Sitting of 1 June 1998

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

    Regional Theatre
    Mr. Bill Rammell: If he will make a statement on his plans to support regional theatre. [41984]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): The network of British regional theatres and touring companies is one of this country's great artistic achievements. We are determined to strengthen and develop that network.
    Mr. Rammell: Under the system of theatre funding by the regional arts council, two theatres in my region are funded at the expense and to the exclusion of all the others, including the successful Playhouse in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that such an unfair system of funding should cause concern? Does he further agree that regional arts councils should be charged with distributing their funds more equitably?
    Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend and the new management of the Harlow Playhouse have been having discussions
    2
    with the chief executive of the Eastern arts board. I wish them well in those discussions. My hon. Friend is right to say that the record of the Arts Council and regional arts boards in backing new companies and developments is less than inspiring—their priority has tended to be the defence and preservation of existing companies. I am confident that the new Arts Council and its chairman, Mr. Gerry Robinson, will want to take an early and positive look at that.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: The new structure of the Arts Council has led to the resignation of the entire theatre panel. How will the perceived needs of theatre in the regions be communicated to the Arts Council?
    Mr. Fisher: The new chairman of the Arts Council and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have made it clear, in letters to the papers and in press statements, that they recognise that one of the Arts Council's great strengths lies in its professional, independent, detailed advice from specialist panels. That will continue, and my right hon. Friend's letters and statements have made it clear that that advice is valued and that the council will have access to it.
    Mr. Richard Spring: What does the Minister think about the resignation of the entire drama panel of the Arts Council and the unprecedented refusal by 58 theatre directors to fill the gap—coming on top of the closure of regional theatres such as the one in Farnham, the Liverpool Playhouse and Greenwich theatre? Does he agree that that is a shocking indictment of the Government's policies, as opposed to the false impression of support that was conjured up in the Secretary of State's book?
    Mr. Fisher: No, I do not. All those on the advisory group were eminent people who gave good advice, but, as I said to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), professional, expert advice of that quality is at the heart

    3
    of all the Arts Council's decisions. I assure Opposition Members that that specialist advice, not just in drama but in other art forms, will continue.

    Art Market
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the future of the major art houses in the United Kingdom. [41986]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): The Government recognise the great contribution that the United Kingdom art market makes to the national economy. It employs some 40,000 people and has a turnover of £2.2 billion a year. The Government are determined to play their part in ensuring that the market continues to be competitive and to thrive.
    Mr. Robathan: I whole-heartedly support the Minister's response. Will he undertake to defend the art market against the threat of harmonisation of VAT across the European Union? He will know that the introduction of 2.5 per cent. VAT on the sale of works of art has already seriously affected the art market in London and in the rest of Britain. If VAT is harmonised, the art market may be driven not just from Britain but from the European Union, and may go to the United States and Switzerland. Will he take action to prevent that?
    Mr. Fisher: VAT is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that it has caused problems for our art market, as has the possible threat of harmonising droit de suite. We have undoubtedly played a major part in trying to get a more rational debate on droit de suite in Europe. Other countries do not have such legislation and support us in being sceptical and critical of droit de suite. We continue vigorously to argue that case in the European Union.

    Elgin Marbles
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: Under what circumstances the Elgin marbles might be returned to Athens to mark the millennium. [41988]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Government have no plans to return the Parthenon sculptures to Athens.
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Prentice: I suspect that I may not have the House with me on this matter, Madam Speaker.
    Thirteen years ago, the then leader of the Labour party, Neil Kinnock, said that the Parthenon without the marbles was like a smile missing a tooth, and pledged to return the frieze to Greece. If the case was so compelling 13 years ago, why is it not equally compelling now?
    Mr. Smith: Although I sympathise with my hon. Friend's view, we have had time over the intervening 13 years to reflect on the matter, and it is clear that the Parthenon sculptures were legally and properly acquired. They have been kept in very good condition—very great care has been taken of them ever since—and they are
    4
    seen, for free, by 6 million people a year from all over the world. We believe that the British museum is the best place to keep them.
    Mr. Eric Forth: Without pursuing the matter of Commissioner Kinnock's marbles, which might be indiscreet at this stage, may I welcome what the Secretary of State has said? The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it would lead to absolute chaos if we started down the path of relocating works of art, wherever they are in the world. The best, safest and most proper position is the one that he is adopting.
    Mr. Smith: It is rare for me to agree whole-heartedly with every word that the right hon. Gentleman says, but on this occasion I do, because he is right: if we were to open this question, a host of other questions about the location of works of art throughout the world would arise. I do not believe that anyone wants such questions to be reopened.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that 13 years ago I took this matter up with Mr. Neil Kinnock and that, with me at any rate, he did not seek to defend the position? Is he further aware that it would be one thing if the marbles could be placed on the Acropolis itself, but that it would be nonsense to take them from one museum and put them in another museum that is not as well looked after as ours?
    Mr. Smith: My right hon. Friend is right to point out that the proposal is not that the marbles should be replaced on the Acropolis but that they should be housed on the Acropolis hill in a museum specially built for the purpose whose architecture has been widely criticised. The marbles were legally acquired; they have been where they are for a long period; and they are seen by many millions of people, not just from Britain but from around the world. We do not believe that the case for their return is in any way compelling.

    Media Ownership
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: If he will make a statement on the regulations governing media ownership. [41989]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): New rules on media ownership were established in the Broadcasting Act 1996. The Government have no plans to change them.
    Miss Kirkbride: I thank the Minister for that response, but I should like to ask him about the proposals for the privatisation of Channel 4. We understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is trying to squeeze any amount of money out of any pocket that he can find, and I am sure that £1 billion-worth of proceeds from the privatisation of Channel 4 would make him very popular among his Treasury colleagues. What does the Secretary of State think of that proposed privatisation, especially

    5
    given that, when it was proposed by the Conservative Administration, it was widely scorned by Labour Members?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady will probably know that, during the election campaign, we made it clear that we had no plans to privatise Channel 4. That remains the case.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: What conversations on European media ownership has the Secretary of State had during our presidency of the European Union? Does he agree that the solution to the problem of United Kingdom media ownership is to be found in a broader European regulation?
    Mr. Smith: Although we accept, and are seeking to implement, the television without frontiers directive, we do not believe that it is necessary to extend to Europe the purview of the entirety of media regulation. We believe that Europe has a role to play, and that is properly reflected in the television without frontiers directive, but we do not want to go further than that at this stage.
    Mr. Damian Green: The Secretary of State should perhaps consider straight away a detailed piece of media regulation: the switch-off of analogue television services. Is he aware that his decision not to take a decision for two or three years will put in danger the development of digital television in this country, and will possibly damage the interests of an industry that is culturally and economically vital to our future?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman should have been present at the meeting of the digital television group to which I spoke last week. I said that we intended to make a decision on the switch-off of analogue as soon as possible. We are consulting on this matter: we issued a consultation paper a couple of months ago and the deadline for replies is within the next couple of months. We shall consider carefully the results of the consultation process, and shall then come to a view.

    Performing Arts (Kettering)
    Mr. Phil Sawford: What plans he has to support the performing arts in Kettering. [41990]
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): Kettering has benefited from several national lottery awards totalling £1.7 million, including a £1.2 million award for a new performing arts centre at the Latimer school in Kettering.
    Mr. Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. We welcome the funding for the arts centre at Latimer school in my constituency, which will provide a much-needed facility for young people at the school and for the wider community. How will the latest lottery reforms help budding young artists and performers in my constituency and in the rest of the country?
    Mr. Francis Maude: They will make things worse.
    Mr. Fisher: They will not, as the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) suggests, make things worse:
    6
    on the contrary, the reforms will help by getting more money out to the regions so that decisions can be made more strategically and money can be spent more coherently, especially on projects, such as the one in my hon. Friend's constituency, which link community arts work to education. The strategy will develop a new generation of audiences in towns such as Kettering, and will bring out the creative talent of young people who may be the artists of the future.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister will appreciate that probably the best and most well-known theatre in the Kettering area is that in Market Harborough.
    Madam Speaker: The question is about the Kettering area. I know the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency very well, and the distance between the two areas. We are talking about Kettering.
    Mr. Garnier: You are quite right, Madam Speaker, although the distance between Market Harborough and Kettering is nought, because that is the boundary; besides, as you will know from your local knowledge, many people from the Kettering constituency come to the Market Harborough theatre.
    Madam Speaker: But how many people from Market Harborough go to the theatre in Kettering? The hon. and learned Gentleman's question is not in order and we shall go no further with it.

    Sport (Social Exclusion)
    Mr. Harold Best: If he will make a statement on the role of sport in combating social exclusion. [41991]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): We will never know the answer to your question now, will we, Madam Speaker?
    I am convinced that sport can help to tackle the problems of social exclusion. I am encouraging the English Sports Council to direct more of its resources at that problem and to work closely with other agencies. My Department is working closely with the social exclusion unit in this area.
    Mr. Best: Will the Minister confirm that the Government's national lottery policy will ensure that the Sports Council's money provides for disadvantaged areas such as the inner-city area of North-West Leeds? Will he also ensure that, when such funding goes to professional clubs—if it does—there is a guarantee that facilities will be made available to local schools and local community sport?
    Mr. Banks: The priority areas initiative of the Sports Council for England allows up to 90 per cent. lottery funding—the usual being 65 per cent.—for sports projects designed to give special help to deprived areas. So far, it has supported more than 350 projects with awards totalling £186 million. The National Lottery Bill, once enacted, will enable the Sports Council to adopt a strategy that directs lottery funding to areas where there is an obvious lack of resources and where there is a great need for such projects.

    7
    Sport is one of the greatest ways of reaching young unemployed people who might otherwise be hanging around on street corners, expending their energy in non-constructive ways. Sport is a wonderful and imaginative way of organising young people and teaching them a great many things, including respect for themselves. I suspect that the new strategy of the English Sports Council will fully accord with the sort of views that my hon. Friend has just expressed.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister for Sport comment on the impact on the English football team of excluding Gazza from the squad?
    Mr. Banks: That is a very ingenious interpretation of social exclusion, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on being the first to raise the matter in the House this afternoon. It is a subject of great national concern. I think that the national coach, Glenn Hoddle, is to be congratulated on his brave decision. Sport is even crueller than politics: if someone gets it wrong, retribution follows quickly. We must all keep our fingers crossed in the hope that the decision was the right one—my own feeling is that it was. I expect the English team to do even better now, despite the personal tragedy surrounding the footballing exclusion of that great character Gazza.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: I know that my hon. Friend, like me, supports the widest possible dissemination of the benefits of sport, but does he agree that, when sport acquires large additional funds through sponsorship, television income or other commercial activity, it is desirable that the benefits of that additional income—I am thinking of football particularly—should be spread through the whole game? They should not result in an ever-widening divide between the haves and the have-nots.
    Mr. Banks: My hon. Friend raises a point about which I know large numbers of ordinary football supporters feel strongly. I addressed a meeting of the Football Supporters Association in Wolverhampton on Saturday—the first sports Minister to do so, incidentally—where its members made the same point. Football must recognise that there may come an end to the enormous flow of money currently pouring into it. The game is fashionable at the moment; an awful lot of people who support football today may not do so in a few years' time. It is essential that resources are more evenly distributed throughout the game. Unless the grass roots are nourished there will ultimately be problems for the premier league. I hope that that message is taken seriously by the football authorities—I am always reminding them of it.

    Museum Funding
    Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on funding for museums. [41993]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Funding for the national museums and galleries was protected for the current year. Additional funding has been made available to five museums and galleries to enable free admission to be maintained.
    8
    The Heritage Lottery Fund's £7 million access fund will support initiatives to widen access to museums and galleries throughout the UK. I will make a further announcement in the summer, when the departmental spending review is concluded.
    Mr. Bercow: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The right hon. Gentleman pledged to provide free universal access to the national collections at an estimated cost of £40 million, yet he has succeeded in finding only £2 million, plus a further £7 million which he has raided from the lottery. Does not this latest betrayal prove that what needs to be preserved as a museum piece is Labour's list of broken promises?
    Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman conveniently forgets that no such promise or pledge was ever given. Indeed, I am surprised that he is not more enthusiastic about the fact that we have managed to preserve the important principle of free admission to the national gallery, the Tate gallery, the national portrait gallery, the British museum and the Wallace collection.
    That contrasts savagely with the actions of Buckinghamshire county council which, despite an increase in its standard spending assessment for education for the current year, is putting two museums under threat. As I recollect, Buckinghamshire has been under continuous Tory control since 1889.
    Ms Beverley Hughes: I thank my right hon. Friend for the support that he has given so far to efforts to secure funding for the proposed imperial war museum of the north. However, is he aware that, although the project has already secured funding of £19 million from Europe and the private sector, the Heritage Lottery Fund is still refusing to consider the application? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the way in which the heritage lottery fund has responded to this application and, more generally, with the way in which it is allocating funds as between London and other parts of the country?
    Mr. Smith: I know that this is a matter of great importance to my hon. Friend, who has discussed it in some detail with me. Both she and I have also discussed the matter with the Heritage Lottery Fund. I would urge her to continue such discussions in the hope of eventually obtaining a satisfactory outcome.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: One way of assisting museums is to ensure that, when artefacts are made available by Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence, appropriate museums are given advance notice and an opportunity to buy those artefacts at a reasonable price. Will the Secretary of State support a campaign to ensure that that is done?
    Mr. Smith: I certainly view that as being entirely sensible. I think that it happens in the vast majority of cases anyway, but if the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, I should be delighted to take it up personally.

