do not care and who do not go near the school. For that reason, I feel I have to support the Government.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, flattered though I am by the noble Lord's belief that I might finally succumb to his intellectual rigour and recognise the importance of his argument, I cannot do so. Were he simply to propose a dot or comma, I would, in view of his kind words, consider it very seriously. However, what he proposes runs counter to the way in which we see home-school agreements working.
The noble Lord said that he supports Clause 118, which is welcome to us because at one point his colleagues in another place voted against us. However, in this House we always give a great welcome to a conversion. The noble Lord also supports the concept of partnership. So now we all agree that home-school
62
agreements should be taken seriously. Clearly, it is open to schools to discipline a pupil who has broken his side of such an agreement. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said, partnership requires consent and partnership has its limits. If a pupil should otherwise be admitted to a school, are we really saying that the pupil should be punished if his or her parents refuse to sign an agreement or if they fail to comply with that agreement?
The noble Lord has made this explicit. He is saying that the sanction is to keep such a pupil out of the school or presumably expel him from the school if he is already there. He asked how the child could prosper in those circumstances. Is it the way for the child to prosper that he or she does not get into the school or is excluded from the school? As the noble Lord indicated, these will most likely be difficult areas, with possibly difficult children, and certainly difficult parents. If this sanction were to be applied, it would surely make the situation far more difficult for the child whom I genuinely believe the noble Lord is seeking to look after.
These home-school agreements are not about sanctions. They are designed to ensure that schools, parents and pupils understand what is expected of them. They will be morally though not legally binding. There is a moral authority, but the moral authority is never recognised by everyone. We know that some parents will refuse to sign these agreements. Whatever their reason, should the parents' attitude be taken out on the child?
We made these considerations clear in the discussion on Report. We need also to put them in a wider context. The clause requires governing bodies to have regard to guidance on home-school agreements from the Secretary of State. We are still consulting widely on that draft guidance. But the guidance will make clear that we expect the agreements to include expectations about the standard of education, the ethos of the school, regular and punctual attendance, discipline, homework and so on. The guidance will also make it clear that agreements must be fair and balanced and must maximise the spirit of partnership. But sometimes there will be those who do not respond to that approach.
We want to use home-school agreements to demonstrate to children the importance of education by declaring their commitment to work in partnership. We do not want to threaten sanctions on them if their parents refuse to be co-operative. The more this approach is accepted the more parents will accept it. But there will always be some who refuse to be co-operative and they will be in the most difficult cases. Therefore, employing or even threatening sanctions will jeopardise the future of the child in those most difficult cases.
I should also mention that the clause forbids the use of certain words which would have a particular effect if included 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 any school fund. We need such a safeguard in the clause. We do not believe that it is right to allow admission authorities to base their decisions on admission on whether a parent has signed or is willing to sign. We uphold the principle that an

63
admission authority should not be able to attach such 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 a home-school agreement.
There is also the legal dimension to this matter. Failure to comply with the terms of a home-school agreement should not be treated as something which could give rise to a liability in one direction or another. We certainly do not want to see home-school agreements as potentially subjects of litigation between parents and schools. The clause therefore includes important safeguards for parents and pupils and puts in place an important new mechanism for strengthening and clarifying the partnership to raise standards. It is a partnership which some will refuse to accept; but for the sake of the children we should not employ sanctions here.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will accept the logic of my argument in this case. Even though he has astounded us by some of the constructions that he has put on other parts of the Bill which has caused us on occasion to think again, if not entirely to accept the force of his argument, I hope that on this occasion he will accept that the deletion of the clause would make vulnerable pupils more vulnerable; and none of us wants that. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I shall be brief. My first point is that I mention to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, our beloved Durham. When he and I went to school, there was no question but that one had to accept what the school laid down, and we all did. I make that point. I realise that the age of hierarchy is over, but the schools were very effective.
The second point is this. As regards those schools which have had enforceable home-school agreements, as far as I can gather—this is more anecdotal than absolute fact—almost always people have signed the agreement and kept to it. There have been very few expulsions, as the Government will find if they make a study of those schools.
The third and last point I make is that, whatever the noble Lord says, I cannot, as a former schoolteacher, ever envisage an educational process working if the parents are so adamantly opposed to the very simple and honourable ideals set out in a home-school agreement. Unless it is stuffed with Archangels Gabriel no school will be able to do anything with a child. I served for six years on the Parole Board dealing with the products of such families. In my experience, they might have been helped if at an early stage pressure of the kind that I am suggesting had been put on them. Idealism is fine for the children of the Minister's honourable and right honourable friend, but in the harsher areas of the city which many of us have long left, sanctions can often make worthy people of the pupils admitted.
I would love to leave this Bill in an atmosphere of friendliness and kindness. I have enjoyed the debates, although they have limited my social life a great deal. But I have to ask the opinion of the House.
6.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 10) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 41; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beloff, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blaker, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Blatch, B.

Milverton, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Mountevans, L.

Bowness, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cadman, L.

Norrie, L.

Calverley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Rawlings, B.

Rees, L.

Coleraine, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Coleridge, L.

Strange, B.

Elton, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Tugendhat, L.

Haslam, L.

Vivian, L.

Hemphill, L.

Waddington, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Wise, L.

Leigh, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hayman, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Amos, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Barnett, L.

Hooson, L.

Berkeley, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hoyle, L.

Blease, L.

Hughes, L.

Borrie, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Burlison, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Carlisle, E.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Islwyn, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jacobs, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Jeger, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

David, B.

Judd, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lawrence, L.

Desai, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Dixon, L.

Levy, L.

Donoughue, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dubs, L.

McCarthy, L.

Eatwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Parkside, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

McNally, L.

Falkland, V.

Maddock, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Gallacher, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Geraint, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gilbert, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Molloy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Grenfell, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Hacking, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Hamwee, B.

Newby, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Haskel, L.

Nicol, B.

65

Orme, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Rea, L.

Tope, L.

Redesdale, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Vinson, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Whitty, L.

Rochester, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Shepherd, L.

Winston, L.

Simon, V.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Schedule 4 [School organisation committees]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 11:
Leave out Schedule 4.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Adjudicators]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 12:
Leave out Schedule 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Instruments of government]:
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Schedule 17 [Staffing of foundation, voluntary aided and foundation special schools]:
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 23 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
In moving the Motion, I would like to say a few words of thanks to all noble Lords who have spoken on the Bill. This is the fourth Bill I have taken through as a Minister and it has certainly been an interesting, even memorable experience.
I should like first to express my warm gratitude to my noble friend Lord Whitty for his support on this, the second education Bill we have worked on together during this session. I thank him for his diligence and patience when explaining some of the difficult-to-grasp, technical areas of the Bill. He has now become an expert on land transfers and the new school framework. I am also extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord McIntosh for his support and particularly his commitment to keeping all of us on the straight and narrow on matters of procedure.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Carter and all his colleagues in the Whips' Office for their advice and support throughout the Bill's progress in this House.
I turn now to the Opposition Front Benches. I must thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for the considerable part they have played in the lively and extensive debates. Our
66
encounters have certainly been as challenging as I had anticipated. I was even told earlier this afternoon, along with my noble friend Lord Peston, that I ought to be ashamed of myself.
I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, for her contribution, and I thank also the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I am most grateful to them for their constructive and considered contributions. Sometimes they agreed with us and sometimes they disagreed. Their wealth of knowledge and experience in local authorities have informed our discussions; particularly on the practical implications of various provisions.
On the very important issue of special educational needs, our discussions have benefited greatly from the constructive contributions of the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble Lords, Lord Rix, Lord Addington and Lord Swinfen. I hope noble Lords agree that in respect of special educational needs issues the Bill will leave this House in a better state than when it reached us.
My warm thanks go also to the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon for representing the interests of the Churches as helpfully and courteously as ever. The constructive relationship my department has with the Churches has manifested itself in the thoughtful debate we have had.
I am sure my noble friends on the Front Bench would join me in thanking the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Baker of Dorking, Lord Skidelsky and Lord Northbourne. I am most grateful too to the noble Baronesses, Lady Byford, Lady Young, Lady Carnegy of Lour and Lady Park of Monmouth for their contributions.
I should like to thank my noble friends Lady David, Lady Lockwood, Lord Dormand of Easington and Lord Peston. I am also grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, in his role as Chairman of the Council on Tribunals for his constructive approach to our discussions.
I must thank also all my officials, including my private office, the Bill team and the legal advisers. They have all worked harder than noble Lords realise.
I should also like to express my gratitude to Parliamentary Counsel for his hard work in drafting not only this Bill but also the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. He had continued to provide an exemplary service during the passage of both Bills.
Finally, I thank the doorkeepers and all the staff of House. They have been as helpful, courteous and cheerful as ever, even when our debates have clashed with the World Cup.
The Bill is a central plank in our drive to raise standards. The Government's manifesto clearly sets out our commitment to education, and since last May we have consulted widely, listened carefully and responded in a number of ways. We have identified priorities for immediate action, establishing the Standards and Effectiveness Unit in my department and the Standards Task Force.

67
Our proposals will require local education authorities, teachers, governors and parents to work together in partnership. They will be able to focus their enthusiasm and energy towards ensuring that everyone has the skills and knowledge needed in today's world.
We owe it to our children to give them the future they deserve by tackling under-performance and raising standards for all, whatever the setting. I commend the Bill to the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I too should like to address some of the formal courtesies which, although formal, are no less heartfelt.
I have been helped enormously in my task of opposing the Bill by my noble friend, Lord Pilkington. He has endured a very real personal tragedy and his stoicism and great courage are a great testimony to him and his very good humour. I thank him profusely for his support. My noble friends Lady Seccombe and Lady Byford have not been involved in such a complex Bill before, but they have taken part with good grace and, on occasions when I have been less than graceful in my own demeanour, they have supported me and been steadfast in that support, for which I thank them.
I should like to thank the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for putting up with me and for putting up a stout defence to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has carried a greater workload than any Whip I know of on a major Bill and he is to be congratulated on that. I join the noble Baroness in thanking him.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has become almost a quasi-clerk to the House and has kept us in order by reminding us of the rules. I admit to being just a little aggrieved to have been called out of order when I was speaking to my own amendment, which was an amendment to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh's amendment. Such is his intimidatory style that I stood back and accepted what he said, only to be told by both the clerks and by the noble Lord on the Woolsack on the day that I was entirely within my rights and ought to have stood my ground.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Baroness is entirely right: she should have stood her ground. I was entirely wrong and I apologise.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was not said in any way to criticise the noble Lord; I am just cross with myself that I did not stand my ground on that occasion. On a more serious note I was cross with myself because I was standing up for those people who had assisted places and who are now to be denied them. In relation to that point I know that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has received a letter from a lady whose letter I quoted in the debate. She calls into question some of the information we were given at the Dispatch Box, in that there were 170 applications and the Government are claiming that 100 of them have been dealt with. I should be grateful if that information could be confirmed or rectified in the days following the Bill passing from this place.
68
In another place the schools Minister, Mr. Stephen Byers, wrote recently in the Fabian Review, which will be very familiar to noble Lords:
"The new framework for the education service is based on some clear guiding principles: we need to shift the focus from the structural issues constantly highlighted by the last Government and focus firmly on standards—ensuring that all children, whichever school they attend, receive a good education. We need to get beyond the outdated ideological debates which have tormented education for a generation and focus on what works. We need to celebrate and highlight success".
This Bill is predominantly about structures, not standards. We have already highlighted how many of the clauses are about structures. If it was not about structures, there would not be an issue between us about grant-maintained schools, grammar schools, organisational committees and adjudicators.
The schools Minister went on to say:
"We seek to put in place a virtuous circle which starts from the premise that every school should take responsibility for its own improvement".
I endorse that. He uses the right words, but the practice is very different.
The education adviser to the Prime Minister, Mr. Andrew Adonis, whose words I quoted the other day, has also gone into print in the Fabian Review. When addressing the failures of the comprehensive system, he said:
"One can see why. In the 1997 [Financial Times] survey of A level performance, the top state school ranked a mere 71st. The best English comprehensive came outside the top 200.
There are many reasons for the public sector's failure. Disparity in funding; the rigid separation of the two sectors; the abolition against their will of grammar and direct grant schools; and the anti-education culture that remains so deeply rooted within the British working class: all these are fundamental".
Those are not my words but the words of a political adviser to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Adonis in his book, A Class Act, goes on to condemn very strongly the past policies of the Labour Party that have again come to fruition in this Bill. Almost every leader of the Labour Party has wanted to do something about grammar schools and selection. The new Labour Government are bringing all that to fruition.
At one stage in this Bill I was accused of being over-passionate about my amendments. I make no apology for it. I am passionate about the rungs in the ladder for children, particularly bright children from low income families. They have now been denied assisted places at grammar schools and grant-maintained schools. Even the level of financial autonomy for which I fought today cannot be guaranteed by the Government. I find that quite dreadful. All attempts to guarantee that the benefits of grant-maintained status—that is, the operational and financial autonomy—should be sustained without loss for grant-maintained schools as they transfer have been rejected by the Government.
Another issue regarded as important by grant-maintained schools relates to their rights as admissions authorities. We know from Written Questions that should there be a disagreement with the LEA or any other admissions authority when a grant-maintained school apparently determines its

69
admissions arrangements, that school will be bound by the decision of the adjudicator even if that decision is disagreeable to the grant-maintained school.
The headmasters of the grant-maintained schools who wrote to The Times on Saturday last ended their letter by saying:
"As head teachers of grant-maintained schools of every kind, we believe that the independence which has been vital to our success is seriously at risk. The proposed legislation could seriously damage some of the country's best schools".
Rhetoric is one thing; action is another. What we see in terms of action is the destruction of excellence, the levelling down, the production of endlessly gimmicky schemes, the announcement of the same tranche of money over and over again in different guises—no doubt we shall get some of that in the weeks to follow in the context of the public spending review—the talking up of standards and yet an obsession with structures. It is not new Labour but "real Labour" which is in the driving seat of this particular vehicle.
The Bill marks the end of the most successful grant-maintained schools. No guarantees are offered by the Government to sustain their levels of autonomy. Over time there will be the demise of grammar schools by a rigged balloting system. I make no apology for using those words. There is also to be an end to selection, the use of unelected adjudicators, massive bureaucracy and greater central control.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, when speaking in a debate on Friday last said:
"However, my wife and I took a conscious decision to send our own children to school in Northern Ireland. Our daughter has just finished her A-levels at a voluntary grammar school in Belfast and we have two boys currently at a separate voluntary grammar school in Belfast.
I too welcome the information which the Minister gave so clearly, as he always does, on the provision of additional funding for voluntary grammar schools and integrated schools. In particular, I am very pleased that the boards of governors and head teachers of these voluntary schools will still have the wherewithal to decide how to apply the funds they are given and that the power is not to be vested in the education and library hoards. That is a welcome move. I have no problems with the order before us today".—[Official Report, 10/7/98; col. 1528.]
There we have the same Government making it possible for further development of voluntary grammar schools on the one hand and yet on the other hand inserting into this Bill clauses to ensure that those schools do not survive for very much longer.
In thanking other noble Lords who have been active in this Bill, I must not leave out my noble friend Lady Young who is not in the Chamber at present. She has been the doughtiest fighter for education. She had success with one of her amendments. I hope that it will succeed in another place. However, given the might of the vote there, it may go the same way as that on tuition fees for higher education.
In conclusion, I should like to thank noble Lords on the Liberal Benches. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has said, we have not always agreed, but the debate has been conducted with great humour. I have enormously admired the staying power and boxing
70
and coxing on those Benches and the humour that has been displayed. I thank noble Lords very much indeed for their contribution to this Bill.
7 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I begin by thanking both noble Baronesses for their kind words. At times over the past three months I have felt quite intimidated in intervening in the battles between the two noble Baronesses across the Dispatch Box. I particularly thank the Minister for her kind words to me and to my colleagues. I reciprocate by saying how much we on these Benches have appreciated her patience which at times has been sorely tested—occasionally perhaps by us as well—and her help throughout the Bill. The noble Baroness once said to me that she was "subbing" on this Bill. I recognise that this does not fall directly within her ministerial responsibilities. However, the way in which she dealt with the matter from the Front Bench certainly has not betrayed that fact.
Much has been said about the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and his contribution. I pay tribute to him. I believe that the most tantalising comment came this afternoon from the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, who announced to the House that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, had seen a lot of life. I am sorry that this is the last day of the Bill. We have yet to hear exactly what kind of life the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has seen so much of. If we could carry on for a few more days perhaps it would become even more interesting.
Reference has also been made to the role of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We on these Benches have tended to mark our progress on the basis of how the noble Lord has responded to us. We began by tabling hopelessly defective amendments. Today I believe that we have made real progress: they are only mildly defective. That is a great step forward. Casting my mind back to what we have achieved over these long weeks, I believe that it was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who almost accepted one of our amendments. When I moved an amendment which in effect suggested better wording in the Bill, all he could say was that he had not expected it and he would have to think about it. Lo and behold, at the next stage of the Bill an amendment was tabled in the name of the Minister which bore an astonishing likeness to the amendment that I had moved. I count that as my one and only success on the Bill, even if I was not allowed to move the amendment myself.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to the interesting arrangements on this side of the House. I was moved on one occasion to point out that there are two parties opposite. It has been an interesting and at times enjoyable experience working here. I have welcomed, occasionally with a little surprise, the at times passionate support from the Conservative Benches for local democracy and local education authorities. Even more welcome, into the early hours of the morning, was the constant supply of Polo mints from the Conservative Front Bench; on one occasion we had to send out for supplies ourselves so that we were not too much in hock to the Conservative Front Bench!