    Performing Arts (National Lottery Reforms)
    Mr. Martin Linton: How the lottery reforms will benefit the performing arts. [41994].
    The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): The National Lottery Bill will radically reform the lottery, making the process easier for applicants, distributing grants faster and therefore more effectively, and ensuring that in future more is spent on supporting artists and activities, rather than just on bricks and mortar.
    Mr. Linton: Is the Minister aware of pioneering schemes such as the ladder of development which has attracted a grant of £275,000 from the lottery's arts-for-everyone programme to the Battersea arts centre, an organisation which specialises in enabling young performing artists to get their feet on the first rung of the ladder? I should add that I am the chairman of that organisation. Has the Minister seen a letter from the director of Battersea arts centre to the Prime Minister congratulating him on the impact of the new deal on young performing artists, many of whom have in the past used the dole while getting on to that all important first rung of the ladder?
    Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend is quite right to state that Battersea arts centre is enormously resourceful in accessing lottery money. It has received £810 million for refurbishment and—
    Mr. Linton: Thousand.
    Mr. Fisher: Yes, £810,000—there is a slight difference. It has now also received a further grant for development. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the potential of the new deal for young artists at a crucial stage in their career. Young artists want a chance to work and to get their work in front of audiences. The Government are determined, through initiatives such as the new deal, to help them to do that.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: As I am not persuaded by the argument that the introduction of a sixth good cause will not adversely affect the money going to the five existing good causes, including the performing arts, may I ask the Minister at least to monitor what happens? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a need to help the performing arts institutions which, although not national institutions, are not regarded as regional institutions either—especially if they are in the outer London boroughs? The Old Bull arts centre in Barnet is a very good example of such an institution. It puts on some very good work, some of which, I understand, has recently fallen out of favour with new Labour.
    Mr. Fisher: It is absolutely essential that the benefits of the lottery grants, and especially those for the arts, get to every part of the country, feed grass roots and community developments and bring on a new generation of artists and audiences. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a priority, and it is something which is very close to the Government's heart.

    New Opportunities Fund
    Mr. Ben Chapman: When the national lottery New Opportunities Fund will start to finance out-of-school-hours clubs. [41995]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): Subject to parliamentary approval of the National Lottery Bill, the New Opportunities Fund is likely to invite applications for the £400 million of funding for out-of-school-hours activities early in 1999.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. I greatly welcome the National Lottery Bill and the New Opportunities Fund, which provide for a fairer geographical distribution of lottery moneys—Wirral, South has fared particularly badly in that respect—but this is an important programme, and early next year seems a long way off. Will my hon. Friend consider what steps he can take to bring forward the programme—pilot applications, for example?
    Mr. Clarke: It is perfectly possible that pilot applications will be considered. I well understand my hon. Friend's arguments, which he put to the House very forcefully on 7 April and which we have taken into account. The policy directions that my right hon. Friend is issuing to all distributors will emphasise the importance of funding reaching all parts of the country. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that he has made his point.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Minister not recognise that the £400 million of lottery money that will now be spent on out-of-school-hours clubs should come out of Government taxation and that, if the trend continues, the original five causes, which include charities and the arts, are bound to have their money reduced. How much further will the process go?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman must know that those hoary old arguments were totally exposed on Second Reading and in Committee. The Prime Minister said before the election that we do not believe it would be right to use lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibility. The policy that we are pursuing, with the overwhelming support of those who were consulted, is in addition and means that we can embrace social problems and social inclusion—issues which might be of interest to the hon. Gentleman.

    Tourism
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What the Government are doing to support local authority initiatives in tourism. [41996]
    The Minister for Film and Tourism (Mr. Tom Clarke): The Government fully recognise the major role that local authorities play in relation to tourism. Local authorities are closely involved in the Department's work on developing a comprehensive strategy for tourism which will identify how best to work together in future.
    Councillor John Price is chairing the domestic tourism working group which is reporting to the main tourism forum.
    Mr. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that many local authorities, including Burnley, are becoming

    11
    increasingly involved in tourism. Regional development agencies will be key players in the development of tourism in the years ahead. Will local authorities be given a full role, working in co-operation with regional development agencies?
    Mr. Clarke: Yes, unreservedly. My hon. Friend has raised an extremely important point. He will be pleased to know that almost all local authorities are members of their regional tourist boards, which, in turn, have taken the positive step of bidding to become partnership organisations of their regional development agencies, and we warmly welcome that.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the lottery be funding English tourism in future?
    Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Gentleman, as a former Secretary of State, will know that—particularly because of the comprehensive spending round—all those matters are currently being discussed. I cannot respond to his specific point about the lottery, as the matter is still under discussion. He will understand that, because of the comprehensive spending round, he will have to wait just a little longer.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that local authority initiatives to encourage tourism in my area may be undermined by the need to divert resources to fund trauma counselling for the younger members of the constituency after the departure of Geri Halliwell from the Spice Girls? Will he join me in encouraging Ginger Spice to think again?
    Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I had the opportunity to meet the Spice Girls on location; I was also delighted to be at the premiere of their film. I am sure that what has taken place is simply a little local difficulty, which they are perfectly capable of sorting out. I wish them well.
    Mr. Francis Maude: It is good to hear that the Minister has a policy on the Spice Girls, as well as on Gazza's exclusion from the England team. Does he accept that local authority initiatives on tourism depend heavily on the work of the English tourist board? Will he confirm the report in The Times on Saturday that his Department has agreed to the board's disbandment as part of the comprehensive spending review? Does he accept that his Department spends only a twentieth on English tourism of what is spent per capita in Scotland? Does he understand how angry the English tourism industry and English local authorities will be about this apparent concession by a Minister who sits for a Scottish constituency, made at the behest of a Chief Secretary and a Chancellor who also represent Scottish seats? Does that not confirm that the tourism industry is simply an optional extra for him and his team?
    Mr. Clarke: That was a good try, but, as a former Treasury Minister, the right hon. Gentleman knows better. He should not indulge in what he clearly knows is speculation. He knows that the Government are committed to tourism, which is the fifth biggest industry in Britain and is worth £40 billion. He will recall that
    12
    comprehensive spending reviews have taken place under all Governments. Our commitment to the British Tourist Authority and the ETB is the same as the one we inherited from the Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman should pay less attention to newspaper speculation and a good deal more to the praise that the ETB, the BTA and the regional bodies have given to the Government, and particularly to their excellent contributions to my right hon. Friend's tourism forum.

    Commercial Television
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What recent discussions he has had with the ITC regarding the quality of commercial television; and if he will make a statement. [41997]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I meet the chairman of the Independent Television Commission periodically to discuss a range of broadcasting issues. Quality of content of commercial television services is an essential ingredient of the Government's broadcasting policy.
    Mr. Mullin: Does my right hon. Friend share the widespread concern about the steady deterioration in the quality of commercial television since the Broadcasting Act 1990? Is he satisfied that the ITC has the powers and the will to reverse that trend? If not, what are his plans?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will doubtless know that the report issued by the ITC on the 1997 performance review, which was presented to Parliament on 30 April, addressed some of those issues robustly. This is a matter for the ITC rather than the Government. The Government have a responsibility for the overall promotion of quality, but the assessment of individual programmes must remain a matter for the ITC.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: The ITC is responsible for ensuring the application of the aspects of the Broadcasting Act 1990 that ensure that controversial subjects are dealt with with due impartiality. Will the Secretary of State raise with the ITC in his next meeting the discussion programme scheduled for ITV next Wednesday evening, which will feature a raft of conspiracy theorists, including one notorious fabricator and defamer, who intend to exploit the death of Princess Diana to put their crazy theories forward, to the distress of the families and without any balancing argument?
    Mr. Smith: I am sure that the ITC and, indeed, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, will have heard very clearly what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Millennium Projects
    Mr. Paddy Tipping: What proportion of millennium projects will be outside London. [41998]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Millennium Commission has awarded just under £1.24 billion to 185 capital projects across the United Kingdom; 89.5 per cent. of the total has been awarded outside Greater London.
    Mr. Tipping: Will the Secretary of State continue to consider the amount of funding going to the English

    13
    regions, particularly the east midlands? Will he turn his attention to the coalfield community landmark scheme, which I know he supports, and look at the apparent difficulties between the Millennium Commission and the partners?
    Mr. Smith: First, my hon. Friend is right to identify the issue of relative underfunding of the east midlands region. The Millennium Commission is seeking particularly to address that through the awards scheme to individuals, which is up and running and proving to be remarkably successful. Secondly, I very strongly support the coalfield community project in principle. I know that there have been some difficulties with the details of the project, but I shall ensure that the Millennium Commission approaches them sympathetically.

  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)
  The Minister was asked—
  MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE)

    Cost Overruns
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: What allowance has been made for cost overruns in his estimates of expenditure on the millennium experience. [42014]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The project has a cash budget of £758 million. Within that, there is a prudent cost contingency provision of £88 million, which is subject to tight control and regular monitoring by the New Millennium Experience Company. The project, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear, is on time and on budget.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am delighted that my hon. Friend has time to be concerned at the looming problem. There is always a danger that, if there were no purpose, one could be bought for the project by throwing money at the problem. Is he as concerned as I am at the report by Rowan Moore in last week's Evening Standard of delays, major cost overruns, a lack of sponsorship and private contributions, and a failure to have a central purpose down at the folks' dome? All those looming problems will have to be compensated for by the lottery, draining even more money from the arts, education, health, sport and charities, unless they are tackled.
    Mr. Mandelson: The article to which my hon. Friend refers—I gather—is almost entirely unsourced, unchecked and untrue. Money is not being thrown at a problem—far from it. I would have thought that he would be rather more optimistic considering today's news and would be congratulating the New Millennium Experience Company, which has announced with Marks and Spencer, yet another founding partner of the millennium experience, the launch of Children's Promise.
    The Government have always believed that the millennium experience should be a truly national event and provide a lasting legacy. I cannot think of a better way in which to fulfil both those conditions than to
    14
    organise for everyone to give their last hour's salary in this millennium to help children in need in the next millennium. That is what is being launched today. It represents precisely the purpose and values that are embodied in the theme of the millennium experience and the dome—a time to make a difference, which it certainly will be.
    Mr. Norman Baker: What will happen if there is a shortfall—I hope that there will not be—in funding from sponsors? Will the proposals for the dome be scaled down, will further money be taken from the lottery or will the taxpayer be further called on?
    Mr. Mandelson: I have every confidence that the New Millennium Experience Company will raise the necessary funds. Nearly £100 million is already committed and confirmed in the form of private sector sponsorship. That is nearly £100 million of a target set for the end of this year of £150 million. That is what we have gathered since February. I have every confidence that 12 million or more people will want to visit the dome, and that the company's income target from visitors is equally realistic. I do not think that the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers will arise.
    Mr. Richard Spring: The hon. Gentleman hyped up surfball as the new 21st century sport for the dome. Did cost overruns cause its mysterious disappearance, or was there a fabrication about a non-existent game? Was not the hon. Gentleman guilty of talking complete and utter surfballs?
    Mr. Mandelson: The reshuffle beckons, Madam Speaker. The serious play zone, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, will include explanations of the world of sport and games in the 21st century. It will cover the sort of 21st century game for which the term "surfball" was an illustrative title.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend keep careful track of the point when the Jeremiahs and detractors of the millennium experience and the dome suddenly and quietly become enthusiasts? My hon. Friend will know that, increasingly, businesses throughout the country—not just Marks and Spencer, which has today announced the £12 million Children's Promise—see the project not only as a way in which to show the best of British work, skills and products, but as an opportunity to benefit from tourism and travel, as people from all over Europe and the world will come to make this a profitable exercise for UK plc.
    Mr. Mandelson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is because of the enormous progress that we have made during the last year that so many companies and organisations are flocking to the millennium dome to invest and to take part in the project.
    We should recall what we have achieved during the past year. The dome is now firmly established on London's skyline and the roofing material is going on over the steel girders right on schedule. Young British-based designers are working hard to ensure that we have contents as inspiring as the building in which they are to be housed. We have five founding partners,

    15
    each contributing £12 million to the millennium experience. The fifth of these, Marks and Spencer, was announced this morning.
    The New Millennium Experience Company has let 24 main trade contracts, 23 to companies based in the UK. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has launched plans for the millennium village at Greenwich and for new riverbus services to open up the Thames. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has launched the nationwide millennium festival. We have ensured that the dome will have a long and productive life, and will not be torn down after one year, as was originally planned by the previous Government.
    In short, we have turned the vision of the previous Government into firm foundations for a unique event which will bring the entire country together. It will inspire us and will make a real difference to our well-being, socially, spiritually and economically.

    Ticketing
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: If he will make a statement on the role of Camelot as the distributor of tickets for the millennium experience. [42015]
    The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): The New Millennium Experience Company announced on 24 February that it had reached agreement in principle with Camelot for it to be official distributor of tickets for the millennium experience at Greenwich. This will mean that there is a ticket outlet within three miles of 95 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Camelot has already contributed to the dome? Can he confirm that no additional pressure was put on Camelot to spend more money on the distribution of tickets or to pay for the commissions of those people who retail at the point of sale?
    Mr. Mandelson: Absolutely no pressure has been placed on Camelot or on any of the other private sector organisations that are increasingly keen to take part in this unique national event, no doubt partly for perfectly laudable commercial reasons, but, more importantly, because they want to contribute to the nation's millennium celebration. It is particularly welcome that Camelot should be playing the role that it is, as ticket purchases to allow people to come to the dome for the millennium experience should be as simple, straightforward and accessible as possible—it should be as easy to get tickets as it is to play the lottery. I believe that Camelot's involvement will greatly help us in achieving that.
    Ms Diane Abbott: The House is aware that my hon. Friend does not believe that there will be a shortfall in sponsorship moneys. However, if there is a shortfall and the contingency money is swallowed up in cost overruns, for which such capital projects are notorious, where will the additional money come from—from the taxpayer or from lottery funds?
    Mr. Mandelson: I do not envisage that the scenario that my hon. Friend describes will arise, as I do not
    16
    believe that there will be cost overruns. I assure her, however, that in no circumstances will any deficit be met from taxpayers' money.
    Mr. Francis Maude: Leaving aside the extraordinary reversal in recent months in the Government's view of Camelot, does the hon. Gentleman agree that Camelot sponsorship of the dome is nowhere near sufficient to fill the huge gap that still exists? Will he confirm reports that the cost of the contents of the dome have been spiralling out of control and that, given the huge gap in sponsorship, his grandiose plans, which were revealed with such drama in February, are having to be radically scaled down as, in effect, the chief executive of the dome recently admitted? Has not the hon. Gentleman's stewardship of this important project been so catastrophic that a reshuffle is the only way in which he can hope to save face and to be taken out of a disaster area of his own making?
    Mr. Mandelson: No. I shall be at the opening night on 31 December 1999 whatever my capacity. It is a great shame that, as the right hon. Gentleman bids farewell, he should be characteristically churlish in his contribution. I hope that he does not think that I am being equally churlish if I say that I hope that he makes as little impact in undermining the Government's economic policies as he has in his attempts to torpedo the dome in the past year.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Bishops' Chauffeurs
    Mr. Norman Baker: If he will make it his policy to reallocate money currently provided for bishops' chauffeurs. [42024]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): No.
    Mr. Baker: I am disappointed by that answer. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that many people regard as an affront the fact that £317,000 is being spent on chauffeurs for bishops when poor people could benefit from that money? Would not it be better if the bishops dispensed with their chauffeurs and used the money to help the poor?
    Mr. Bell: The two are not mutually exclusive. The money spent on full-time and part-time drivers enables the bishops who make use of those services to work while travelling to their many commitments, both in their dioceses and nationally. The service can also remove pressure, especially as travel, often late at night, is an unavoidable part of a bishop's job. The money spent represents about 0.05 per cent. of the Church's annual running costs.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) became a Minister in any conceivable

    17
    Government, he would expect to have a driver for exactly the same reasons? Does not his question represent a Liberal Democrat hypocrisy that we could do without?
    Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assistance. In fact, seven bishops use their own cars and are paid a mileage allowance. In 1997, 31 bishops employed full-time or part-time drivers, which is hardly a heavy burden on the Church.

    Assets
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: If he will make a statement on the returns made on the commissioners' assets for 1996–97. [42026]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): The commissioners' financial year runs to the end of December. The total return on their assets was 17.1 per cent. in 1996 and 20.8 per cent. in 1997. In both years, their returns have been significantly higher than the performance of the United Kingdom pensions fund average.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Can he confirm that that means that the commissioners have now recovered the £800 million that they lost through their disastrous deals in the late 1980s and early 1990s?
    Mr. Bell: I appreciate my hon. Friend's question, but the amount that he mentions relates to the fall in the valuation of the Church's assets between 1989, when the property market peaked, and 1992. Since then, the value of our assets has increased from £2.1 billion to £3.5 billion, and during my stewardship of one year, we have increased their value by £500 million. Success may have a thousand fathers, and I may be the 995th.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a large proportion of the income of the Church Commissioners goes towards meeting the stipends and pensions of a considerable number of clergymen? Should not the House encourage the Church Commissioners to maximise their assets, albeit within ethical constraints?
    Mr. Bell: We do pay the pensions of clergymen and their widows. Following the Pensions Measure passed last year, they will be paid by the dioceses in future, but the hon. Gentleman's point is important: the assets that we accumulate today mean better possibilities for the Church in years to come.

    Ethical Investment
    Ann Clwyd: What recent discussions he has had with the Church Commissioners on ethical investments. [42027]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Earlier this year, as a member of the commissioners' board of governors and of the assets committee, I was able to discuss and endorse the commissioners' revised
    18
    statement of ethical investment policy. The secretary to the ethical investment working group also keeps me regularly briefed on ethical issues.
    Ann Clwyd: In view of GEC's long and continuing involvement in the arms trade with Indonesia, what exactly do the Church Commissioners think that they are achieving in their meetings with its board?
    Mr. Bell: As always, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question.
    Representatives of the ethical committee met senior management of GEC not long ago to discuss those very issues. We discuss them constantly with GEC, and we obviously have a strong ethical policy of not investing in companies whose main business is armaments. The current position in GEC does not constitute a breach of that policy, but we shall, of course, keep it continuously under review.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Following the question from the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and earlier questions on the same subject, can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the forthcoming Lambeth conference will seek to agree a tougher regime on ethical investment—especially in relation to countries where democracy is at stake, such as Indonesia, or where nuclear weapons may be developed, such as India and Pakistan?
    Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that the ecumenical Church investors group met today to celebrate 25 years of working together on matters of mutual concern in which the hon. Gentleman has an interest. I have already drawn the Archbishop of Canterbury's attention to the last question on this issue that the hon. Gentleman tabled for the Lambeth conference to consider, and I am sure that his voice will be heard.

  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—
  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

    Non-departmental Public Bodies
    Mr. David Heath: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the financial implications of extending the scrutiny of the National Audit Office to non-departmental public bodies not presently covered. [42028]
    Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The Comptroller and Auditor General has inspection rights in regard to virtually all the 265 non-departmental bodies; however, he is not the auditor of nearly half those bodies, and, in the circumstances, accountability to Parliament is exercised only by his inspection rights. If the Comptroller and Auditor General were to be auditor of those bodies, he would be able to provide a more efficient and effective service to Parliament. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and I met the Chancellor of the

    19
    Exchequer on 26 March this year, and we raised the possibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General's becoming the auditor of all non-departmental public bodies.
    Mr. Heath: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. He is clearly dealing with the matter, and he clearly agrees with me that there are now gaps between the Audit Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General in terms of audit. Does he not also agree that, if Ministers cannot abolish quangos, they can at least regulate them properly?
    Mr. Sheldon: Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is a great pity that the European Court of Auditors has access that the Comptroller and Auditor General has not, as that means that the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot undertake the scrutiny that the House has a right to expect.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission will recall that I have raised this matter with him before in oral questions, particularly in relation to housing associations. Does he agree that a huge number of non-departmental public bodies are not properly scrutinised and that, therefore, there must be a risk that public money is being ill spent, possibly even fraudulently so? Will he renew his representations to the Chancellor that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have an auditing role over such bodies?
    Mr. Sheldon: I fully agree, as £1.2 billion of public money is being spent in that area, and the Comptroller and Auditor General should be able to undertake the sort of examination that the House determines in so many other cases of that sort.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Assets
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: What the ratio of assets will be in (a) property and (b) shares for the financial year 1997–98. [42029]
    Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): At the end of the commissioners' financial year in December 1997, the proportion of their investment assets in commercial property was 14 per cent. Their agricultural and residential estates amounted to a further 8 and 6 per cent. respectively. The proportion of their assets in UK equities was 52 per cent. and in overseas equities, 9 per cent.
    Mr. Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Is he as concerned as I am about the move that the Church Commissioners have been making into equities? Bearing in mind the turbulent nature of some of those markets, does he feel that that is an investment that gives the security that the electorate deserve?
    Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the volatility of the equity markets, certainly those in the far east. Having studied independent research, the commissioners believe, however, that UK equities provide the best long-term match with their expenditure commitments and intend to retain them as the cornerstone of their fund, whatever the short-term fluctuations in the market.

Nuclear Tests (South Asia)
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the recent nuclear tests in south Asia.
The Government of Pakistan have declared that they carried out six nuclear tests—five on Thursday and a further one on Saturday. We recognise that the Government of Pakistan were under immense pressure to conduct those tests to match those initiated by India, but we are dismayed by the decision to respond in kind, and believe that the interests of Pakistan have been badly served by their decision to do so.
Pakistan's foremost concern is its national security. That security has not been strengthened by the tests. Long-term security for Pakistan can come only from lowering tension with India. It cannot be built on the unstable foundation of an arms race, which will only raise those tensions. Already, it can be seen from news reports from the region that the voices that have been encouraged by the recent confrontation are the voices of extremism.
However, Pakistan's loss is wider than its own reduced security. Pakistan had the chance to win international support and respect for its restraint. That opportunity has now been lost. As with India, the effect of the nuclear tests by Pakistan has been to diminish, not to enhance, the status of that country within the international community.
We have made clear to the Government of Pakistan our dismay at their decision. The Pakistani high commissioner was summoned to the Foreign Office the day after the first tests to receive a message for his Government of our concern. I have recalled the British high commissioner from Islamabad for consultation in London.
We have already taken a number of measures to bring home to the Government of India the strength of our concern at their nuclear test programme. Last week, we cancelled the visit by the Indian Chief of Naval Staff and we have also cancelled a forthcoming visit by its Chief of Army Staff. At the meeting last week of the General Affairs Council of the European Union, we obtained agreement to a presidency text that invited the Commission to review India's preferential trade treatment. Having taken such steps against India, I would expect comparable measures to be agreed by European partners against Pakistan for similar action by it.
Britain's aid programme, unlike that of some other countries, is directly targeted on providing help to the poorest people in the poorest regions. We remain convinced that it would be wrong to penalise the most vulnerable citizens in either country by suspending that aid programme. However, no one, least of all the Governments of both countries, should understate the economic price that they will pay for isolation within the international community. Already, the value of the Indian rupee has fallen. Last week, the Indian Government offered $1 billion of Government bonds and got no takers. In May, there was a net outflow of foreign institutional investment and, last week, the World bank deferred three loans to India for energy and highways projects of almost a billion dollars as a result of member states' objections, including Britain's.
The adverse impact of those economic developments will make it more difficult for India or Pakistan to reduce poverty. That is why it would be a tragedy if both their
22
Governments were to persist in an arms race to acquire the most expensive weapons, which would do nothing to help the millions of their citizens who live in poverty.
A regional arms race would have an impact that would stretch far beyond the region. Other states that have already demonstrated their interest in acquiring nuclear weapons technology will watch closely to see how the international community responds to the precedent set by India and Pakistan. Their nuclear programmes are not, therefore, merely an internal matter for India and Pakistan, but a legitimate matter of concern for the world.
At the suggestion of the United States, the permanent five members of the Security Council of the United Nations will meet in Geneva on Thursday to discuss the security implications of the nuclear test programmes and the heightened tension in the region. As President of the G8, Britain has called a meeting of the group's Foreign Ministers in London next week to co-ordinate the response of the leading economies to the nuclear test programmes, and to consider how best to promote dialogue with India and Pakistan, and between India and Pakistan.
There must be two strategic objectives in our dialogue with the two countries. First, we must press India and Pakistan to sign up to the global regime against nuclear proliferation. The best ways to reduce tension in the region would be for both India and Pakistan to sign up to the comprehensive test ban treaty, to join negotiations at Geneva, without conditions, and to halt production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Neither the interests of Pakistan and India nor those of any other country in the world are served by encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons.
The second objective must be to tackle the roots of tension between the two countries. There must be a meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan on the issues that threaten stability in the region. Their security would be much better promoted by confidence-building measures than by nuclear testing programmes.
We must seek a balance in our approach to the issue. We must confront firmly the dangers of nuclear proliferation, but without seeking confrontation with the peoples of India or Pakistan. Britain has a long history of close ties with both countries, and millions of people in Britain have community links with relatives throughout the sub-continent. Britain does not voice its dismay at the recent nuclear tests out of hostility, therefore. On the contrary, it is as a friend of both countries that Britain is appalled at the risks and costs to the peoples of the sub-continent of a nuclear arms race. I ask the whole House to show our united resolve in condemning the nuclear tests and in calling on the Governments of India and Pakistan to stop testing and start talking.
Mr. Michael Howard: The Foreign Secretary is, of course, right to emphasise the extreme seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves. Nuclear proliferation is one of the greatest dangers to face humanity as we move towards the millennium. When the Foreign Secretary last made a statement on the matter on 14 May, he urged the leaders of Pakistan to show restraint. I share his dismay at their actions since then, and at their failure to respond to his call.
Does the Foreign Secretary accept that these events represent a definitive crisis for the international community and its policy towards non-proliferation?

23
If the actions that he has identified do not have the consequences that he seeks, will not the approach thus far taken by the international community to the range of problems posed by non-proliferation have failed? Does not the failure of the consequences for India to which he referred to deter Pakistan suggest that the omens for the continuation of this policy are not good?
We wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his efforts to participate in a resolute response by the international community to this grave state of affairs, but I hope that he accepts that what has happened thus far in the sub-continent, to the dismay of those who are friends of both India and Pakistan, means that the task that he and his colleagues face is immensely serious.
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for what I take as support for my statement. If we look back over the past decade, the history of nuclear non-proliferation is not one of failure. What is so depressing about the decision by India and Pakistan to proceed to nuclear tests is that, over recent years, a large number of countries have renounced the nuclear weapons path. The Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus, emerging from under the Soviet Union, explicitly rejected the nuclear option and asked for removal of nuclear weapons. Brazil and Argentina have signed treaties that gave each other the confidence not to proceed to nuclear weapons. Throughout Latin America, countries that could have gone down that path have chosen not to do so. Perhaps most encouragingly of all, South Africa, with the change of Government and constitution, has dismantled its nuclear weapons programme.
The tragedy of India and Pakistan is that they are not going with the trend of the rest of the world but against it. For that reason, I would not at all dissent from the right hon. and learned Gentleman's description that this poses us with a critical challenge to the international response. It is up to us all to make sure that the international community rises to that challenge.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that to condemn the tests carried out by Pakistan is an especial duty for those of us who for many years have regarded ourselves as friends of Pakistan, and continue to do so? Is he further aware that the world now faces the greatest danger of nuclear war since the Cuban missile crisis, that such a war between India and Pakistan almost took place in 1994, and that there was a danger of a war only last week? Is he aware that the danger of nuclear war between India and Pakistan, which would not be a regional war, will continue until Kashmir is solved between India and Pakistan? Will he therefore consult the United States Secretary of State, the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth and other people of good will actively to bring the parties together to prevent what otherwise will be a global catastrophe?
Mr. Cook: There has been no stouter friend of the people of Pakistan in the House than my right hon. Friend. His words therefore carry particular weight when he criticises this decision by the Government of Pakistan. I agree entirely with him and I said in my statement that the best way to build security for both countries is to tackle the source of tension between them. Any such
24
meaningful dialogue, to be comprehensive, must include their disagreement over Kashmir. I agree that that must be part of the overall solution to the crisis. It is, of course, primarily for the parties concerned themselves to find the solution, but the search for it must now be all the more urgent, and a solution to the tensions over Kashmir would do far more for the security of both countries than 100 nuclear test programmes.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: There is nothing in the Foreign Secretary's statement with which I would disagree. I suspect that many hon. Members are in that position. Notwithstanding what he said in response to the shadow Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), is it not the sad, harsh and incontrovertible fact that the efforts of the declared nuclear powers under the non-proliferation treaty to discourage nuclear proliferation have failed? The five declared nuclear members—who are, of course, the permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations—have to take some responsibility for that failure, because they did not implement vigorously their responsibilities under article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty.
Ten days ago, when I raised the question of the level of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent, the Foreign Secretary said that that was a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence. Has he had time to reconsider that position? If we are to persuade India and Pakistan to exercise restraint and to become signatories to the comprehensive test ban treaty, should we not demonstrate some restraint ourselves? In that respect, will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm his Government's manifesto commitment to deploy no more warheads on the Trident nuclear missile system than there are on the Polaris system it replaces?
Mr. Cook: To repeat a point I made to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), we have to keep in perspective any failure of the non-proliferation regime. After all, 150 countries have now signed the comprehensive test ban treaty and 180 countries have signed the non-proliferation treaty. It is India and Pakistan which are very much in the minority and on the margin of the international community, not the five permanent members of the Security Council, which have all played a leading part in negotiating those treaties.
As for the record of this Government, since coming to power we have withdrawn the free-fall bomb, the WE177, so there is now only one nuclear weapon system currently in deployment. In April, we, along with France, were the first countries among the nuclear weapon powers to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty. We are playing a leading part in Geneva in negotiating the fissile material cut-off treaty and we very energetically observe the moratorium on nuclear tests.
I said to the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) last week, not that what became of the British nuclear deterrent was nothing to do with me, but that he had invited me to make a statement that would come best from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. My right hon. Friend will be making his own statement about the disposition of our nuclear forces come the response to the strategic defence review.