71
Reference has been made to my two noble friends Lady Maddock and Lady Thomas. I have felt that at times I aroused their maternal instincts. On the last day of Report stage, I had been on the 6.30 a.m. plane to Brussels and still had to get my car out of Gatwick Airport that evening. As we droned on towards 11 o'clock, my two noble friends sent me off to catch the Gatwick Express. I was enormously grateful to them for their consideration. I shall not suggest that my noble friend Lord Addington has any maternal instincts towards me, but he has been most helpful and supportive as regards his interest in special educational needs. That has been much appreciated.
I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Nicholson of Winterbourne who made a valuable contribution on a subject of great importance to her and to all of us—the profoundly deaf. She kindly invited me to a meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I know that some progress is being made. I hope and believe that she will return to that subject in your Lordships' House. I look forward to that.
I thank my team. I believe that it is not customary practice—I am not sure why—to mention those who have been particularly supportive but who are not Members of your Lordships' House. The Minister referred to her own department. I wish to make an exception and refer to two people whose help has been exceptional. Denys Robinson volunteered to be my education adviser. He recognised a need and felt that he would wish to give up some of his spare time when he retired as a teacher to help me with that. When he volunteered for the job he did not realise that a School Standards and Framework Bill was coming. He has worked tirelessly in briefing and supporting us. We could not have managed without that help.
I wish to single out for special mention Carolyn Rampton in our Whips Office. She has to support us on education, health and a range of other subjects. Her unflappability and tireless good humour and support have been invaluable. If I am in breach of convention in mentioning them, I make no apology because I believe that they deserve that mention.
We began the Second Reading debate on 7th April at about the time I launched a London borough election campaign in my borough. The first day in Committee was two days before polling day; and I am now three months into our fourth administration. We have been through not only my annual council meeting but also the World Cup. I think that it was one of the most bizarre experiences that I have had in your Lordships' House. These Benches are nearest to the door. We were getting the signals first, and from time to time could hear the noises off as people watched the TV annunciators, which for once were not tuned to the Chamber. It was a strange but interesting experience. When we finally had the result, I noted that a rather surprised looking Opposition Chief Whip sat on the Woolsack as the Lord Chairman had briefly to leave the Chamber to cope with his sadness!
In conclusion, through the Minister, perhaps I may express thanks and appreciation for the help we have received from the Minister's private office and the
72
department. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, occasionally suggested that she had not received enough information. She must speak for herself, but at times I have felt that I have had information overload. The mountains of paper which I have accumulated throughout the Bill have been memorable. I came into my office and found five empty crates. I thought that someone had been considerate, knowing that today was virtually the last day of the Bill. However, I understand that we simply have to pack up the office because something is to be done during the Recess. I shall need more than five crates for the paper arising from the Bill.
I do not intend to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in commenting on the Bill except to say that we have won some and lost some. I am grateful to the Government for what they have given us on special educational needs, a subject important to all of us. I am grateful for the short debate on Nonsuch High School; and the recognition of an unintended effect of the Bill. I am grateful for my one victory in correcting the legislation on collective worship in Clause 78. I am disappointed that the Government are likely to reverse the amendments made today on the iniquities of school organisations and adjudicators. I believe that the Government are wrong with regard to foundation schools. I am sad that they have not listened on the issue of parent organisations in schools. That is the one criticism I wish to make. There are times when we know that we shall not change government policy. We do not expect to and perhaps it would not be right if we could do so. But sometimes on the lesser subjects perhaps the Government could show their strength by listening and conceding more.
That is the only slightly churlish comment I wish to make. We all share a sense of pleasure and relief that we have at last reached this stage. I do not wish to prolong the matter, but merely echo the thanks given to the staff of your Lordships' House and all noble Lords who have taken part.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I am not clear whether the conventions of the House allow or expect a contribution from these Benches. However, since the education departments of the Churches have played such a considerable part in the Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to say a brief word.
I enjoyed the contributions from all sides of the House. I found myself in the Lobbies with a variety of partners. I noted today that I had been through the Lobbies with each of the parties in turn at various stages of the Bill. I hope that this Bench will not be accused of political partisanship.
When the proposals were first published last summer, there was considerable alarm among the Churches. In response to that alarm, the Secretary of State wrote a letter to the Daily Mail saying that we need have no fears: church schools were secure with the new administration. A great deal of hard work had to be done convincing Ministers that our concerns were genuine. Eventually they were taken seriously.
A major turning point was reached following the statement from the Church of England House of Bishops. The turning point was the removal of

73
church-controlled schools from the category of foundation into the category of voluntary schools. That decision, coupled with other changes on a range of issues such as foundation governors, adjudicators, admissions policies, and religious education syllabuses meant that the Bill when published was more acceptable to the Churches. Since then many further negotiations have taken place. Nearly 60 suggestions for amendments to the Bill have been made to the Government from the Churches. Each suggestion has been the subject of discussion at either official or ministerial level. In the end each has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Churches.
The level of communication between the staff of the Church of England Board of Education, the Catholic Education Service, the Free Church Council Education Committee and civil servants has been high. I have been intrigued to note that the banter has risen to an extremely high level during the long process of the Bill. The work on all sides has been enormous.
As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, all the discussion has been about framework and structures, but this is the School Standards and Framework Bill. We are all agreed on the raising of standards, but, as the noble Baroness said, we are not necessarily agreed on the framework which will deliver it. However, I believe that there is widespread agreement in this House and in the country that Church schools deliver excellent educational provision. They are able to draw together parents, governors, teachers, pupils and the community into a body with shared values and beliefs within which personal growth, intellectual stimulus and the acquisition of skills are held together.
We in the Churches have been concerned to preserve and enhance the structure which has delivered such a popular and well regarded provision. In the case of over-subscribed schools, denominational allegiance has to be the admissions criterion. But many parents wish their children to be educated in schools which cannot be filled on denominational choice alone. I am pleased to believe that as a result of the work done in relation to this Bill those schools will be able to continue to make a contribution. I believe that the structure and character of Church schools has been both preserved and enhanced.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, for her unfailing courtesy in listening to our concerns. I thank also her ministerial colleagues and the officials of her department. I wish to make particular mention of the officials of the boards of the Church of England, the Catholic Church and the Free Church. Those are tiny boards whose staff have carried huge responsibilities during the year. I believe that they and their legal advisers have served the Churches and the education service extremely well.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rix and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, are unable to be here, but have asked me, as one of the three who attended the most helpful meeting with officials, to comment on special educational needs. Both noble Lords, together with the noble Baronesses, Lady David and Lady Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington,
74
who may wish to comment later, worked far longer than I did on special educational needs. In addition, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her helpful interventions in support.
The Bill arrived without a mention of special needs. However, thanks to the strong support from all sides of the House, and to the Minister and the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for being willing to listen and to the Minister for also being helpful in arranging that productive meeting with officials from the department and our advisers from the Special Educational Consortium, we now have a much better Bill as regards children with special needs. A number of helpful amendments have been made and many undertakings have been given. We have also had a welcome offer of further meetings, which gives me hope of progress beyond the scope of the Bill. Meanwhile, I wish the Bill well.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in the light of persuasive correspondence which I received last week, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words about a matter which is not an integral part of the Bill but which might better be described as a last-minute bolt-on accessory. I refer to the deplorable Clause 139 which, despite the wishes of parents, outlaws even the mildest form of corporal punishment in independent schools. As a result of the proliferation of controversial legislation now being pushed through Parliament—and the proliferation of major sporting events—the clause has received far less public and media attention than it deserves.
I use the word "deplorable" because, unlike the rest of the Bill, the proposal was not in Labour's manifesto at the last general election. It was pushed through the House of Commons at five o'clock in the morning with no previous public debate and with no consultation with those affected; that is, the independent schools in question and the parents of the children at those schools.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce powerfully intimated in Committee, it is an illiberal move rather than the liberal move it purports to be. Moreover, it seems to me to be a slap in the face for the European Court of Human Rights, which has specifically ruled that corporal punishment in moderation, of course, does not constitute cruel or unusual punishment. It was a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights which first led to a ban in state schools. The court ruled that children of parents with a philosophical objection to corporal punishment could not be so punished. Fair enough, but clearly there are many parents with precisely the opposite philosophical convictions. Surely their convictions, too, deserve respect.
Given that the Government are officially neutral about the clause, as they made quite clear—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, perhaps I may point out that after a period of harmony in winding up the Bill we are entering an area in respect of which the noble Lord could have tabled an amendment. This subject has not been discussed today and is not appropriate for the

75
winding-up proceedings. I ask the noble Lord to take account of the traditions of the House in this respect and not to produce a full speech on the matter.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on that point of order, it would be helpful to be properly advised on this. My understanding is that any Member of this House can reflect on the Bill. That is what "Bill do now pass" is about. They can reflect on any parts of the Bill which were most poignant to them, or most disappointing or most pleasing. The fact that the noble Lord has not spoken with the harmony which the Minister has enjoyed to date is not an issue. It would be helpful to be properly advised on the matter.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for that intervention. The reason for my rising is not to complain, but to ask the Government to do something and I point to that immediately.
Given that the Government are officially neutral about Clause 139, as was made perfectly clear on 16th June and probably on other occasions too, will the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, urge their right honourable friend the Secretary of State to delay bringing that provision into force until the European Court has ruled on an application from parents who wish to preserve the status quo, citing their own philosophical convictions, which surely deserve respect? After all, if the court were to rule in favour, that would necessitate changing the law once again and I do not believe that anyone can think that desirable.
If the Government are not prepared to do that, I urge that implementation of Clause 139 be delayed, first, until the schools in question have had time to work out an alternative disciplinary policy; and, secondly, for long enough to allow the parents (who have made great financial sacrifices to send their children to fee-paying schools with a firm disciplinary policy and who now feel that that is no longer worthwhile) to look for places in non-fee-paying schools—all of which, including the obligatory term's notice, takes months rather than weeks. I make that suggestion bearing in mind, once again, that the proposal was not in the manifesto and therefore the institutions and individuals concerned must be given time to adjust.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

European Court of Human Rights
7.17 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will seek to improve the procedures for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe so as to ensure that the Parliamentary Assembly is reliably advised about
76
the qualifications of nominated candidates on the basis of a transparent, thorough and fair process of interview by an independent expert committee.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the European Convention on Human Rights is the jewel in the crown of the Council of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights, the guardian of the convention system, is to protect the basic rights of almost 800 million people across Europe. From 1st November, we will have a new permanent full-time European Court to which everyone in the 40 countries belonging to the Council of Europe will have access.
Under the convention, each judge must be elected by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe from a list of three nominees provided by each government. This enables the assembly to ensure that the judges selected have the qualities needed for high judicial office. The assembly should not be a rubber stamp, but party politics is not the best way of choosing independent qualified judges. Ill informed or prejudiced elections can sap independence and lead to arbitrary results. So it is important that there should be effective safeguards against the misuse of the assembly's powers in assessing the suitability of judicial candidates and in electing them.
The first elections for the new court took place a few months ago. Twenty members of the old court and the old commission were elected, together with 20 completely new judges. Half of them, chosen by lot, will have to stand for re-election, if they wish to continue, in only three years' time; and the other half in six years' time.
What prompted me to ask this Question is the seriously defective nature of the procedures adopted and carried out by the Parliamentary Assembly for the first elections to the new court. The procedures were opaque and unfair, and stood in marked contrast with the open and transparent system adopted by the British Government for selecting the three nominees. In Strasbourg as well as here, there is real concern that, in the absence of an improved system for all future judicial elections, the moral and intellectual quality, independence and impartiality of the court will be in jeopardy.
The problem is exemplified by what happened, and by what nearly happened, in selecting and electing the British candidate this time round. Our Government acted with admirable fairness. I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary for the procedures which were followed in this country. There was a strong and independent assessment and interview panel consisting of two judicial members, Lord Justice Simon Brown, and the Lord President, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry; two legally qualified government officials, Sir Thomas Legg, then Permanent Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department, and Sir Franklin Bernam, legal adviser at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and an independent lay member, Joanna Foster, former chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
The British vacancy was publicly advertised. After interviewing five of the 33 applicants, the panel proposed to the noble and learned Lord the Lord