25
When the hon. and learned Gentleman hears that, I think that he will find confirmation that our plans for nuclear arms control are both ambitious and practical.
Mr. Donald Anderson: How seriously does my right hon. Friend take the danger that Pakistan might be tempted to use battlefield nuclear weapons first, using weapons technology given them by the Chinese and North Koreans, with the escalation that might follow from that, if, in any future armed conflict—he will know of the three armed conflicts since independence—the Pakistani armed forces were to be worsted because of the disparity in the armed forces of the two countries? What confidence-building measures does he envisage in the short term, especially in trying to get some form of hotline communication between the two countries?
Mr. Cook: Our objectives must be more ambitious than a hotline; in particular, we must put every possible pressure on both India and Pakistan to make sure that they do not proceed from tests of nuclear devices to deploying those devices as weapons in deliverable systems. My hon. Friend is right to say that there will be particular interest in those countries in battlefield nuclear weapons systems. Over the past few days, I have been dismayed to read what I think are dangerous analyses suggesting that the European experience can necessarily be replicated in south Asia, but if people want to learn from our experience, we in Europe took the deliberate decision to dismantle the theatre and battlefield systems first, precisely because they were the most dangerous systems and might have been used first. I therefore very much hope that that is not a line down which south Asia will now go.
Mr. Tom King: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the analysis of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) that not only is this a most critical situation and the worst since the Cuban missile crisis, but there is a real risk that the events of the past week have given the impression that we might have been extremely close to nuclear conflict of some sort? At such a time, of such urgency and with such a need for leadership, is it not clear that there is not much question of where that leadership lies? This country has the presidency of the G8 and of the European Union, and a role in the Commonwealth. Should I read into what the right hon. Gentleman said about the meeting of the G8 and about opening a dialogue that an effort will be made to send, under this country's leadership, emissaries to both countries immediately to start negotiations and discussions? That could be done as well as withdrawing ambassadors and using conventional means, which, I understand, may be necessary in the protocol of such matters. Is it not now necessary to make a much greater impact in a very grave situation?
Mr. Cook: I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman said that he does not disagree with our decision to recall our high commissioner for consultation. Not only is that a way of bringing home our concern, in Islamabad as in Delhi, but it is of practical benefit, in that it enables us to have the advantage of the experience and direct knowledge of those high commissioners.
On leadership, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the point of summoning the special meeting of the G8 Foreign Ministers, as with that of the Foreign Ministers of
26
the permanent five, is to consider how, together, we can re-strengthen dialogue with India and Pakistan and encourage dialogue between them. That will be at the centre of our discussions. As to the precise method by which we shall choose to pursue that—whether it is by special envoy, by inviting their representatives to meet us or by another method—we shall be considering that until those meetings take place. We are all seized of the critical importance of this matter, and the world must act together to respond to it.
Mr. Roger Godsiff: I concur with what my right hon. Friend has said and I, too, condemn the Pakistani Government's decision to conduct nuclear tests. I welcome his statement that until the main issues that separate India and Pakistan are resolved, there will never be peace in that region.
On Kashmir, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that, in the past, bilateral discussions between Pakistan and India have not, sadly, achieved a resolution of the dispute? Does he agree that it is incumbent on him, at meetings of European Foreign Ministers and of the G8, and on Britain, as a member of the Security Council, to bring Kashmir to the top of the international agenda, because without a resolution there will, regrettably, never be peace between India and Pakistan?
Mr. Cook: The House will be aware that, conventionally, I am criticised for paying too much attention to Kashmir rather than for paying insufficient attention. I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis, but, ultimately, the solution to the problem of Kashmir can be found only with the concurrence of India and Pakistan. The countries that wish them well and organisations such as the G8 and the permanent five members of the Security Council, which are now exercised about the tension between India and Pakistan, might have a role to play, but that role is to encourage the two main parties to find the solution with which they can both live.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Foreign Secretary consider examining the number of military students in Britain who are from Pakistan and India—he will find that there are quite a number of them—and whether it continues to be appropriate for them to undergo military training in this country? Secondly, will he consider following the model used in the discussions between the Palestinians and the Israelis, whereby a country that is quite dissociated from the area, such as Norway or Sweden, could take on a role that may be appropriated by the G8 to oversee a series of talks that would go on until they came to a conclusion?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman's latter point will certainly be under examination when we meet. The role of mediator may not be appropriate, but perhaps there will be a role for a facilitator.
On the hon. Gentleman's other point, I shall consider what he said and inquire about the numbers of such students. As I have said, we have already acted to stop high-level military contacts and we are being particularly vigilant about any contact with nuclear scientists from either country. I would not necessarily wish to rupture the ties to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We can resolve the situation only by reducing the tension through dialogue between those countries. We need to achieve the

27
right balance between conveying our dismay at the decisions and promoting our contact with the countries, to avoid creating a sense of isolation and to encourage them to be drawn into, not to shy away from, the obligations of the international community.
Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, following the nuclear tests by India and Pakistan, it is the moral duty of the five big powers to reduce their stockpiles of dangerous weapons to a level that encourages India and Pakistan to sign the comprehensive test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty? Does he further agree that countries such as China and America have in different ways helped Pakistan to develop its nuclear technology and that that has been a folly in American foreign policy?
Mr. Cook: Of course I would agree with my hon. Friend that the permanent powers, which happen also to be the nuclear weapon powers, have a special obligation under article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty. As it happens, Britain has reduced its nuclear stockpile within the past 12 months. Much more progress would have been made if the START 2 treaty had not been blocked in the Duma. I hope that a healthy consequence of the current international anxiety over south Asia will be to prompt some rethinking in the Duma as to whether it is doing its best for Russia's interests by blocking the progress of that treaty.
On the question of collaboration with Pakistan, America has been vigilant over recent years in its relations with Pakistan. There are obvious links between Pakistan and China, but if India reflects on the Chinese reaction to the nuclear test programme, it will realise that it is difficult for anybody in India to convince himself that he now has greater security in relation to China than he had before. Relations with China are now at a 20-year all-time low.
Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am sure that the Secretary of State realises that more than half of the world's poorest people live in India and Pakistan and that 5 million people suffer from AIDS in the Indian sub-continent, where the epidemic is totally out of control. Nearly 1,000 people died recently, simply from the effects of drought. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is an obscene recent example of countries not getting their priorities right? How can he make his ethical foreign policy work without jeopardising the poor in those countries?
Mr. Cook: I have to say bluntly to the hon. Lady that there is no way in which we can impose any form of economic sanctions without having an impact on some of the poorest at the margins of those societies. Of course that is one of the guiding principles that we are trying to apply, to make sure that we soften the impact as much as we can. That is why we do not propose, unlike some other countries, to withdraw our aid programme and why we are trying to target measures, such as reviewing trade preferences, in ways that may make some senior business men recognise that perhaps they should speak to senior politicians about the effect of the nuclear test programme.
28
I cannot deny that if those measures were put into effect, they would worsen India's economic position and, therefore, that of its poorest people.
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady about mistaken priorities. One of the great ironies of the Indian nuclear test programme is that on the day that the tests were greeted with demonstrations of support in the streets, there were riots resulting in the smashing of electricity sub-stations because of dissatisfaction with the poor quality of India's electricity grid.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's desire to promote discussions between India and Pakistan? I do not think that the process will be helped in any way if we introduce measures that will penalise either India or Pakistan. Such a process would be totally counter-productive. Given our special relationship with the peoples of those two countries, our function is to get in there, using friendships that have been built up over many generations, and ensure that they sign the necessary treaties as soon as possible.
Mr. Cook: I have great sympathy with the objective that my hon. Friend mentions, and I sought to make it clear in my statement that we are giving a balanced response that seeks to bring home our concern about the nuclear tests, but not to drive the peoples of those countries into a sense of isolation that might encourage them to support their Governments in the steps that they have taken rather than to be critical of them. Therefore, I am very conscious of the point that my hon. Friend makes, but if we do nothing, there is a real danger that the wrong lesson will be taken—that we do not really care about the fact that those countries have broken the world's non-proliferation regime. That is why it is important that we act in a way that cannot be portrayed as hostile to the peoples of those countries, but which brings it home to their Governments that we view this serious step with the greatest gravity.
Mr. Tony Baldry: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree that no hon. Member could have any quarrel with anything in his statement—indeed, we support all of it—but I suspect that he will also understand that everyone here is concerned that there should be some movement towards resolution of the issues that divide India and Pakistan and that, of all the countries in the world, neither Pakistan nor India has a better friend than the United Kingdom.
What we should like to hear is this. Of course the work that is done in the G8, the Security Council of the United Nations and the European Union is invaluable, but the UK, as the best friend of India and Pakistan, has a particular role. It would be interesting to hear whether the Foreign Secretary is prepared to signal to both India and Pakistan that quietly we are always willing to help to act as a facilitator, if India and Pakistan ever felt that that would be helpful. As has been said, the experience has been that it is only when a facilitator has been prepared to help that India and Pakistan have made any great progress. Of course, these matters have to be resolved between the two of them bilaterally, but they need help, and the UK is in a unique position to offer such help.
Mr. Cook: I have said to both countries that Britain is willing to offer its good offices if both countries are

29
willing to accept them. Some of the recent statements of support for that view would have been welcome at the time that I expressed it, but the offer is on the table and I welcome the fact that there is now increasing recognition of the importance of the issue and of the need for action to tackle it, particularly by the two parties concerned.
Of course, Britain, with long historical and close community ties, is well placed as a friend of both countries, but with that friendship and understanding, perhaps the best role that we can play is to ensure that the international community also understands those countries and acts with us in a way that helps to produce a solution and to reduce tension between them.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it gives those of us who marched the streets from Aldermaston to Hyde park and elsewhere, to call for unilateral nuclear disarmament, no comfort to know that the nightmare scenario that we talked about at that time has come about? Does he appreciate that the sad thing is that Britain does not have the same moral authority as many other countries that do not have nuclear weapons? Will he take a suggestion from me not to call on people in America, Russia and other countries that possess the bomb to intercede? Perhaps the best person to do the job would be Nelson Mandela, the President of South Africa, which has renounced nuclear weapons. He could take charge of some kind of mission to intercede on behalf of the big powers, because he commands more moral authority in this affair than we do.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend speaks with great consistency. However, I do not think that Britain can be accused of speaking falsely on this issue. We do, after all, have the capacity to carry out nuclear tests. We have chosen not to do so. It would have been better for south Asia if both India and Pakistan had shown the same restraint.
My hon. Friend is right that South Africa's international stature and respect have grown immensely because it renounced its nuclear weapons and wound down its nuclear weapons programme. That may make it an acceptable interlocutor with India and Pakistan, but I hope that the Governments of both those countries will reflect on the fact that they, too, could have gained the same respect that South Africa now commands if they had shown the same restraint and the same responsible approach to nuclear weapons programmes.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May I inject less of a doomsday scenario into the discussion? I remind the Foreign Secretary that he, like me, is old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962. I respectfully suggest to him that comparisons between that incredibly tense situation and what is happening now are overblown hoo-hah. May I also remind him that two years later, in 1964, the Chinese acquired the bomb and first exploded it? At that time, there was an hysterical reaction and people said that it would lead to an uncontrollable arms race and to disaster, but it did not. May I finally suggest that it was inevitable that, once India had exploded its bomb, Pakistan would do likewise? Their actions will not be affected by empty moral gestures by Labour Back Benchers or by a Liberal Democrat
30
Front-Bench spokesman suggesting that the explosion of such weapons has something to do with the number of Trident warheads held by the British.
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman obviously believes in the theory that nuclear weapons at all times and in all places are a good thing. It is not clear to me from what he said where exactly he would draw the line or who he would suggest should not have nuclear weapons. The responsible attitude—which was also taken by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman—is to seek to prevent the proliferation and escalation of nuclear weapons.
I am not sure that I take it kindly to be reminded that I am old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis, but I remember it very well and how glad we were when it was all over. I would not wish to visit such a hair-trigger situation on the peoples of south Asia, and I hope that we can avert such a crisis.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: When my right hon. Friend visited India and offered to mediate, he was absolutely right about the issue of Kashmir, despite what some of his critics have said. He is right now to say that that is the root of the problem between India and Pakistan. A strong body of opinion believes that a free and independent Kashmir would perhaps be the answer. Would he consider raising the issue of a plebiscite, so that the people of Kashmir can say what they want?
Mr. Cook: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her kind words. The matter that she raises is the one issue which could unite Delhi and Islamabad, because neither is enthusiastic about an independent Kashmir. We have consistently taken the view that, to be just, the solution must be acceptable to all the peoples of Kashmir—Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist. Finding a solution that would be acceptable to all is a difficult task. Many of them will have a different view of where their future lies. They must be involved in finding a solution, and it must be acceptable to them.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Britain's primary role as a good friend of both India and Pakistan is to urge restraint? Such restraint would be much more likely if a potential solution to the Kashmir problem could be found. This problem has existed since 1947: three wars have been fought and more than 1 million people have been killed. Is it not high time that Britain and America exercised some real leadership and sought a Security Council initiative to determine whether a solution to the problem of Kashmir is forthcoming? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that merely adopting the position of meaningful dialogue between the two countries is no longer acceptable?
Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman highlights one of the ironies of India's actions. For 30 years, India has sought to prevent Kashmir from being an issue provoking international attention, but its nuclear test programme has achieved what has been the objective of its policy to prevent for all that time. As to the hon. Gentleman urging us to be more proactive on Kashmir, I repeat to the House that our offer of good offices and to work with other countries and multilateral organisations to find those good