77
Chancellor three highly creditable candidates in a specific order of preference. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in turn secured the agreement of the Foreign Secretary and others for those three to form the British shortlist for the assembly. The candidates were, in order of preference, Mr. Nicholas Bratza, QC, the British member of the European Commission of Human Rights, Mr. Justice Carnwath, an English High Court judge, and Mr. Robert Reed, QC, a Scottish advocate.
Each was certainly well qualified to be elected to the European Court but the outstanding candidate was, as indicated by the selection panel and the Government, Mr. Nicholas Bratza, QC. His record as a barrister, and as a member of the European Commission of Human Rights since 1993, has been notable for the quality and independence of the judgment he has brought to bear and for his commitment to protecting human rights.
One would have thought his election in Strasbourg would be secure; yet events proved otherwise. A new procedure had been put in place, following a proposal made last July by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, the Rapporteur for the Parliamentary Assembly's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights. It required all candidates to be interviewed by a special ad hoc sub-committee. I am disappointed that the noble Lord will not be participating in this debate. He put his name down and I had hoped he would be here. I hope that there might be a similar debate in the Parliamentary Assembly.
The Strasbourg procedure involved a personal interview of only 15 minutes. The interview was, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, "informal" and started with questions referring to the curriculum vitae submitted by the candidates. The sub-committee would, in most cases, limit itself to giving its opinion on the candidates' eligibility. Its reports were not to be made public, but were to be made available to the Committee on Legal Affairs, the bureau of the assembly, and the assembly's political groups.
Unfortunately, this procedure was flawed in several respects. The sub-committee had no particular expertise to interview and appraise the suitability of candidates for high judicial office. Certainly, it lacked the expertise of the panel set up by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to appraise the British candidates. Secondly, a 15-minute interview based upon the applicant's curriculum vitae is too superficial for a thorough appraisal of candidates for the European Court. Thirdly, there were no formal rules of procedure to ensure fair and consistent treatment. Fourthly, there were no safeguards built into this procedure against the possible dangers of politically motivated, partisan or biased treatment of candidates. The members of the sub-committee were all politicians, and they had no duty to give reasons for their recommendations.
Some might argue that it was better to have this procedure than the old system of largely rubber-stamping government proposals; but it was essential for the new procedure to provide full and reliable information to the Parliamentary Assembly and to seek to avoid arbitrary, ill-informed and unfair decision-making.
After interviewing the British candidates, the sub-committee did not limit itself to giving its opinions on each candidate's eligibility. Instead it decided against the Government's first choice of Commissioner Nicholas Bratza, QC, and instead recommended the third candidate, Mr. Robert Reed, QC. It gave no reasons for reversing the Government's order of preferences; nor did its report reveal to the assembly that it was overturning a government recommendation based upon a transparent, thorough, expert system of appraisal at the national level, which had the support of the human rights NGOs. Rumour has it that Mr. Bratza was disfavoured for having acted as counsel for the Crown on behalf of Conservative governments. That would have been a thoroughly bad reason.
In the teeth of the sub-committee's recommendation, Mr. Bratza narrowly won the election. But several members of the Labour group were furious, and attacked the Government quite unfairly for having secured the election of an "establishment" candidate. One member of the Labour group, Mr. Kevin McNamara MP, was so angry that he tabled nine questions in the other place suggesting that the Government had been at fault in not accepting the views of the sub-committee of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill.
What Mr. McNamara and some of his colleagues may not understand is that when the assembly appoints judges it must adopt a fair and open procedure. As my friend David Pannick, QC, observed in his powerful article in The Times, the assembly's politicians should not readily depart from the conclusions reached by an objective national procedure. They should substitute their own views only if so advised by independent experts after a thorough assessment. And they should give reasons for their decisions.
Nothing could be more damaging to the reputation of the judicial system and the effective protection of human rights than partisan political manoeuvring, perhaps to further a grudge match between old and new Labour. If candidates for judicial office with the European Court have to satisfy an unfair and inefficient procedure, then, as Mr. Pannick points out, the court's performance and its reputation will be seriously impaired.
The new court will face formidable challenges. Its judges must be of the very highest quality. I hope the Government will seek to persuade the Council of Europe to improve these procedures so as to ensure that the Parliamentary Assembly is reliably advised about the qualifications of nominated candidates on the basis of a transparent, thorough and fair process of interview by an independent and expert committee. That would be an important check against the arbitrary exercise of the political power to elect members of this important court leading to perverse results.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, when I put down my name to speak in this debate, there was then no judge on the list of speakers. Very recently I have noticed, with great pleasure, that my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce has added his name and therefore, basically, I am de trop. However, having read Mr.

79
Pannick's article in The Times, I should like, briefly, to support the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Clause 18 of the Human Rights Bill makes provision for the appointment of a UK judge to the European Court of Human Rights. In Committee, I drew attention to the provision for an English judge, if appointed, to have his pension, if it was thought fit, reduced, and in Committee I took the view that that was a thoroughly unsatisfactory provision. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, with that great generosity of spirit which he represses all too often, introduced on Report the very amendments which I wished in order to ensure that a UK judge appointed to the ECR would in due course receive the same pension as though the ECR appointment had not taken place.
The basis for support of the propositions which I had raised was that it was generally accepted that it was essential that members of this new European Court of Human Rights, who will become full time from November when the eleventh protocol comes into force, should be of the highest calibre and of outstanding quality. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, if a United Kingdom judge did not receive the pension to which he would have been entitled if he had remained a judge in England, that might provide a powerful disincentive to some of our most able and highly qualified candidates from the judiciary to seek appointment.
Therefore, what was stressed in that debate was the very point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester; namely, that it is vitally important that we should ensure that the ablest candidates are appointed in due course. For that reason, it is highly desirable to make sure that those who are submitted by the Lord Chancellor and in the order of merit should be adhered to, unless of course there were good and articulated reasons to the contrary.
7.31 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for raising this important Question tonight. I shall begin by declaring an interest as a member of the British delegation to the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly.
To the extent that I have a difficulty with the proposal enshrined in the Question tabled by the noble Lord, it is more one of sequencing than of substance. Within the entire process of electing judges to the European Court of Human Rights, there is surely a need for an independent expert opinion. To my mind, the question is: at what stage in the process should that opinion be sought, and by whom?
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, suggests that, in any event, it should be sought at the point where the parliamentarians of the Council of Europe's assembly are called upon to review the names proposed by the "high contracting parties", to use the official term, and subsequently vote on them. Sadly, it is here that the noble Lord and I part company. It seems to me that independent expert advice would be more usefully sought at the point at which a high contracting party is
80
selecting from a pool of national candidates the three names that will be forwarded for the assembly's consideration, as indeed has been the case in this country.
If one holds, as I do, that each high contracting party has a duty to present three candidates, each one of whom is deemed fully qualified to sit on the court, the selection of those three persons seems to me to be the most crucial stage of the entire process. At that juncture, therefore, independent expert opinion has a very proper role to play and adds force and credibility to the high contracting party's ordering of the three names by preference. But the listing in order of preference should in no way weaken the force of the principle that each of the three should be considered fully qualified, as any of the three could be voted on to the court by the assembly.
That brings me to the question of how democratic the procedures are at present. New Article 22 provides unequivocally for the election of the judges by the Parliamentary Assembly by a majority of votes cast from each high contracting party's list of three nominees. With that settled, I am firmly of the opinion that, once the process has crossed the threshold from governmental nomination to assembly consideration, there should be no further intervention by the high contracting party itself, no pressure through ministerial or diplomatic channels, and no lobbying of delegates in Strasbourg by governments, public or covert, on behalf of a particular candidate. It must be left strictly and exclusively to the parliamentary process embodying the deliberations and recommendations of the Legal Affairs Committee and the ultimate secret ballot by all the members of the Parliamentary Assembly.
The delegates may or may not follow the recommendations of the Legal Affairs Committee. But that is as much their parliamentary prerogative as it is of the Legal Affairs Committee to accept or not the orders of preference of the high contracting parties. The interview process within the Legal Affairs Committee of the assembly is of great importance. In parenthesis, with respect to the existing arrangements, I would add that I would prefer that the length of interview be based on a 15-minute minimum rather than maximum, to accommodate the possibility that either the interviewers or the individual interviewee may find 15 minutes in his or her particular case inadequate. I am aware that the Legal Affairs Committee finds it no small task already to interview more than 100 candidates for a maximum of 15 minutes, but a measure of flexibility should not add unduly to the burden and should be considered worth bearing in the interests of reaching fair conclusions.
I am aware that voices are raised questioning whether parliamentarians can be entrusted to make ultimately the choice that the high contracting parties, and perhaps the national judiciaries, would consider right. That is the price of democracy. With all respect to governments and the judiciary, the scope for making a mistake is not necessarily narrower when three candidates are being selected from a well-populated pool of aspirants than when one candidate is being elected from a list of only