31
offices is on the table if both parties are willing to participate. However, when I last made that offer, I do not recall his congratulating me on it. Those who now recognise the gravity of the situation in Kashmir should perhaps reflect on how much humbug they spoke last autumn when I raised the matter.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: As secretary of the all-party parliamentary Pakistan group and as a friend of India, although I understand the pressure on Pakistan to carry out nuclear tests following the tests by India, I believe that Pakistan's decision is regrettable and should be condemned. I strongly support my right hon. Friend in that respect. Unless we solve the tensions that simmer between those two countries, I fear that there will be a fourth war between them. Whether it is nuclear or non-nuclear, it will solve nothing.
I respect my right hon. Friend's views, and I completely understand that India and Pakistan must take the lead on the Kashmir issue, but we still need to spell out to them, time and again, that the only way to unblock the logjam is to get those two countries to sit down at a table and sort out the problem.
Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely: a solution can be found only with the co-operation of the two parties. That is why any willingness to help from outside must proceed with their agreement. But we would urge India and Pakistan to find a solution consistent with their own agreement at Simla and with the UN resolutions.
Mr. Mike Gapes: While I agree with the condemnation of India and Pakistan, does the Foreign Secretary agree, after many years of the covert development of nuclear weapons by both countries, that there are now overtly seven nuclear weapons states? Is it not time that the five members of the Security Council called an urgent meeting with those two overt nuclear weapons states to discuss what they and some other countries have hitherto regarded as unfair and discriminatory treaties? I do not accept that argument, but
32
it is used by India in particular. In that way, we can ensure that the process is not extended to the middle east and elsewhere.
Mr. Cook: I, too, reject the argument that my hon. Friend has outlined. The non-proliferation treaty has been signed by 180 countries, and it is difficult credibly to argue that it is an unequal treaty, when nearly every country in the world, with the exception of a few such as India and Pakistan, has signed up to it.
As for inviting the two countries to sit down with the five nuclear weapons powers as new nuclear weapons powers, I would urge extreme caution. In the wake of the tests, we must be careful not to appear to reward those countries for carrying them out. If we did so, I fear that that would encourage other countries to follow suit, secure in the knowledge that there was a precedent for them, too, to be treated as de facto nuclear powers.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I speak as a friend of Pakistan with thousands of Kashmiris in my constituency. Is it not sick madness when a country such as Pakistan, 70 per cent. of whose population is illiterate, spends 25 per cent. of its national budget on defence? Should not that be unreservedly condemned?
When the button was pressed last Thursday evening, I was speaking in my constituency to a reception held by the Kashmir Welfare Association, where my message was the same. Many of my Kashmiri constituents, moreover, were very exercised by the line put out by the Pakistan authorities on Thursday as a pretext for the explosion—that the Indian Government were at that moment preparing to launch an attack on Pakistan's nuclear installations. Does the Foreign Secretary have any intelligence to confirm or reject that?
Mr. Cook: If I had, it would be most unwise of me to share it with the House. I notice that the Indian Government have denied any such intentions, and I have no reason to doubt their word on that.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's opening remarks; I know his constituency and his constituents, and I know that he speaks with genuine affection and concern for the peoples of Pakistan. It is deeply tragic that a country where combating illiteracy should be a real national priority carries a defence budget that so greatly outstrips its education budget.

Northern Ireland Referendum
4.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the outcome of the referendum held in Northern Ireland on 22 May.
There was a very positive result: 81 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland voted, and 71 per cent. of them supported the agreement reached on Good Friday. There is no doubt that it was an emphatic endorsement of the agreement from all sections of the community—republicans, loyalists, Unionists and nationalists. Now they want to see the agreement as a whole—every part of it—work.
In their own referendum, the people of the Irish Republic voted by 94 per cent. to endorse the changes to the Irish constitution required to implement the agreement.
By these referendums, the people of Ireland, north and south, have voted overwhelmingly to say yes to the principle of consent; yes to using only peaceful means to resolve political disputes; yes to fairness and equality; and yes to building new relationships based on agreement, not coercion.
The people have spoken. Those who seek to frustrate that—whether by violence or by other means—fly in the face of democracy. Our job now—both as the Government and in this Parliament—is to act as the people wish.
Let me briefly set out for the House the steps that are now being taken. Last Wednesday, I signed an order bringing into force all the remaining provisions of the Northern Ireland (Elections) Act 1998. The elections to the New Northern Ireland Assembly will take place on 25 June, with the nominations closing at 4 pm on 3 June, this Wednesday. It would not be right for the Government during the election campaign to seek to influence the people's choice, directly or indirectly, but I hope that, on 25 June, those who voted in the referendum will finish the job by voting in the assembly elections as well.
In the meantime, we will work to implement the agreement. Both the British and the Irish Governments will very soon bring into force schemes under the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997; I am grateful for the efforts of my predecessor, the noble Lord Mayhew, in establishing that legislation and its amnesty provisions. When that happens, there will then be no practical barrier to a start to decommissioning. We look to all parties to honour the commitment that they made to use any influence that they may have to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons within two years.
I shall also present to the House shortly a Bill to implement the provisions of the agreement relating to prisoners. The Government are committed to seeking to enact the appropriate legislation to give effect to new arrangements by the end of June. The Bill, which I know the House will wish to examine carefully, will include the safeguards that are in the agreement and to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew attention in his speech in Belfast on 14 May. The agreement is to be implemented in all its parts, not cherry-picked.
As the Prime Minister said, we need to be sure that both the terms and the spirit of the agreement are met. The Prime Minister set out a range of factors on which it
34
would be possible to make an overall judgment so that we can be sure that all parties are committed exclusively to peace and democracy and that violence is genuinely given up for good.
There are a range of factors to take into account, as the Prime Minister said:
"first and foremost, a clear and unequivocal commitment that there is an end to violence for good, on the part of republicans and loyalists alike, and that the so-called war is finished, done with, gone; that, as the Agreement says, non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means are the only means to be used;
that, again as the Agreement expressly states, the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal; an end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed; an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence;
full co-operation with the Independent Commission on decommissioning, to implement the provisions of the Agreement;
and no other organisations being deliberately used as proxies for violence."
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister again made clear:
"we are not setting new preconditions or barriers".
However, we will be giving legislative expression to those factors in the Bill relating to prisoners and the Bill to implement the remainder of the agreement which we shall introduce later this Session.
Our aim is to transfer powers to the assembly and to establish the north-south ministerial council, agreed implementation bodies, the British-Irish council and the British-Irish intergovernmental conference at the same time. We are aiming for early 1999.
In the meantime, following the elections, the assembly will meet first in shadow form in July. In the shadow period of the assembly, Members will elect a Presiding Officer, consider Standing Orders, elect a First Minister and Deputy First Minister, examine Northern Ireland departmental structures and arrangements and allocate other ministerial posts.
In the period after the assembly elections, there will also be meetings of the British-Irish council and the north-south ministerial council in shadow form. In the shadow north-south ministerial council, representatives from Northern Ireland and the Irish Government will undertake a work programme in consultation with the Government with a view to identifying and agreeing by 31 October this year areas for north-south co-operation and implementation.
The agreement also provides for a range of measures to promote rights and equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland which the Government will continue to implement.
I hope very shortly to announce the other members of the independent commission to review policing in Northern Ireland who will serve alongside the chairman, Chris Patten. I also hope to announce soon the arrangements for the review of criminal justice, including the assessors who will provide an independent element in the review.
On 22 May, the people voted overwhelmingly to endorse the Good Friday agreement. I commend that endorsement to the House as we undertake our clear duty to follow the will of the people and implement the agreement in the weeks and months ahead.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: I am sure that the Secretary of State was correct to say that the referendum

35
was a remarkable milestone in the history of Northern Ireland. The turnout of more than 81 per cent. frankly shames the rest of the United Kingdom, where the participation rates in recent elections have been much lower.
There is absolutely no doubt that the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland are anxious to show their democratic credentials and yearn for a lasting settlement and an end to the troubles. The result for the yes campaign was equally significant. By any reasonable statistical judgment, it was a vote in both communities for the agreement, and we must never let critics of the agreement say anything else, as it would be a plain untruth.
Looking forward to the assembly elections, may I ask the Secretary of State for slightly more detail about the forthcoming legislation which will be introduced before the elections are held? When I was campaigning for a yes vote in the Province with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, it became very clear indeed, particularly in the final few days of the referendum campaign, that a significant number of moderate, ordinary, decent people in both communities finally decided to vote yes only when the Prime Minister had given them clear, unequivocal assurances that decommissioning and the renunciation of violence would be incorporated in the legislation on early prisoner release and setting up the assembly, with particular reference to members of the assembly taking ministerial or Executive office. It would be a tragedy if those assurances were not fully incorporated in the legislation to be introduced shortly. I should like to be certain that they will be. If they are not, I fear that more politicians who will not act positively will be elected to the assembly, which would be a great pity and not in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State was right to announce that the Government wish in no way to interfere in the assembly elections. Her Majesty's Opposition share that wish. However, this is a time for great sensitivity. I wonder whether the Secretary of State was right to have invited Sinn Fein-IRA leaders to the Hillsborough reception. Such acts will destabilise the Unionist electorate and community. We have been fortunate that, for wrong and inexcusable reasons, Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness have declined the invitation. I should like assurances that there will be no further such insensitive acts before the elections, which could bring about the wrong result.
Marjorie Mowlam: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's opening comments about the reasonable statistical judgment that there was a majority in both communities in favour of the agreement. We have done a fair amount of work on that and agree whole-heartedly with his interpretation. We also welcome his support for non-interference by Her Majesty's Government or Her Majesty's Opposition in the Northern Ireland elections. However, if individual Members of Parliament from either side want to go over, that is a choice for them. It is not up to us to dictate to other Members.
The hon. Gentleman's point about decommissioning and holding office is central, but I should like to deal first with his more minor point about the garden party later this week. It is normal to invite representatives of all
36
political parties to the garden party. All those who signed up to the Good Friday agreement have been invited. That is the only just way to proceed. We cannot expect people to participate together in the assembly if we judge them by different standards. More than 90 per cent. of the invitations this year went to people from the national health service, because the 50th anniversary of the NHS is being celebrated at the garden party. We have kept the arrangements fully under discussion with all concerned parties. I was well aware of the sensitivities among the families who have been victims of the violence, including the royal family. Had matters turned out differently, as the organiser of the event I would have ensured that nobody suffered any further hurt or pain.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the more substantive point of the Prime Minister's comments on 14 May, outlining the factors that are crucial to moving the process forward. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that there must be a genuine and unequivocal commitment to peace by those participating in the assembly. We shall make an overall judgment based on those four factors, which I listed in my statement, so I shall not bother the House by repeating them all. One was about ensuring the full co-operation of the parties with the independent commission on decommissioning to implement the agreement. Our judgment will be based on consideration of all the factors. I cannot prejudge that decision, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that his point will be answered in the settlement Bill and the prisoners Bill. As he well knows, there are arrangements in the agreement for excluding from office those who are not genuinely committed to peace.
Mr. David Winnick: Rather than dwelling on invitations to garden parties, is it not far more important to dwell on the bigger picture—the fact that the attempt by terrorism, murder and violence to force Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom has been defeated by democracy, something in which the whole House rejoices? Are there not two dangers? The first is of terrorist breakaway groups from the IRA, and possibly from loyalist murder gangs, that do not accept the ceasefire and would do their utmost to destroy the democratic decision of the large majority in Northern Ireland. Secondly, although I understand and appreciate why the Secretary of State does not want to intervene in the election for the assembly, would it not be extremely unfortunate if anyone elected were elected only on the basis of trying to wreck the agreement, and therefore, in his own way, undermined what the majority of people in Northern Ireland agreed to last week?
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is important that we act in a fair and just way in the weeks and months ahead as we try to put into practice the plans for building peace and ensure that the process begins to work. I agree that we should focus on the fact that democracy has spoken. The people in Northern Ireland—71 per cent. of them—have said that, by consent, they want to find a peaceful way forward. That is the answer to the terrorist breakaway groups, whether they be the Irish National Liberation Army, Loyalist Volunteer Force, Continuity IRA or the 32 County Sovereignty Committee. They in no way represent the people of Northern Ireland or of the Republic. There is a wish to find another way forward. I assure the House that terrorist breakaway groups that