81
three, each of whom ought to be fully qualified to take his or her seat on the court. That is why, in my humble opinion, the requirement for a,
"transparent, thorough, and fair process of interview by an independent expert committee",
should be met by each high contracting party at the nominating stage, affording the assembly the assurance that the best available candidates have been presented to it, and leaving the assembly free to discharge its democratic duty unfettered by further governmental or other, extra-parliamentary, intervention.
As I said at the outset, it is a matter of sequencing rather than of substance that separates me from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, on this important issue. But at the heart of the matter is a principle of the highest importance: the inviolability of the parliamentary prerogative of the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I must say that I agree with every word that my noble friend has offered. I served on the Council of Europe for over 20 years. I ceased to be a member last September, but for l2 or 13 years I led my party's delegation. For a great deal of that time I and other British members were incensed and dissatisfied at the way in which the Council of Europe elected judges. That did not apply necessarily to the British nominees, but I raised in our political group on several occasions the absurd situation which then applied.
We would be presented with the names of three people. We would be told to vote for one of them but, usually, no one told us anything about the three people. One could sometimes obtain a little information from the delegation of the country whose judges we were about to select. However, sometimes we would have been better off sticking a pin in the piece of paper to determine our choice of vote. Indeed, on a number of occasions I flatly refused to exercise the vote because I knew nothing about the candidates. That situation went on for a very long time. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, might like to talk to his noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston who, I believe, more or less agrees with everything that I am saying. He shared our dissatisfaction about the arrangements.
I must say that I was incensed when I read the article to which reference has been made. It was about eight years ago that I persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to stand for the position of chairman of the sub-committee on human rights. The noble Lord acquitted himself so well—and I shall now bring a blush to his cheeks, as I am delighted to see that he has just entered the Chamber—that he was almost unchallenged as chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee. He held that position during the most difficult period the Council of Europe has faced while supervising and monitoring the accession of all the countries from central and eastern Europe which, by becoming democratic, qualified for entry.
The noble Lord commanded the confidence of his committee so that, when his term of office expired, having reached the maximum permitted period, he,
82
along with his sub-committee, was given the task of supervising the appointment of judges. I accept that there may have been good reasons to suggest that the length of such interviews ought to have been extended or have been capable of extension. But my noble friend has had to interview 117 candidates from 39 countries so far. I do not think the list is finished yet. Had the position been as flexible as Mr. Pannick might have suggested in his article, judges would have been interviewed for another 10 years.
That committee, which may be described as a committee of professional politicians, consisted not merely of my noble friend but of eminent professors of law and experienced and extremely highly qualified lawyers from various member states—the kind of people who do not serve in the British Parliament because the time they would have to devote to Parliament here might inhibit their practice. In other countries, parliaments sit far shorter hours and members of parliament have far more time to practise their professional pursuits. During the interviews my noble friend was accompanied by highly eminent people. It is unfortunate that there appears to have been some downgrading of the quality of the people serving on my noble friend's committee. I shall give way to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, but I hope he will be brief as I do not have much time left in which to speak.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. The Question does not in any way impugn the capacity of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, whom I am glad to see in the Chamber, nor of the committee. The question is whether the committee adequately went about its job of obtaining the information and of informing the assembly of what appears to be an extraordinary decision to disqualify in its recommendation Mr. Bratza and qualify the third candidate without giving any reasons for that or even informing the assembly of what it was doing.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I think the noble Lord may have overlooked the fact that the sub-committee in approaching the problem of electing judges from all the member states compiled a proper structure of CVs. It was equipped with the available information. My noble friend Lord Grenfell is absolutely right, in that the Council of Europe parliamentary assembly should be cognizant of the national view but it cannot, and must not be, a rubber stamp for the administration.
I shall give the House two illustrations of why I viewed governments with some suspicion. First, the Council of Europe organised a conference in Lisbon on North/South matters. I moved an amendment which sought to be specific in securing commitment from member states, only to find that the Norwegian Conservative delegation complained to me that a diplomat employed by the British Foreign Office had entered the conference and was seeking to buttonhole members of parliament from other countries on behalf of Her Majesty's Government; that he had no business to be there; and that the Foreign Office had no right to authorise that behaviour.

83
However, the second incident was more serious. I was involved in debates at the time when the convention against torture surfaced. A member of our delegation who put an awful lot of effort into that matter was Dr. Maurice Miller. He was a practising doctor. He was also a Member of Parliament. He took a refresher course every year and treated a number of Members of Parliament, and perhaps some Members of your Lordships' House. He was up-to-date in medical practice. He had been a Justice of the Peace during his long service on Glasgow corporation.
He retired in 1987 after playing a key role in implementing the convention against torture. As regards the appointment of the committee to supervise the convention against torture, there was no one more suitable to serve on it within the European political field than Dr. Maurice Miller. However, the Foreign Office—I believe at the instigation of No. 10—did not want Maurice Miller. It wanted to appoint someone who had been a Conservative Member of Parliament but had been defeated at the previous election. He had been an enthusiast for hanging and flogging. I ask the House whether it was sane for the Foreign Office to propose an enthusiast for hanging and flogging to be Britain's representative on the convention against torture.
Noble Lords will understand why people in the parliamentary assembly were not—and indeed must not be—merely the pawns of a foreign office or of a government. I am delighted that the present Government have changed the arrangement, as it needed to be changed. It has needed to be changed for 20 or 30 years. This House should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the efforts he has made to ensure that the system is now a great deal better than it ever was in the past.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken I express appreciation of the action of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in bringing this matter before this House for discussion. It is a matter of extreme importance in relation to this particular appointment, which was one of great significance as the first appointment to the new court. I refer to the appointment of an eminently qualified person from the commission which is likely to set a precedent for other cases in the future, and is one in which the results happily came out right but might easily not have done. That could have led to disaster.
The system of nominating more than one person—two or three persons—for election to a judicial appointment is quite a common one. I believe it is right to look at this case in the context of what generally happens in other areas. Of course a system of that kind—submitting three names and then expecting one to be appointed—can only work satisfactorily given two things: first, that the electing body which does the actual election has proper information, competence and good sense to enable it to make a choice; and, secondly, that the nomination process is carried out carefully and conscientiously and is submitted as it should be to the
84
electing body. Of course these two considerations are closely interlinked because the stronger the nomination process, and the better that is carried out and is seen to be carried out, the more likely and appropriate that the electing body will bring itself into line and accept the nomination of the nominating committee.
For some time I have been on both sides of this process. I hope noble Lords will allow me to recount a little of my experience on this. I have been involved in the nominating process for the International Court of Justice at the Hague. There, as your Lordships know—certainly the noble and learned Lord will know this—there is an elaborate process by which the nomination of judges (not only the British judge but also other judges) is made by the national group of the permanent court of arbitration at the Hague. I have been a member of that permanent court for a great many years and have considered a great number of nominations for judges, both British judges and other judges. In every case—which is completely in accordance with Article 6 of the charter which requires consultation to take place everywhere—we have been to a great deal of trouble to find out who was the best candidate. We met. We did not interview but we considered the CVs and gathered evidence. We made our nomination in due course. In no case was our nomination of a British judge ever doubted.
It is important to remember that the actual election is carried out by a body even more democratic—if I may say so—than the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The election is made by the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council. One could not have a more democratic body than that. Given that process, the nomination of the national candidate is invariably accepted.
Another example is the European Court of Justice. As your Lordships know, judges there are appointed by common accord of the governments. In practice, by the common accord of the governments, the nomination of those governments is always respected. So much for the nomination side. I believe that this process works well, and can work well, given the two considerations which I have mentioned.
On the passive side, I have been nominated more than once, with others, for the European Court of Human Rights. I have been on the list, sometimes in one place, sometimes in another. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, does not approve of the way in which the list was drawn up. It was done no doubt after consultation; names were presented. If my name was not the first, I should be absolutely horrified at the idea of being subjected to scrutiny by the Parliamentary Assembly and summoned for interview. Had that been the situation at that time, I and others would never have allowed our names to go forward. That was the process. Three names were submitted, and in my experience the first name was almost invariably accepted by the Parliamentary Assembly.
However, there is the interest of the Parliamentary Assembly. It is a democratic body. Three names are submitted. It has the power, and probably in some cases the duty, to scrutinise those who come before it. It is a