37
continue to function will be treated very firmly by both the Governments in the north and in the Republic, working together where necessary to ensure that such groups do not destabilise the process, as they are clearly intent on doing. We will do our best as much as possible to ensure that destabilisation does not take place.
In the elections on 25 June, we would obviously want people who are committed to taking forward the spirit of the Good Friday agreement into the assembly. The election is the people's choice; it is their voice. The electorate in Northern Ireland are very savvy, they know how the electoral system works and I have faith in them.
Mr. Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats very much welcome the decisive referendum on 22 May. We congratulate the Secretary of State and her Ministers on the job of work that they did, as we do former Ministers on their work in bringing about the historic decision. We also welcome the fact that legislation, especially to deal with prisoners, will be brought before the House sooner rather than later. That will be a litmus test of whether the entire agreement will be followed through.
I spent last week partly in Northern Ireland and partly in the Republic of Ireland. As the concert at Stormont in Belfast was going on, I was speaking to people who voted no. We must remember that about 28 or 29 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland voted no. It is crucial that we do not forget that large number, the majority of whom are not terrorists, bombers or wreckers but people who have genuine worries about the future of their Province. What efforts will the Secretary of State and her Ministers make to ensure that those people are not excluded from the future but are brought into the fold and can play a positive part in what we hope will be a very successful transition to peace in Northern Ireland?
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and would add to his list of thanks gratitude for the support and help that the Liberal Democrats have given. I avoided giving a great thank you in my statement because it took so long last time. The people who have put in the work know who they are. Their collective effort has brought us to where we are today.
I agree that it is welcome that legislation on prisoners is before the House sooner rather than later. It is in the agreement that it will be in place by the end of June. We must not ever forget that we are dealing with a package and cannot cherry-pick. Some people do not like some bits and others do not like other bits, but we must treat the agreement as a package in order to be able to keep the whole thing together. That is what the parties signed up for and that is what we must keep on the table.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point—the same point was made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). There are many who voted yes for peace, and there are those who have concerns—there is no doubt about that. The Prime Minister, when he was across on 14 May, did his best to reassure those who were seeking more information.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I would like to build bridges, as we did during the referendum. We funded all the parties during the referendum to put their case because we did not want to discriminate against anyone, whatever their position. We are talking with all parties about the
38
elections. We will do all we can—not just with the parties, but with the people—to answer questions and to ease fears, because unless we can allay those fears, trust and confidence will not exist for the future.
Mr. Peter Brooke: I congratulate the people of Ireland, in both parts, on the clarity of their decision, and I congratulate the Government on their conduct of the referendum. Does the Secretary of State agree that, during the referendum, the two Governments made at least one decision that might have had serious adverse consequences? I speak delphically, but I think she knows to what I refer. Will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that, during this next difficult year, there will not be much margin for similar errors to be made?
Marjorie Mowlam: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman prefers to be seen as the father or the grandfather of this agreement, but his input eight or nine years ago created what happened early this year, and it took place, in many ways, thanks to his initial work and the risks that he took.
The releases, to which the right hon. Gentleman was referring, were different in nature. One was not ours—it was the Irish Government's. We have made releases to try to bring the process forward. The other point is that those releases are part of an overall package of prisoner compassionate and temporary leave that was put in place by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. I had to decide whether to change the system on this occasion because of the individuals concerned, bearing in mind the impact of their release on the prisons and the impact on individuals of changing the system for external reasons. I thought that it was safer to stick with a scheme that had been in place for many years.
Kate Hoey: The Secretary of State will be aware of the vital role played by the Prime Minister in the referendum campaign, particularly in the last few days. She will be aware particularly of the personally written pledges he gave when he spoke to an audience in Coleraine a couple of days before the vote. How will these pledges be incorporated into the Bill, as that is what the people of Northern Ireland thought was going to happen?
Marjorie Mowlam: I fully concur with my hon. Friend on the central role of the Prime Minister in the last days of the referendum campaign. On the personally written pledges which she and I saw in Coleraine, I repeated them in the House today and I listed them as the four factors. I have said that the four factors are part of the overall agreement and will be written into the Bills on prisoners and on the settlement.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: The right hon. Lady is absolutely right to propose legislation on the release of prisoners, however distasteful that will be to a lot of people and however inevitable it is, given Irish history. As she prepares the Bill, will she give a moment's thought to the horror of more than 3,000 murders in the past 25 years? Within that horror, will she recognise that some of the murders were so horrible that the sense of revulsion swept across the community, irrespective of political or religious view? Would she be willing to give herself reserved powers in the Bill so that,

39
after consulting—perhaps on a bipartisan basis—it might be agreed that there are certain people on both sides of the community whose deeds were so dastardly that they ought not to be part of the release process?
Marjorie Mowlam: I give more than a moment's thought to the victims, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we set up the Bloomfield commission many months ago to consider what responses we could make on a much larger scale than previously. It is difficult for everyone to cope with change, but victims' families will find it even harder—we want to ensure that they receive fair treatment in the consideration of the issues. I have appointed a Minister to ensure that the commission's recommendations are taken seriously, pushed through the system and delivered, so that the victims' families see a change in the policies that we adopt.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said in the first part of his question. There is no doubt that the release of prisoners has been an on-going factor. He and I know—as do many Conservative Members—that that process was started in 1995 under the previous Government, and that 240 prisoners have already been released early, some of whom are those horrific people to whom he refers. Half those who will be given accelerated release under the proposed scheme would be out even if we made no changes. Safeguards have been built in—I know that the right hon. Gentleman has considered them—such as the revocation of licences if there is a breach in the commitment to the ceasefire and to a peaceful way forward. Moreover, particular conditions apply to lifers.
Mr. Harry Barnes: I welcome the neutrality of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the election, but I think that we are all aware of the areas on which her glint of approval will fall. It is appropriate that the Government should not adopt a particular attitude, as there is no Labour party in Northern Ireland; if there were, the Government's approval might appropriately be given to it. Will the Republic adopt a similarly neutral attitude to the election?
Some of us, as Back Benchers, have the advantage of not being bound by the self-denying ordinance and can involve ourselves in the arrangements, although we should consider whether it would be tactically wise to do so, or whether people would be offended by our involvement. Nevertheless, I believe that we should all support the parties that are with the agreement 100 per cent. It is by no means the case that all those who voted no will not accept the decision that was made in the referendum—it is perfectly possible for people to vote one way, to find that the result went against them and then to operate in the new framework.
Marjorie Mowlam: It was exactly my hon. Friend of whom I was thinking when I said earlier that some individuals would want to do their own thing. I find it difficult, if not impossible, to speak for the Republic, and I should not speak for another Government, but it would be fair to say that they have shown sensitivity to the issue—I do not think that there will be any difficulties on that front.
40
I agree with my hon. Friend's final point—some who voted yes may vote in the elections to the assembly for a party that said no, and some who voted no may vote for a party that said yes. That is what I mean when I say that it is the people's choice and decision.
Mr. Tom King: Will the right hon. Lady accept my congratulations on the roles that she and the Prime Minister played in securing the significant achievement that we are recording today, which is another important step in the long march towards a happier Northern Ireland and island of Ireland? She said that it is not for her to speak for the Republic of Ireland, but does she recognise the significance of the fact that a referendum was held on the same day on, in effect, the same issue in both parts of the island of Ireland? Those people who have said that the people of Ireland have not been able to express their will since the 1918 election no longer have a hiding place—let no one forget that that excuse is now totally expunged from a valid record of Northern Ireland events.
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that she made a slip of the tongue in saying that 71 per cent. of people voted for peace? I know that she meant to say that those people voted for the agreement. I strongly endorse the remarks of hon. Members that many of the people who desperately want peace but did not have the conviction to vote for the agreement can be won by the Government's confidence and resolution in the weeks and months ahead.
Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, partly because I know what a tough time he had in doing my job—it was not easy in those days, so I appreciate his comments. The consent of the majority of people north and south is historically crucial. I accept his slight rebuke, in that people voted for the agreement, but I believe that the agreement was the best option for getting all the parties together. Agreement on the basis of consent has given us a chance that we have not had for years, and I appreciate the support that he has given today.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May I add to the congratulations to politicians on both sides of the House my congratulations to the armed forces and to the police? If those people had not put their lives at risk—and, in many cases, lost their lives—in manning the front line for so many years, the men of violence would not have recognised the importance of making peace.
I re-emphasise a point on prisoner releases that I made during one of the Secretary of State's previous statements and which she seemed partly to acknowledge. Does she agree that one of the reasons why men of violence from both sides of the divide have been keen for the agreement is to secure the release from gaol of convicted murderers? Does she accept the importance of retaining the incentive to prevent such people from returning to violence? If it is proposed that convicted killers should be let out en bloc on licence, will she confirm that, if the peace agreement breaks down, they will be put back in gaol en bloc, and not only if they, as individuals, are caught committing another crime?
Marjorie Mowlam: May I set the record straight in a number of ways? There are no releases en bloc; each case is considered individually by an independent commission.

41
If there is any breach in the conditions on which a prisoner has been let out, the licence will be revoked and the prisoner will be put back in gaol.
The agreement will work only if all the parts move together. There is no general release of prisoners at one point in time. To build trust and confidence between the groups, we must move in parallel on the different elements—prisoners, decommissioning, the north-south ministerial council and the New Northern Ireland Assembly—if we are to make progress. If we do not move on one element, the agreement will not work. That is why the four factors to which I referred in my statement are central to this process, as will be reflected in the forthcoming Bills. Those four factors encapsulate the essence of the six pledges that the Prime Minister made in Coleraine.
Mr. Tim Collins: Given the importance of the commitment, which the Secretary of State repeated today and which the Prime Minister originally made, that participation in the Executive of the Assembly will be contingent on full co-operation in decommissioning, will she confirm that, for that assessment, she will continue to treat Sinn Fein and the IRA as the same organisation?
Marjorie Mowlam: I have already said that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked. I also said today that the agreement sets out arrangements for excluding people from office if they are not genuinely committed to peace. The Prime Minister has made it clear that if the arrangements are not working, we shall support changes to them. The overall judgment on whether parties are genuinely committed to peace will be based on the range of factors set out by the Prime Minister, which will, as I said, be given legislative expression in both Bills that will come before the House later this year.

Crown Prosecution Service
4.49 pm
The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
The report of the review of the Crown Prosecution Service has today been placed before Parliament and published. I set up the review on 12 June 1997, under the chairmanship of Sir Iain Glidewell, to examine the organisation and structure of the CPS and to consider what changes might be necessary to provide for more effective and efficient prosecution of crime. Its terms of reference reflected the widely held concerns expressed about the Crown Prosecution Service in the Labour party paper "The Case for the Prosecution", published shortly before the election.
The report concludes that the CPS has not achieved the improvement in the effectiveness and efficiency of the prosecution process that was expected to result from its establishment in 1986. It recognises a number of reasons for that, extending back to the earliest days of the service, and recommends significant change in the structure and form of management of the CPS. It also makes clear, however, that the CPS has achieved much in its short life in establishing itself as a cohesive, national and independent prosecuting service. Moreover, the review team is certain that it can overcome its problems and that it has the potential to become a lively, successful and esteemed part of the criminal justice system. Sadly, it adds, none of those adjectives applies at present to the service as a whole.
The report—which, in large measure, confirms the judgments that we formed in opposition—sets out an agenda for an organisation that is less centralised and in which lawyers spending less time on management and more on prosecuting. Our paper "The Case for the Prosecution" covered only one, but a very important, facet of the Government's programme of reforming the criminal justice system. That programme includes improving the management and organisation of the magistrates courts system, changes in the youth justice system and proposals for speeding up justice generally.
The core proposal for the CPS—a national headquarters setting clear standards and policies, but with implementation effected by better-run and more local organisations enjoying real autonomy—is fully in line with the Government's approach on a range of issues. While the Government are keen to see toughly audited targets for performance and priorities, they also want the professional to be left to get on with what the professional does best.
The report endorses the Government's decision, announced in May last year, to divide the CPS into 42 areas coterminous with police areas, and recommends that the reorganisation needed to give effect to that decision be used as an opportunity for a genuinely new start for the service.
The report is comprehensive in its analysis and recommendations. I shall mention a few highlights. It proposes that each of the new areas should be headed by a chief Crown prosecutor. The 42 chief Crown prosecutors will be crucial to the success of the new CPS. They must be people of stature in the local community

43
who are recognised by local people as their chief prosecutors. They must be able to stand on equal terms with the chief constable, the local judiciary and other key players in the criminal justice system, and they must be recognised as being responsible, with them, for the effective delivery of criminal justice in the area.
The report makes recommendations aimed at ensuring that staff in the CPS should be allowed to get on with their core activity of prosecuting and be released from the burden of management. Moreover, it recognises the need for a better career structure for the staff of the service. The report proposes a radical and far-reaching reorganisation of the CPS. It proposes that the role of headquarters should, in addition to some casework responsibilities, be focused on core functions of setting the national framework and resourcing and monitoring the areas, and that a chief executive, who would rank second in the organisation to the Director of Public Prosecutions, should be appointed. That individual would be responsible to and work closely with the DPP, but would relieve him or her of the great bulk of managerial and administrative work.
The report's recommendations are intended to enable the CPS to handle cases in magistrates courts speedily, while devoting greater effort to more serious cases in both magistrates courts and the Crown court. It recommends that the CPS should take over the conduct of a prosecution immediately after the police charge the defendant and proposes that some support functions of the police service and the CPS, which often involve substantial duplication, should be undertaken by an integrated unit, staffed by a mixture of CPS lawyers and caseworkers assisted by police officers attached to the unit. The unit would prepare and deal with many straightforward cases in their entirety. These are innovative proposals which will need to be considered with special care.
The report also deals with the role of central casework—the section of the CPS that deals with very serious and sensitive cases from all over the country, such as terrorism and cases involving serious allegations against the police. The report describes a series of long-running problems in that section which are now being addressed. It endorses the need for realistic staffing, external recruitment, better training and improved casework audit procedures. It also recommends that central casework should not be treated as if it were like a geographical area, but should be incorporated into headquarters, where the unique nature of the work done and the need for special expertise can be recognised.
The Glidewell proposals add up to a real challenge, not only for the CPS but for the Government. We must examine them in the context of our existing initiatives. The review team's report contains much that accords with the Government's approach. In particular, it recognises the need for the agencies that make up the criminal justice system to have shared and mutually reinforcing objectives. It recognises that the problems of the CPS cannot be viewed in isolation from those of the other agencies that make up the criminal justice system and that the improvements to the system that are so urgently required will come not just from improving the individual parts, but from ensuring that the various agencies involved operate together better. That approach is fully in accord
44
with the Government's approach in setting up the cross-cutting spending review of the criminal justice system.
The Government fully accept the need for change in the CPS. We intend to lose no time in starting the process. A first major step will be the selection of the 42 chief Crown prosecutors, a programme put into abeyance on the advice of the review team. The new DPP will proceed with that, once in post.
The announcement by the Director of Public Prosecutions on 20 May 1998 of her intention to stand aside before the end of her contractual period so that her successor can be appointed to drive forward the necessary change is a generous move, reflecting her commitment to the interests of the service. I pay warm tribute to Dame Barbara Mills for some nine years of public service, first as Director of the Serious Fraud Office and currently as DPP. In both cases, she has provided strong leadership, and her contribution will long be valued.
The report contains some 75 recommendations covering a wide range of issues. The Government accept the thrust of its proposals for reordering CPS priorities to focus more on the core business of prosecuting, greater separation of management from legal work, greater autonomy for the areas and better prospects for staff. We accept the recommendation for the appointment of a chief executive. Mr. Mark Addison has been appointed and will take up his appointment within a matter of days. Other recommendations relating to the more detailed internal management of the CPS will be for the chief executive to consider as one of his first steps.
A number of the recommendations affect the responsibilities of other Ministers, notably my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. Decisions on those recommendations will be taken in consultation with them. It is important that our views be informed by contributions from as wide a range of sources as possible. Therefore, I invite interested organisations, practitioners and others who may be affected by, or otherwise wish to comment on, the proposals in the report to forward their views to me or my ministerial colleagues.
The Government will publish a formal response to the recommendations, setting out our response to each recommendation, whether it will be implemented, and if so how. A plan of action will also be drawn up and published.
The quality of the report shows the hard work and talent of the review team: Sir lain Glidewell, Sir Geoffrey Dear, Mr. Robert McFarland and the secretariat to the team. I could not have expected more. I extend to them on behalf of the Government the warmest possible thanks.
Finally, I should like to pay my own tribute to the staff of the CPS. The report recognises in many passages their commitment and professionalism. I have seen that myself during visits, both before and after the election, to CPS branches. There is a strong desire for change in most, if not all, of the CPS. I know that the staff of the CPS are willing and able to take their proper place in the criminal justice system. I also know that they are the most precious resource of the CPS. They have undergone a period of intense and demoralising uncertainty during the review. I believe that today marks the beginning of a new way forward for the CPS and its staff. In the making of