85
very large body. All sorts of names may come up, possibly of people who have no experience at all in the field of human rights. It is appropriate that the Parliamentary Assembly should examine the names.
However, I humbly urge the Government not to go too far in the direction of accepting some new process by which interviews are to take place and liberty is to be taken to vary the list of national nominations. Given that the national nomination is properly carried out—as it was in this case; the noble and learned Lord took every trouble to get the best possible authority and the best possible names were submitted—and given the communication of that process to the Parliamentary Assembly, which is essential, and the reasons why they were chosen and by whom—then I firmly believe that the best process is that, in principle, the first name should be selected and the nomination process of the nominating state should be respected. I hope that the Government will continue to urge that. I am entirely in agreement with the proposal of the noble and learned Lord. We are grateful to him for having submitted it.
I wish to make just one comment in passing. I am not a great lover of interviews. I do not believe that they are the right way to select people for jobs, especially very high grade people of the kind that we are considering. However, if a parliamentary secretary wishes to have interviews, let them be proper interviews. To that extent I agree with the noble Lord. I should sooner be without interviews altogether. I am happy to endorse the proposal and hope that Her Majesty's Government will go along with it.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I should first declare an interest. I, too, am a delegate to the Council of Europe and had a vote in the elections to which the debate refers.
All noble Lords have referred to the need for a balance to be struck between the proper selection of three eminent candidates, any one of whom could be selected, and the necessity that the assembly of the Council of Europe should not become a rubber stamp. A procedure should be established to prevent that happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, made a number of accusations regarding the procedure. I am not extremely familiar with it; however, I think I can talk about some of the accusations that he made. He referred to the issue of qualifications. My noble friend Lord Grenfell dealt with that point. It was certainly the expectation of the legal sub-committee that all three candidates put forward by every country should be eminently qualified. That was certainly so in the case of the British judges who were proposed.
The noble Lord also raised the question of transparency. The assembly had the right to select from the three candidates as early as 1949, under Article 39, and under Article 22 of the new Convention of 1994. There is no debate about the right of the assembly to make the choice. The question relates to the particular time when that right was fully explored.
86
The noble Lord questioned whether the procedure was thorough and fair. I have not heard any complaints from any other country as to its foulness or fairness. I have heard no accusations of political bias. I noted that the noble Lord was careful to phrase his accusation about partisanship and political manoeuvring in the abstract. I do not think that he was actually accusing my noble friend Lord Kirkhill of partisanship in any way.
The answer to the point about being thorough and fair came in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Grenfell about the sequencing of the decision-making process. He said that all the candidates put forward should be eminently suitable for the post.
The final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, related to the independence and expertise of the committee. It is my understanding that there were a number of experts on the committee. As I said, I have heard no accusation of political bias other than in the now infamous article in The Times by David Pannick.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he think of any good reason why the candidate who was first on the list, and who was by far the best qualified for the reasons I have given, should have been replaced by the third candidate with no reasons given? No information was given to the assembly as to why the sub-committee behaved in that way.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I cannot give an answer; I do not know the reason for the sub-committee's decision. I had intended to put the point to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill and ask whether he thought there were any improvements that could be introduced into the procedure in future as regards the sub-committee giving reasons for its decision. I accept the noble Lord's point.
In conclusion, I wish to raise a wider issue; namely, the moral authority of the assembly itself. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to the European Convention on Human Rights as the "jewel in the crown" of the Council of Europe. The noble Lord is right. The Council of Europe has, however, grown in stature over the past few years. That is likely to continue in relation to an attempt to raise standards in the area of human rights and the acceptance of human rights within the 40 member states of the Council of Europe. There is an argument for seeking to build on the stature of the Council of Europe rather than undermining it in any way. I hope that in that spirit the noble Lord will agree that there should be an involvement and a vote by the assembly so that it can choose the judges of the Court of Human Rights.
7.57 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I put my name on the list of speakers as a precaution. In January last year I tabled a Question about judicial appointments to the European Court of Human Rights—not in anger, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Having listened to the debate, I do not feel that I have any fresh points to add. However, perhaps I may make a general point. Given the Nolan recommendations on

87
appointments, I believe that this is only one of the debates that will occur as to whether or not the systems are fair. I believe that a great deal of your Lordships' time will be taken up in future with discussions on what seemed to be a simplification of the process but will in fact make matters a great deal harder.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, if the House will permit me, I should like to say a few words in the gap. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and to other noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion for my non-attendance in the course of their remarks. I had inescapable commitments in Scotland and I am afraid that travel into London is fraught with difficulties. I was inescapably held up. I am at a disadvantage now as I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said. Of course, I shall read it tomorrow in the Official Report, but it might be useful if I highlighted for noble Lords the background to the proceedings that have been taking place in the Council of Europe.
When the part-time court and part-time commission were in operation, the Parliamentary Assembly, men and women, recorded their vote as to the judge aspirant or commission member aspirant, without knowing anything at all about the candidate. They merely knew that there were candidates one, two and three. There may have been exceptions, but in the main the assembly voted for candidate one.
The consequence of the implementation of the eleventh protocol is that the full-time court now comes into operation. Members of the assembly felt that as they have to vote and have the right of appointment they should know something about the candidates. So they agreed that a sub-committee of the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, with myself as chairman, be set up to interview, on the basis of a model curriculum vitae, each of the candidates elect.
I agree that 15 minutes per candidate is not entirely adequate, although, surprisingly enough, some candidates had difficulty in filling their 15 minutes. But that is another story. I accept that generally 15 minutes is not enough, but it was against a curriculum vitae. We carried it out fairly and honourably in a non-partisan and non-political way. As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, said a few minutes ago, the committee was distinguished in terms of its juridical input.
At least we saw the candidates. That is the first point. We then made our recommendations. To date, we have seen 117 and we have still to see the three Russian candidates. So far, it has taken myself and the other members of the committee seven full days, often working until 7.30 p.m. I honestly think that that is as much as can be expected of us, given that we are giving up our own time and there is no recompense or reward.
What the noble Lord, Lord Lester, must take into account—and he has not done so judging by the tenor of his Unstarred Question—is the following. The Council of Europe is now 40 nations strong. The majority of the nations in membership elect their judges in a quite straightforward political fashion. That may be
88
a matter for regret, many people may deplore it, but it is a political reality. That factor must be taken into account. Indeed, there are nations now saying within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe that governments should not have the right to nominate candidates one, two and three and that the parliamentarians will get in touch with other parliamentarians and from such a discourse candidates will emerge. It is against that background that the committee met, as I said a few moments ago, and honourably, dispassionately and non-politically made its recommendations.
I wish to make one other point. We have seen candidates from 39 countries; 37 of our recommendations have been accepted by Germany, France, Sweden and Italy. Malta did not accept them and the United Kingdom did not accept them. That says something. It is for Members of your Lordships' House to decide what it says, not for me. I can only reiterate that it is an improvement on the existing system, although I do not necessarily think that it is perfect. I am certainly not prepared to say why the committee reached the recommendation that it did on the candidate for the United Kingdom. We agreed as a committee that we would discuss matters fairly, reach our majority decision and attempt then to make it a unanimous decision when we could. I may say that we did so in all cases.
The reason that initially Mr. Bratza was not our recommendation is not something I wish to make public because I have not made public anywhere the reasons for the decisions of the committee. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that I am not giving way at the moment because I wish to finish my statement. We have not made public our decision on any recommendation relative to any country.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord has explained matters. I wonder whether he could explain to the House what conceivable good reason there could have been for not accepting Mr. Bratza and how on earth the assembly was expected to exercise its powers if its committee did not give reasons so that it could know the full picture.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I could answer in a different way. Let us take the position of the Swiss Government. The chairman of the commission was not recommended by the committee. The existing part-time Swiss judge was not recommended by the committee. We said: "We make no recommendation". One might argue that the Swiss Government would be upset by that and one might ask why we did not reach a recommendation. I am not prepared to tell noble Lords, nor am I prepared to say why we reached the decision we did regarding the United Kingdom candidate. However, in case anyone thinks that it is because I am a Scotsman and the successful recommendation was a Scots lawyer, I should point out that I was not present

89
on that occasion. Out of 117 interviews, I missed two. The two that I missed were those of Mr. Bratza and the successful nominee.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. It may be completely untrue but what was being said afterwards around the cocktail parties of Strasbourg was that the reason Mr. Bratza was not acceptable was party political. He was regarded as the establishment candidate, having acted on behalf of Mrs. Thatcher's government and Mr. Major's. If that is not the case, then fine.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am sorry but I must draw to your Lordships' attention that this is a tightly time-limited debate. It is slightly unusual in that the speaker in the gap has had longer, I believe with the grace and indulgence of the House, because of the exceptional circumstances. There is to be another speaker in the gap and we cannot allow speeches to be prolonged like this.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point and conclude.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, I regret that owing to a misunderstanding, my name was not on the list and I shall in penance be brief.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has raised a matter of general importance to which serious attention has been given by your Lordships. The independence and integrity of the judges appointed to the European Court of Human Rights, as to the European Court of Justice, need to be assured and protected. The method of selection of the judges is a very important factor in achieving their independence. If it were seen, in particular by those who seek to assert human fundamental rights before the Court of Human Rights, that these appointments became a political football, it would detract from the value of the work of the court. It would detract from the respect in which the court is held by people who go there. It would detract from the respect in which the court is held by the judges of the national courts from whom cases will go on appeal and who will have to follow the decisions of the court.
We should perhaps learn something from the experience of the European Court of Justice, of which I was a member. People there frequently expressed great admiration of the fact that the British members who had been appointed there were appointed without political affiliation and without any political influence. The fact that I could go there, having been appointed as Treasury Counsel and as a judge by a Labour administration and as the British representative in Luxembourg and Lord of Appeal in Ordinary by a Conservative administration was regarded as a sign that the system here was applied independently.
Let us have no doubt: it was not always so in other member states. In one country, as I remember, it was well known that before the candidate was sought, it
90
was necessary to decide whether to have a Protestant or a Catholic; someone who had friends in the Conservative or Socialist administration; should his language be French or Flemish?
In another country, a judge of great experience and ability was replaced simply because it was the turn of another political party to nominate. No doubt all the people involved were excellent and well qualified to do the job and I do not suggest that they allowed their political appointers to influence them. However, the impression was unfortunate and caused considerable concern. In my view, it fully justified the decision which was taken to reject the idea put forward by those who prepared the earlier Treaty of Union that judges of the European Court of Justice should be appointed on a vote in effect on party lines by members of the European Parliament. It was felt to be safer and more efficient to have national nominations, which would be better informed than would decisions by representatives of states who had no direct knowledge of the candidates. A superficial knowledge of someone coming from 39 of the other 40 states may not be a reliable base from which to proceed.
In my view, the procedure adopted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor satisfied the necessary tests in this case. It was open, transparent, independent and efficient. It was efficient because, among other things, it came up with the right answer. I have no doubt that the other two candidates were of high calibre but Mr. Bratza, in whom I should declare an interest since he was my pupil and my devil at the Bar, had outstanding experience and has an outstanding ability and an outstanding reputation among those who practise in this area of the law.
I hope that the system and procedure adopted by the Lord Chancellor will be followed in future and that more confidence is shown in the result which it achieves than appears to have been the case in some quarters on this occasion.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, it might be said that only fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and to intervene in a discussion between lawyers and politicians might be thought to be extremely foolish. So on this occasion I speak neither as a lawyer nor, in this particular discussion, as a politician since I have absolutely no axes to grind on this issue.
The reason that I asked if I might speak in this debate perhaps relates most closely to what has just been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Slynn of Hadley. I should like to explain briefly why I am concerned. I am concerned because it seems to me that the Council of Europe is critical to the establishment of a culture of human rights within the extended Europe in which we now live.
I believe that the establishment of that culture of human rights, and along with it a powerful series of case verdicts to uphold it, may be one of the determining factors in whether democracy is truly established in central and eastern Europe and even beyond it in countries such as Russia and Moldavia who are now

91
members of the Council of Europe. My concern therefore is quite straightforward: whether the procedures that we are now looking at are adequate to deal with what will now be the introduction of a whole new set of nominees, many of them coming from countries where the tradition of appointing judges as instruments of the state is strongly institutionalised and strongly still the case.
Only this afternoon I was speaking to the distinguished leader of one of Russia's recognisably democratic parties, the Yabloko group led by Mr. Grigor Yavlinsky. I asked him whether he thought there were any judges in Russia today who had not come out of the tradition of judges as instruments of the state. He said that it would be quite difficult to find them. I say that as no criticism of some of the new members of the Council of Europe but as recognition that traditions of judicial independence are wholly different from those that we are used to in this country.
That brings me to the debate and I should like to refer to some of the contributions made here. I begin by saying that I shall not speak about the British proposals and nominees. I have absolutely nothing to say on that matter having no view of the merits of the three persons concerned. I am much more concerned with the arguments advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Grenfell, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Hardy of Wath. I am concerned about those arguments because I think they are absolutely right in saying that it would be inappropriate for member states to intervene subsequent to the sub-committee having reported to the assembly. However, I am much more troubled by what seems to me to be still, although greatly improved, an inadequate system of determining the qualifications of those who are advanced as judges.
Let me say one word about that. The noble Lord, Lord Hardy, pointed out, forcefully and eloquently, the non-existence of any adequate system of considering the qualifications of judges in the previous arrangements before Protocol 11. I accept his word for that. That seems to me to be quite astonishing. If we now look at the new structure about which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and others have spoken, that still seems to me a long way towards inadequate. It is a long way towards inadequate, firstly, because, as I understand it, no reasons are given as to why one particular nominee is favoured over another. That seems to be contrary to a proper democratic process. As I understand it, information, including blind references about each of the persons proposed, is not available for all members of the assembly, not simply the bureaux and the political groups. I, as an academic, would not dream of appointing a single assistant professor without access to a full range of references made freely available before I made that decision.
I agree that the new system appears to be much better than the old system but I am somewhat surprised that there does not seem to be any way in which the issue can be raised of whether somebody might be believed to be unsuitable by members not only of the bureau, the sub-committee itself, but by members of the assembly. I am concerned about this for two reasons. The first is
92
the point I have already made that there will be a number of nominees put forward from some countries, not one of whom should be appointed, frankly. And, secondly, I am used to the American process in which a judge, even of an appeal court or a circuit court, would not be appointed without an extremely full system of investigation, which does not appear to me to hold in this case.
I should like to conclude by saying that while I fully recognise that the new procedure is better than the old, it still seems to me to be wholly inadequate for the challenges now facing the Council of Europe; wholly inadequate to meet the central responsibility of that assembly, which is to ensure that human rights are upheld and that the judges are the best to be found from every country that is a member. I still feel, having listened to the debate, that we have not come very far towards an adequate answer to what system should now be found given the changing nature of the Council of Europe and the heavy responsibilities that rest upon it.
8.17 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter. However, I have to say on a personal note that, having listened to all the contributions tonight from noble Lords who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said, have an approach from either a professional legal background or a more professional political background than I have, I have concerns that one of the unavoidable consequences of this debate may well be to cause some embarrassment to Nicholas Bratza, QC, who was the successful candidate for appointment as the British judge on the ECHR. I hope that proves not to be the case.
At the outset of my remarks I wish to make it clear that I know none of the three candidates nominated by the United Kingdom for the position of British judge. I am also perfectly satisfied that Mr. Bratza is well qualified to serve as the British judge and that he will do so with distinction. Mr. Bratza, as we have heard tonight, was selected by the interviewing panel set up by the British Government to be the first preference of the three nominations that were put forward to the Council of Europe. As a lay person in these matters, I find it remarkable that the circumstances in which he was appointed by the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly have become surrounded by such controversy. Let me stress that I have absolutely no reason to suppose or believe that Mr. Bratza has in any way played a part of that controversy.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, explained, the procedure to be followed for the appointment of judges to the ECHR was agreed by the British Government and is set out in Protocol 11, of which we have heard much. It requires him to be elected by the Parliamentary Assembly by a majority of votes cast from the list of three candidates nominated by each member state of the Council of Europe. To assist in that process the assembly adopted a model curriculum vitae, which candidates seeking election to the court were invited to complete. The assembly also arranged for all

93
candidates to be interviewed by the sub-committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. These procedures were to be carried out before the vote in the Parliamentary Assembly took place.
Such procedures appear to me to be transparent, thorough and fair, particularly when one bears in mind that they were to be followed in respect of candidates that the individual member states had already assessed as being suitably qualified and experienced to sit as judges in the court.
As other noble Lords explained, it was when the sub-committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights expressed a preference for Mr. Reed as opposed to Mr. Bratza and the other British nominee who has had little mention tonight that events seem to have taken what might be called an unfortunate turn. I have heard comments tonight and read comments in Hansard of another place which lead one to believe that some of those who are supporters of the view that Mr. Bratza should be appointed mounted a lobbying campaign on his behalf. Whether or not that took place, I have no idea, but I question whether any lobbying campaign on behalf of any candidate could be consistent with a process of appointment which citizens in the European Union have a right to expect to be transparent, thorough and fair.
I read the Written Answer in Hansard of another place published on 5th May, to which allusion has been made tonight, in which the Government make clear that United Kingdom officials did not lobby voting members of the assembly about the election. That same Answer also makes it clear that there were extensive contacts between officials of this country and the other European states during which the candidacy of Mr. Bratza was supported, but within the context, as the Written Answer said,
"that the final selection process was entirely a matter for the Parliamentary Assembly".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/5/98; col. WA 345.]
I was grateful for that clarification. In the event, as we heard, the Parliamentary Assembly voted by a narrow majority of 89 to 79 to appoint Mr. Bratza. Reference has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, to the article written subsequently in The Times of 19th May by Mr. David Pannick, QC. I managed to obtain the article from the House of Lords research department at short notice when I learnt that I was to have the pleasure of speaking in this debate. I read the article over the weekend and note that it expresses criticism of the sub-committee on the basis that it did not give reasons for its recommendation of Mr. Reed. However, reasons are not given in this country as a matter of routine as to why individual judges are appointed or, indeed, not appointed. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can tell the House whether the Government are considering giving reasons for appointment and refusal of appointment as a matter of routine in the future and whether they would expect that to be part of the appointment procedure for those seeking judicial office in the EU.
94
When the sub-committee was considering its recommendation, it had regard to agreed criteria, including the need to have a mix between those who had served already as members of the commission or the court and "new blood", the desirability of having a range of ages among the judges, and the need to have judges of both sexes.
I recognise, of course, that the last point could not arise in relation to the appointment of Mr. Bratza in preference to Mr. Reed. But I was intrigued to note the approach to positive discrimination adopted in the criteria governing the selection process,
"That in case of equal qualifications between candidates preference should be given to the female candidate".
I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can give his view on that approach and tell the House whether he sees a future for its adoption in appointments to the judiciary in this country
Returning to the work of the sub-committee, it is important to bear in mind that, whatever its reasons may have been, all three candidates had been put forward by the United Kingdom as well qualified for the appointment. Those who speculate that the sub-committee may have preferred Mr. Reed for bad or invalid reasons should perhaps consider the implications of making such suggestions.
Earlier in this debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sometimes suppressing his good nature—but perhaps only when he is in this Chamber. I hope that tonight will not be one of those occasions and that when he replies he will agree with me that, first, the duty of government officials remains as it has always been; namely, not to promote the candidature of one candidate over another and not to be perceived as doing so; secondly, that any lobbying campaign mounted on behalf of any candidate would be unfortunate in the process of such procedures of appointment to the European Court; and, finally, that the sub-committee, carrying out its work under the rules as they currently pertain, carried out that work with due and proper diligence.
8.26 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this debate, in many ways, has been remarkable. But no feature has been more remarkable than the acknowledgement by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that this Government are a listening government, certainly on the critical subject of judicial pensions.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the European Convention is the jewel in the crown of the Council of Europe. For nearly 50 years, the convention has been the bedrock of European human rights law. For 50 years the convention has stood as the objective framework of values against which governments measured their commitment to democracy and freedom. Britain has worked throughout those 50 years to uphold the values in the convention. We were there at the beginning in the drafting of the convention, and we were the first to ratify in 1951.