45
the decisions for the future, the staff must be consulted. Their interests must be considered and implementation must be phased so as to minimise disruption to them.
I have no doubt that the talent, enthusiasm and commitment exist to permit the CPS to take its rightful place in the criminal justice system. Change is needed. The work of the review team provides us with a firm basis on which to make decisions for the future. While there is more work to be done, I believe that the process has now well and truly begun which will permit the CPS to become a more effective and esteemed national prosecuting body.
Sir Nicholas Lyell: First, we join the Attorney-General in thanking Sir lain Glidewell and his team for the obvious hard work that has gone into the report. I was glad to hear the Attorney-General's tribute to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Dame Barbara Mills, and I hope that he will not think it out of order if I express some regret that the spin doctors that the Labour party often so effectively employs in other fields were unable to prevent—or at least balance—the disgraceful hatchet job in The Sunday Times this weekend, which she did not deserve.
Does the Attorney-General agree that the key to the way forward is the close working together of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Court Service, the judiciary and the probation service? For that reason, I am pleased to see the Home Secretary is sitting beside the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
The Labour party must be careful not to believe too much of its own propaganda. In its report before the election, "The Case for the Prosecution", much was made of the fact that crime had doubled and the number of prosecutions or convictions had dropped to a third. The impression was given that that was somehow the fault of the CPS. Does the Attorney-General accept that that is not and could not be the case? The CPS prosecutes the cases brought forward by the police and it prosecutes in an overwhelming proportion of those cases.
I am glad that the report recognises that there remains a strong need for a powerful central core to the CPS, which will need strong and effective leadership in the future. Can the Attorney-General tell us what is happening as regards the appointment of a new Director of Public Prosecutions? Will the post be advertised? From where is he seeking to find such a person? When does he hope to make the appointment?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that in appointing 42 new chief Crown prosecutors—one for each police area—he is to some extent substantially increasing a higher level of management? I do not criticise that, but does he recognise that the prime reason for focusing a chief Crown prosecutor on a police area is to emphasise that the police and the CPS have a joint responsibility and that it will take all the backing that the Home Secretary can give and that of chief constables—as well as anything that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can do—to enable a chief Crown prosecutor who, in many areas, has perhaps 30 lawyers and 100 support staff under his command to gain proper respect equivalent to that given to a chief constable, who has perhaps 1,200 officers?
On magistrates courts and the preparation of work there, if the CPS is to run effectively the administration support units that are at present run by the police,
46
does the Attorney-General agree that two things will have to happen? First, the CPS will have to be given the necessary resources. They will have to come out of the criminal justice budget, and the Home Office may have to give some ground in that respect. Secondly, there are 60 police officers for every CPS lawyer and one cannot conjure out of thin air lawyers to run the administration support units. They will need effective backing from senior police officers to ensure that the units deliver effective prosecutions.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that he is following the course that we were taking? I am glad that he and the Home Secretary are also following that course in seeking to speed up cases into magistrates courts, through the Narey report. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that that will continue?
At least a year before the election, I saw some valuable studies in which e-mailing techniques were being used between the police, the CPS and the Court Service. Surely it should be possible to take that forward rapidly so that those three services can communicate better. I accept that information technology has been a bugbear for the CPS over the years. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree? What will be done to improve that situation?
I welcome the fact that there are to be contributions from outside before the Government finally deliver their response, but can we now expect an early response? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the report has been published six months later than he originally believed and led us to believe, and that there is little time to lose? Finally, can we expect a debate in Government time on this important subject before too long?
The Attorney-General: I shall try to deal with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's catalogue of questions. He started by mentioning what he described as a hatchet job in The Sunday Times. I, too, deplore that unnecessary personal attack on the Director of Public Prosecutions. I would not be responsible for allowing any spin doctor to do that. Indeed, the reverse would be true.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman may take a great deal of comfort on liaison with the police. Joint units are complicated and need to be carefully worked out, but they will require considerable discussion involving me, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Association of Chief Police Officers. I believe that they are the right way to prevent one side blaming the other—a practice which used to prevail much more than it does now, but which I have experienced dozens of times in court. I want to bring that to an end.
I want high-calibre chief Crown prosecutors in each of the 42 areas. We will do away with the 13 areas set up in 1993, which were approved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Although some advantages have obtained from that reorganisation, including the welding of a better national system, Sir lain Glidewell and his team have found, perhaps with hindsight, that it was a mistake. Whatever the intention, the system resulted in each area headquarters becoming an extension of the principal headquarters. Real devolution has not taken place, which is the defect of the previous reorganisation.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to say that resources have to be considered whenever there is a new arrangement regarding the police and the

47
CPS. If the CPS takes more responsibility for managing cases after charge, including warning witnesses, comforting victims and matters of that kind, I believe cardinally—I have believed it all the years I have been a Minister—that no decision should be taken on the transfer of departmental responsibility without a decision at the same time about resources. It is no good complaining years later about lack of resources; the decision should be taken at the same time, as we have all learnt from experience. I am determined that that will happen.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman takes particular interest in speeding up justice. The object of the new arrangements is to streamline cases to avoid overlap and duplication and to shorten lines of communication between the investigator and the prosecutor.
There are detailed proposals on information technology. The Government are considering better means of ensuring a closer interface between various IT systems. When I was a young Minister in 1964, there were 12 gas boards and 12 electricity boards, and I took no comfort from the fact that each ordered its own computers. The situation has not changed a great deal, but we hope to do something about that, if very late in the day.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about our reporting six months late, I must say that we promised in "The Case for the Prosecution" that the report would be completed within a year of our taking office. Today is 1 June, so we are only a month after that date. I had hoped that it would be done earlier, and have from time to time indicated that it would be done earlier, but I do not believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has a great deal of room for complaint that we have missed the date by a month. Despite our hopes that it would be done more quickly, it was necessary that Sir lain and his team should carry out full consultation, and they have done so.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for a debate in Government time. He knows that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who will have heard his words.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I endorse my right hon. and learned Friend's tribute to Dame Barbara Mills. Whatever has gone wrong in the Crown Prosecution Service, it would be quite wrong to blame her.
Has obstruction by the police played any part in CPS difficulties? My right hon. and learned Friend will recall that the police resolutely opposed the independent prosecution service when it was first set up.
Would the CPS's problems be alleviated if its lawyers had rights of audience in the higher courts? When Dame Barbara Mills last came before the Home Affairs Committee, she said that the Bar Council was being obstructive on that.
Does my right hon. and learned Friend have any plans to deal with returned briefs, a problem endemic in the criminal justice system? Lawyers discover, often at the last moment, that something more interesting or immediate has turned up, which leads to severe difficulties.
The Attorney-General: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks because, as Chairman of the Home
48
Affairs Committee, he keeps a close watch on developments. When the CPS was set up there were difficulties between the police and the new organisation, but the whole idea of the new organisation was to separate investigation from prosecution. The independent reviewing of cases was the main reason for creation of the CPS. There were bound to be difficulties, but, in my experience the situation has improved enormously over the years. We want to build on that, and closer liaison and better machinery—the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) attaches importance to it—will help us get over any remaining difficulty. There is a real need to speed up prosecutions as effectively and efficiently as possible. I hope that the Government can find the machinery to do so in these recommendations.
Sir Iain Glidewell and his team have commended what has already been done on limited rights of audience for the CPS. Further rights are a matter for my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who is concerned about that point.
The Home Affairs Committee, the National Audit Office and Sir lain have all written a great deal on the return of briefs. The CPS will have to consider that issue carefully and, although I do not detract from Sir lain's comments, there is a need for great improvement.
Mr. John Burnett: We welcome the Glidewell report and congratulate Sir lain and his team. We hope that we will soon have an opportunity to debate this important matter in the House, but welcome the establishment of 42 areas that will have significant autonomy.
The Attorney-General will agree that justice must be seen to be done, and be open and accountable. When the CPS decides not to prosecute, will he ensure that it gives its reasons? We understand that the CPS has to work closely with the police, but it is vital that it should be independent of the police. That is a difficult balance. What safeguards does he propose in sensitive areas, such as prosecutions of police officers? How much work is being done by unqualified staff at the CPS? Is he satisfied that there are sufficient experienced, legally qualified staff not only to cope with the burden of cases but to do so efficiently and expeditiously? More than anything else, that would restore the morale of the CPS and the public's faith in it.
The Attorney-General: I have already dealt with the question of a debate.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments on the areas, which we regard as important. That is why we decided on the matter within weeks of taking office. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I attach considerable importance to having chief constables responsible for areas that are coterminous with those of the chief Crown prosecutors. I believe that that is an important step.
Sir lain and his team considered decisions not to prosecute, or to downgrade an offence, closely. Such decisions are of public concern, and many hon. Members—I for one—receive letters from constituents on them. Unfortunately, the statistics and the evidence are not clear. The team said that there are suspicions that downgrading happens. It varies in respect of particular offences and of different areas. These are matters of

49
concern, and further work needs to be done. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is vital that justice is seen to be done. Where someone has committed, or is alleged to have committed, an offence, he should be charged with an appropriate offence.
There is considerable emphasis in the report on unqualified staff, and qualified staff who hope to exercise their rights of audience in the Crown court, having adequate and proper training. I believe that they have an important role to play if they have such training.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My right hon. and learned Friend knows that the House feels that this report is long overdue. The service had become constipated, incompetent and sadly lacking in leadership. The sooner action is taken, the better. Can he assure us that the reorganisation back to local units that are truly responsive to local needs will be undertaken as soon as possible? Will there be an audit of the quality of casework undertaken by those units? Above all, can he assure us that the public will no longer be subjected to cases being allowed to drag on for five years before they are finally lost?
The Attorney-General: I know of my hon. Friend's concern with a particular case. I have written to her substantially about her very real concern. She knows my interest in the matter.
The intention is to implement the report as rapidly as possible. That is what we did by setting up the 42 areas and what I do today by announcing the chief executive. I did not deal with this in my reply to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell)—I should have told him that, in the summer months, the new Director of Public Prosecutions will be appointed by open competition, following advertisement. We hope that he or she will be in place by the autumn.
I assure my hon. Friend that all the other facets of reorganisation will be done as soon as possible. We have taken all the steps possible, but I was anxious that we should have the evidence before moving further than establishing the 42 areas. Sir Iain has provided me with the evidence, chapter and verse, so that I can go on, in concert with my right hon. Friends, to ensure that we deliver the parts of the Glidewell report that we deem, on further consideration, to be right and proper. It is a very detailed, careful and well worked out report.
There are proposals for expanding and enhancing the Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate by having a lay chairman and lay members on the committee that will oversee it. We attach importance to that, as we did in opposition.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The report has much to commend it. I welcome the references to integrated units. The Attorney-General mentioned that in the past there were—I believe that they are still current—some areas where relations between the police and prosecutors were not as good as they should have been. Implementing the integrated units will go far to ensure better co-operation and better quality of service all round. I was pleased by the report's reference to prosecutors coming in earlier in the process, thereby applying the prosecution guidelines earlier in the process. That, too, has much to commend it.
The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has considerable experience in the criminal field—
50
professionally, of course. [Laughter.] I knew that I would do that; it was not intended. Both as a solicitor and now as a barrister, he is well acquainted with the problems in the service. I accept and value his comments. There is a need for integration. The interface is better, but there is a need for improvement. Hence Sir lain and his team have set out distinct proposals that someone should take over the process of prosecution once the charge has been preferred. I hope that it will be done jointly between the police and the CPS, but the exact machinery needs to be considered carefully. I hope that it will achieve the aims that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. There is a need for improvement if we are to have speedy justice. That underlines his proposal, which I must reserve the need to consider, that the CPS, should take charge, if we approve of the proposal, of prosecutions earlier. I hope that that reassures him.
Mr. Barry Jones: My right hon. and learned Friend was a distinguished Secretary of State for Wales in previous Administrations. How does his statement point to a much better service in Wales, especially in north-east Wales, where it has received criticism? Recent changes in magistrates courts have been controversial. I hope that the changes that he presages today will be less controversial. Can he confirm that Wales will not have American-style district attorneys?
The Attorney-General: Perhaps I may kill off that expression once and for all. I have no intention of having American-style district attorneys. I do not know where that came from and I am not the parent—or grandparent—of the description. They have quite different responsibilities. Some, if not all, district attorneys take part in the investigative process as well, and some are elected. I do not propose to go along that road any more than with the election of judges, which also takes place in many parts of the United States.
There are four police areas in Wales and there will be four chief Crown prosecutors in Wales. I am confident that the system in Wales will rise to the needs of the situation in exactly the same way as will the system in England.
Mr. Ross Cranston: May I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the appointment of Sir Iain Glidewell so soon after the election? It was a key manifesto commitment and he implemented it quickly. Knowing Sir Iain, I am sure that his is a full report, but may I raise one matter that does not seem to have been dealt with so far—excessive bureaucracy? My casual observation in court suggests that it is an important problem and when I visited my local CPS in Wolverhampton, the staff seemed to have files running out of their ears. Does Sir Iain's report address that important problem and make recommendations about dealing with the excessive paperwork?
The Attorney-General: I agree with my hon. Friend—it was certainly my impression when I toured a few of the CPS branches before the election that lawyers would complain that far too much of their time was taken up in form filling. How far those forms are read at the end of the day I know not, but the Glidewell report makes it clear that 400 of the senior prosecutors—the senior lawyers in the CPS—devote only a third of their time to case