95
That commitment to the convention continues today. This Government, 50 years after the convention was drafted, introduced legislation to incorporate the convention into law and so to make its provisions accessible to all in our domestic courts. The Human Rights Bill, now nearing the end of its progress in another place, reminds us that the convention remains a powerful instrument, as relevant today as it was 50 years ago. This Bill is a major pillar of the Government's programme of constitutional change. But while the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the convention remain broadly the same as those drafted 50 years ago, their relevance in post-war history has a new dimension.
While the task 50 years ago was to construct a framework for the promotion of individual rights and freedoms in a divided Europe in the aftermath of war, the task now is to establish access to those rights and freedoms across the European continent. With the enlargement of the Council of Europe, we have the opportunity for the first time to develop a continent-wide community of European values based on the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The convention remains central to that aim.
A strong convention is not enough on its own. Strong laws are helpless without effective courts. This Government therefore take the view that a strong European Court of Human Rights is essential to the effective functioning of the convention. The Court and Commission of Human Rights established under the convention have done a fine job in entrenching the convention as a living and effective instrument. I pay tribute to their work. But times have changed, and with them the scale of the challenge facing the court. The court has needed to adapt to retain its capacity to meet the challenges of an enlarged Europe and to deliver proper service to the swelling numbers of those who have access to the protection afforded by the convention. That is why we continue to support the comprehensive reform process under way in Strasbourg which will bring the new Protocol 11 Court of Human Rights into operation on 1st November this year. But a court is as strong as its judges. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, drew attention to that, and he is right. We recognise the hugely important role that this new court will have to play in the newly enlarged Council of Europe. The people of Russia and the Ukraine now have access to the rights and freedoms contained in the convention. This means that the judgments of the court will help shape human rights across the European continent. This is why the Government made the election to the court of high quality judges a matter of major importance.
I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I recognise their strength. I recognise too that there are few better qualified than the noble Lord to put them forward. As noble Lords will know, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has a distinguished record of promoting tirelessly the cause of human rights in general and the European Convention in particular. This is a record acknowledged and appreciated by academics and judges at home and abroad and by practitioners and members of this Government alike.
96
The Government listen carefully when the noble Lord takes the floor to argue for reform of the workings of the convention and the Government recognise the force of the noble Lord's argument when he says that the election of judges should be founded on a clear and dispassionate assessment of the qualities of the candidates.
We attach the highest importance to the effectiveness and integrity of the election process. That is why we helped to put in place a system for the early informal exchange of information about national candidates in the Committee of Ministers' Deputies. That is why we have put forward proposals in the Human Rights Bill to allow sitting High Court judges to serve on the Strasbourg court. And that is why we have set up a fair, objective and comprehensive national selection process that attracted praise as a model of its kind.
I take the opportunity at this point to thank the noble Lord for his tribute to the selection procedure adopted and followed in this country. It included advertisements in the national and legal press and interviews by a strong and independent selection panel. It was drawn to the attention of the member states of the Council of Europe by the Secretary-General as a model of its kind. It was a model, and the proof is that it produced three candidates of the very highest quality. I recognised that when the selection panel made its recommendation to me. I was faced with an embarrassment of riches. Each of the three candidates was outstanding in his field. Any would have made a fine judge at the European Court of Human Rights. Mr. Justice Carnwath is a distinguished judge of the Chancery Division; Robert Reed, QC, is an outstanding Scottish lawyer and a particularly fine constitutional lawyer; and Nicolas Bratza is a first-class member of the European Commission of Human Rights with unparalleled experience before the court and commission. So I agree with my noble friend Lord Grenfell that the assembly could safely have elected any of the three.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, proposes that the assembly interview procedures be replaced by a system of interviews by independent experts. But Protocol 11 makes clear, as did the convention provisions it replaces, that election to the court is by the Parliamentary Assembly. The Government respect this right absolutely. There are two means by which change might be proposed. The first would be for a government to propose the renegotiation of Protocol 11. We would not entertain such an option at present or in the foreseeable future. That is because this Government support Protocol 11 as drafted, and because such a proposal, four months before the entry into force of the new Protocol 11 court, would be counter-productive to the good functioning of the new court and therefore would be comprehensively rejected by our partner states in the Council of Europe.
The second means would be for the Government to bring pressure to bear on the Parliamentary Assembly to change its own procedures for the election of judges. As I have said before, the election of judges is a matter for the assembly. This Government respect absolutely the right of the assembly to elect judges to the court. The Government believe therefore that it is for the assembly

97
to determine its own election procedures. The question of how the assembly should manage the selection process is not for governments but for the parliamentary delegations to the assembly to decide. It would be for the assembly to consider whether a system of interviews by independent experts should be incorporated into its procedures.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, mentioned the role of the assembly sub-committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, which was charged with interviewing and recommending candidates for election. Let us be quite clear about who is responsible for what in this election process. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, clarified it to a considerable extent. It is the task of the sub-committee to make its own recommendations to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe according to its assessment of the candidates that appear before it. It is fully entitled to do so. It will nevertheless give weight to the views of governments in considering the merits of individual candidates, just as I and my colleagues in government give weight to the recommendations of our own selection panel when we consider our shortlist of candidates for Strasbourg. It remains the right of the Parliamentary Assembly to consider the recommendations of the sub-committee when it decides how it will vote. It will not necessarily follow these recommendations. The fact that the assembly chose in the case of the United Kingdom to follow the recommendation of the Government rather than that of the sub-committee demonstrates the practical functioning of a mature process of checks and balances.
That said, this first round of elections under the Protocol 11 system was a new experience for governments, parliamentarians and candidates alike. I think we have all learnt something. The Government would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that it is important for the Parliamentary Assembly to be reliably advised of the respective qualities of the various candidates nominated by governments. I go further. In the normal course of events, governments would reasonably expect that recommendations by the sub-committee be accompanied by reasons, especially where those differ from those made by governments.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. With the last few remarks he has made I hope he is not implying that the Parliamentary Assembly was not reliably informed by the sub-committee which I chaired. It was informed in an objective and fair manner within the agreement which had been reached between the bureau, the political parties concerned and the Parliamentary Assembly.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, all I am saying is that it is right to say that governments would reasonably expect, where recommendations by the sub-committee depart from the recommendations of government, that the assembly would be informed of the reasons for that departure.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that the absence of this kind of reasoning by the sub-committee was unfortunate. The Government have certainly
98
understood the fundamental importance of close and continuing co-ordination between governments and parliamentary delegations over elections to the court. It is in all our interests to achieve a balanced and high quality court. We can surely best achieve that in an atmosphere of co-operation and trust rather than one of competition and suspicion.
I emphasise two things. While the Government have no plans to press for changes to the procedure for the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights, they are sensitive to the need for the assembly to be reliably advised on the qualities of the candidates put forward by governments. The Government would be happy to discuss with the United Kingdom parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe any changes that it might be minded to propose in the selection procedure in advance of the next round of elections in three years' time. The Government will endeavour to ensure that this close co-ordination is achieved through consultation with the parliamentary delegation when the next UK election takes place.
As I have said, the Government are therefore sympathetic to the noble Lord's argument that it would have been better if the sub-committee had supported its recommendations, which were to depart from the views of government, with reasons for that departure. In that way the full assembly would have been better informed. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns, that recommendations for judicial appointments in this country that come to me via the very wide consultation community and my officials are very detailed and fully reasoned and I am, therefore, fully informed. Reasons for appointing or not appointing are not given, but the point is that the decisions are taken by those who are fully informed. It is widely known in our country, however, that appointment is on merit only and those who succeed are those who are found to have best fulfilled the criteria for appointment.
I have noted the very limited measure of positive discrimination to which the noble Baroness has drawn attention in the European procedures that we are addressing. I shall repeat her quote:
"That in case of equal qualifications between candidates preference should be given to the female candidate".
For our domestic judicial appointments system, the Government are opposed to positive discrimination and favour appointment exclusively on merit. Many women are winning through on merit. I find the notion of two candidates of precisely equal merit rather fanciful. I believe that people can always be distinguished on grounds of merit. Of course, in our system my officials are available to explain to individuals in general terms why they have failed to secure appointment and how they might strengthen their position in future applications. I add that in this country a lawyer's politics are fully irrelevant to the decision whether to elevate to our independent judiciary and that it is one of the high duties of the office that I occupy to uphold the independence of the judiciary. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, made an important point when she reminded us that our traditions of judicial independence are by no means universal.

99
Finally, I respond to the three questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St. Johns. First, I can assure her that government officials did not lobby on behalf of any of the candidates for election to the European Court of Human Rights. Officials did, however, make clear to officials of the secretariat and of other member states of the Council of Europe, that the Government continued to support the candidates in the order proposed, but that the selection process was for the Parliamentary Assembly. It is, of course, the duty of officials to communicate the views of Ministers in precisely this way.
Secondly, the noble Baroness asks me to agree that the lobbying campaign was unfortunate. I make no comment on any lobbying in the assembly. This was for the individuals concerned, and the Government were not involved.
100
Finally, the noble Baroness asks me to agree that the sub-committee carried out its work with due and proper diligence. The sub-committee was, of course, answerable not to governments, but to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I rather think, therefore, that this is an issue on which I have no real standing to comment. That said, I can say this to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and to your Lordships: it appears to me as an outsider that the sub-committee did diligently the job that it was appointed to do. I have already made my comments on the desirability of it supporting its recommendations to the assembly with its reasons for departing from the recommendations of Her Majesty's Government.
House adjourned at a quarter before nine o'clock.

  Women Prisoners: Cancer Screening
  Women Prisoners: Cancer Screening
  Asylum and Immigration Appeals: Review
  Asylum and Immigration Appeals: Review
  Prison Conditions
  Prison Conditions
  Prison Administration by Private Companies
  Prison Administration by Private Companies
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Coalfields: Response to Task Force Report
  Coalfields: Response to Task Force Report
  Hammersmith Bridge Closure: Accidents
  Hammersmith Bridge Closure: Accidents
  "Pescado" Sinking: Inquiry Report
  "Pescado" Sinking: Inquiry Report
  World Heritage Objects Proposal
  World Heritage Objects Proposal
  Child Support
  Child Support
  Minimum Wage for Young People
  Minimum Wage for Young People
  Nuclear-related Exports to India and Pakistan
  Nuclear-related Exports to India and Pakistan
  Low Pay Commission Report
  Low Pay Commission Report
  Electricity: Wholesale Prices
  Electricity: Wholesale Prices
  Electricity: Domestic Prices
  Electricity: Domestic Prices
  Coal Fired Power Stations: Fluid Gas Desulfurisation
  Coal Fired Power Stations: Fluid Gas Desulfurisation
  ECGD: Defence Contract Debt Write-offs
  ECGD: Defence Contract Debt Write-offs