51
advocacy and the preparation of cases, so there must be something wholly wrong. Sir lain has said—I commend that part of his report with great pleasure—that much greater autonomy should granted to the chief Crown prosecutors in each area and that while, obviously, the headquarters in London should have responsibility for standards, ensuring that resources are available and monitoring, there should be a great slimming down of unnecessary bureaucracy in a system that is undoubtedly over-centralised. I am confident that we can achieve that.
Mr. David Lock: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for bringing the report before the House. As a former barrister who used to prosecute for the CPS in magistrates courts, I know not only that the amount of paperwork generated by each case is substantial, but that the law is complicated and the job that prosecutors do is extremely difficult. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that lawyers are better being lawyers and managers are better managing? I hope that he can tell us that the Glidewell report will ensure that, in future, lawyers and managers will each do what they do best and that we will get a better prosecution service as a result.
The Attorney-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The main ethos—the main thrust—of the Glidewell report is to ensure that lawyers do what they do best, which is prosecuting, and that managers play their part, which is an equally important part of the whole. After all, some people become lawyers because they want to practise the law, not because they want to practise management. My hon. Friend is right;
52
there is an excessive amount of paper. Although it has been slimmed down over the years, there is more work to be done.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's commitment to employing a chief executive for the Crown Prosecution Service. That mirrors recent experience in private practice in large solicitors firms, which have been effective in appointing chief executives, so freeing lawyers' time for lawyering rather than managing. Allowing lawyers to do lawyering is probably one of the best ways of raising morale in the CPS, because it allows them to get on with the job for which they were trained. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that unqualified CPS staff are every bit as valuable as qualified staff and that, in many cases, unqualified staff with a lot of experience can do the job as well as, if not better than, qualified people?
The Attorney-General: The chief executive will play an important part in the future administration of the CPS and, as I said, I hope that he or she will be in post before the end of the week. Undoubtedly, and regrettably, morale has been low. That problem has been ignored over the years. Surveys that have been carried out—disagreed with by some and agreed with by others—have a common ground of highlighting low morale in the service. I believe that our proposals will be warmly welcomed.
As regards unqualified staff, I am old enough to remember the senior managing clerks who used to play a formidable role in the Inner London quarter sessions and all the other courts; they knew far more about the law and practice than many lawyers and I attached great importance to their role. There is an important role in the CPS for unqualified staff with proper training and standards. I want to ensure that both go hand in hand.

Orders of the Day

  PETROLEUM BILL [LORDS]
  Read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Consolidation Bills),
  That the Bill be not committed. —[Mr. McFall.]
  Question agreed to.
  Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

  AUDIT COMMISSION BILL [LORDS]
  Read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Consolidation Bills),
  That the Bill be not committed. —[Mr. McFall.]
  Question agreed to.
  Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

National Lottery Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
National Lottery Bill [Lords]
  New clause 2

    ADDITIONALITY
    '.In Section 25 of the 1993 Act (Application of money by distributing bodies) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
    "(5) A body shall distribute any money paid to it under section 24 only in areas that are not the responsibility of government.".'. —[Mr. Spring.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    5.36 pm
    Mr. Richard Spring: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 3—Additionality (No. 2)—
    `. In Section 25 of the 1993 Act (Application of money by distributing bodies) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
    "(5) A body shall not distribute any money paid to it under section 24 where it would substitute for funds that would otherwise have been provided by conventional public expenditure.".'.
    Amendment No. 7, in clause 7, page 8, line 37, leave out 'such'.
    Amendment No. 2, in page 8, line 39, leave out from `environment' to end of line 40.
    Amendment No. 3, in page 9, line 9, at end insert—
    '(5) The New Opportunities Fund shall be a body for the purposes of sections 24 to 27 and 34 of the 1993 Act.'.
    Amendment No. 4, in page 9, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 30.
    Mr. Spring: In Committee, we had the extraordinary experience of seeing Labour Members voting, again and again, against their own manifesto commitment. The irony appeared to be lost on them, which is a reflection of their attitude toward their manifesto.
    The new clause would bring additionality to the heart of the Bill. Of all the important issues relating to the Bill, it is on additionality that there is a huge gap between what the Government avow and what they are actually doing. The Government claim—no doubt we shall hear it again today—that they remain committed to the arm's-length principle, but, by any objective standard, that is manifestly not true. We shall clearly outline that failure in Government thinking this afternoon.
    The Government claim to be holding to the principle of additionality, but, again, that is demonstrably not true. The proposals to deprive the original good causes of a share of the proceeds of the lottery are designed to enable the Government to divert money to finance their failing political agenda. That is a shabby piece of opportunism, made worse by the Government's hypocrisy and their determination to maintain that they are not breaking the principle they so vigorously sought to defend when in opposition. In Committee, the Government rejected Opposition amendments that would have clearly enshrined, without a shadow of doubt, the principle of additionality. The Minister rejected them, saying that

    55
    although the Opposition had made a reasonable attempt to define additionality, we had not been successful in doing so. That argument lies at the heart of the Bill.
    We remain deeply concerned about the precedent set by the Government's decision to divert money from the good causes for which the lottery was originally set up to matters such as health, education and, eventually, environmental projects. We are trying again to persuade the Government of the virtue of our thinking and the importance of maintaining the integrity of the national lottery. We are trying to persuade them to incorporate a requirement to adhere to the principle of additionality in the Bill, in an effort to prevent the Bill from being a form of voluntary taxation and, indeed, an outpost of the Treasury. I trust that, this time, on further reflection, the Minister will not so airily dismiss the points made by the Opposition.
    The Prime Minister's commitment to additionality was made clear in the White Paper, "The People's Lottery". The definition in new clause 3 is, apparently, that preferred by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The White Paper clearly stated that the Labour party was not abandoning the additionality principle. The Prime Minister is quoted as committing the Government to additionality when he said:
    "We don't believe it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities".
    We entirely agree with that. If only the Government could act according to the spirit of the Prime Minister's comments.
    New clause 2 is based specifically on the point made by the Prime Minister. It would insert in section 25 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, which deals with the application of money by distributing bodies, a new provision, subsection (5), which says: "A body shall distribute any money paid to it under section 24 only in areas that are not the responsibility of government."
    I trust that the Minister will recognise that wording, which echoes the words of the Secretary of State, and the integrity of what the Opposition are trying to do to ensure, in turn, the integrity of the national lottery.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether, in terms of the new clause, he believes that the arts should not be regarded as being within the responsibility of Government?
    Mr. Spring: It is perfectly fair for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the arts. Of course that is an area on which Government money has traditionally been spent. The difficulty with the Bill, as he will be aware, is that it deprives the arts of money and, because lottery money may be substituted for Government money, it thereby deprives the original good causes of an additional sum. That is the danger about which many people in the arts are legitimately concerned.
    I hope that the Government will not dismiss new clause 2 by claiming that it uses an inadequate definition of additionality. New clause 3 is based on the definition that the Secretary of State says that he prefers. In Committee, the Government rejected an Opposition amendment that would have enshrined in the Bill the principle of
    56
    additionality and—I make this point very clearly to Government Members—that was identical to an amendment tabled by Labour Front-Bench Members during the passage of the 1993 Act. There we have it. The Minister for Arts dismissed the amendment, claiming that it was a reasonable effort, but an inadequate definition—it was Labour's own definition. That demonstrates that Labour's view of what is additional has been changed to accommodate its new proposal—to grasp money from the existing good causes to put towards its political agenda.
    On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:
    "I shall quote …a passage in the reply given to the Select Committee on National Heritage, as it then was, in July 1996 by the then Secretary of State for National Heritage, the right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). She said very clearly—this is the precise definition of additionality:
    `Lottery funds are not intended to substitute for funds which would otherwise have been provided by conventional public expenditure'.
    We stand firmly by that principle; there is nothing in the Bill that undermines it."—[Official Report, 7 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 162.]
    New clause 3 would, therefore, insert in section 25 of the 1993 Act, which deals with the application of money by distributing bodies, a provision that:
    "A body shall not distribute any money paid to it under section 24 where it would substitute for funds that would otherwise have been provided by conventional public expenditure."
    I trust that the Minister recognises that the wording of the new clause comes directly from that of the Secretary of State. If Government Members reject the new clause, we shall be in the ridiculous situation whereby they reject the Secretary of State's words. We are making it easy for the Secretary of State. How can he seek to reject his own words? I trust that he will have no objection to the inclusion of the new clause in the Bill.
    The reason why the Opposition object so strongly to the new opportunities fund—this is why we tabled the new clause—is that it flagrantly breaches the additionality principle. The lottery was established to fund initiatives—it was done with cross-party support and true nobility of intent—that are additional to core Government spending programmes funded from taxation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said on a number of occasions, these are areas that have traditionally been under-resourced by Governments of whatever political complexion.
    5.45 pm
    No one can seriously believe that the Government are committed to additionality in practice. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) certainly does not. In an outbreak of candour that must have had his pager humming for at least 48 hours, he said in an "On the Record" interview:
    "I think what we said in Opposition was clear, and it was right at the time that the lottery was introduced. But what we have now is a situation where the Budget spending level is set, and we have said that we are going to stick to that level for two years. I think it's right that a Government can say, 'We have a different view of how the lottery should operate.' That is a view that we've consulted on. We've received the consultations back and we're now developing a Bill to reflect these priorities, so I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I don't think they're compromising the lottery in any way".
    All I say to the hon. Member for Hove is that if he does not recognise Alice in Wonderland, here it is in black and white. He no doubt now has a bright future behind him.

    57
    The new opportunities fund represents a significant departure from the original purpose of the national lottery, which was set up to fulfil a Conservative manifesto pledge to
    "restore our heritage and promote projects which will become a source of national pride".
    Mr. David Prior: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only safeguard against diverting lottery funds into core Government spending areas is for the money to be distributed by bodies that are genuinely at arm's length from the Government, and that it is the breach of the arm's-length principle which compromises additionality more than any other factor?
    Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend is exactly right because the centralising, control-freak tendency that is part and parcel of the way in which the Government seek to do business, and which is manifest in the Bill, is damaging to the future success of the lottery.
    The Government claim that the Bill is a matter of fine-tuning the national lottery and that it only puts right problems that have arisen since the creation of the lottery. There are, indeed, elements of the Bill to which we have no objection. However, the Government's view that they are remaining true to the original principles on which the lottery was established certainly does not have foundation. The Secretary of State has affected to be mystified that the Opposition have not been lining up to support the Bill.
    I simply challenge the Minister to explain how the homework clubs, child care and teacher training that he proposes to fund from the lottery accord with its original aims, which were set out in 1992, to
    "restore our heritage and promote projects which will become a source of national pride".
    They do not—that is the simple truth. The original intention of the national lottery was to focus on areas of expenditure that were traditionally under-resourced by Government.
    The initiatives that have been put forward under the umbrella of the Bill fall directly under the remit of the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Social Security. Apparently, they were rejected by the Treasury and the Secretary of State's great friend and admirer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was not prepared to spend taxpayers' money on them, so the raid on the lottery has taken place. Of the schemes that the Government propose to fund from the new opportunities fund, teacher training, education and public health programmes have traditionally—there is no escape from this—been funded by general taxation. The Government admitted that in a series of written answers.
    The proposals are the thin end of the wedge. The legislation will give the Government power to divert money to any of their pet projects, providing an alternative to money from taxation. The Government's response to that accusation is that they have not breached the additionality principle, that the initiatives that they have announced are additional to core spending and that Governments have not previously funded such programmes. That is simply untrue.
    Mr. Tim Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree that matters are getting worse? If the lead story in today's issue of The Times is to be
    58
    believed, the Chancellor has imposed an absolute cap on public spending for the remainder of the Parliament. That will mean that raids on the lottery will increase in frequency and in scale.
    Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point. There has already been an increase in Government spending, with European Union rebates and a Treasury underspend. More and more will be taken from the lottery because all the early pledges on education and health are manifestly failing, and people clearly know that.
    It is flagrantly incorrect to say that the Government are somehow separating spending on the proposed new programmes from what has gone before. That is sheer sophistry. Even if the initiatives were genuinely new, they would still fail the additionality test because they relate to areas for which Governments traditionally accept responsibility—health, education and the environment. In Committee, the Minister for Arts amply demonstrated the absurdity of the Government's case when he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) to provide an example of spending that would breach the Government's new definition of additionality.
    My hon. Friend said:
    "I have repeatedly tried to think of a project that would breach additionality under the new, wholly elastic definition, but have not been able to do so. I hope that the Minister will be able to give one or two examples, and I would be happy to give way to any member of the Committee who can. The fact is that additionality will now mean whatever Ministers want it to mean."
    Of course it was impossible to find an example; perhaps the Minister can work harder to try to find one today. Under the Government's new, narrower definition, no spending breaches the additionality principle, provided it is additional to existing spending. However, spending from the lottery is, by definition, additional.
    The fraudulent nature of the Government's case was clearly demonstrated by the Minister's wholly inadequate responses to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. The Minister employed the traditional Front-Bench trick of trying not to answer questions. He said that there were no examples of breaches of additionality because the Government had not breached the principle. He said:
    "The hon. Member for Eastbourne was incapable of finding an example of expenditure that had replaced Government funding. That holds true throughout the history of the national lottery under the previous Government and during the past year under this Government."
    When challenged to refute the suggestion that the Government had introduced the Bill specifically to breach the additionality principle, the Minister fell back on the Secretary of State's definition, which is, effectively, "If it is lottery money, it is by definition additional." He said:
    "It is vital to make a distinction between grant and aid, or core Government expenditure, and expenditure by the national lottery."
    At the third attempt, the Minister at last came up with two examples that would not be eligible for money from the new opportunities fund because they would breach additionality. He said:
    "The hon. Member for Eastbourne asked whether it would support hospital beds or text books. He wanted an example of Government expenditure that would not be eligible for the fund and, inadvertently, gave two such examples. The fund will not fund hospital beds or text books."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 30 April 1998; c. 125–32.]

    59
    However, under the Government's definition, there is no reason on earth for the new opportunities fund not to fund text books and hospital beds in due course. We shall simply wait to see. We already know that it will fund the digitisation of material in public libraries and services that are already offered by general practitioners. It will simply be a short leap to text books and hospital beds, or whatever is politically expedient, to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) about the supposed rigour of the Chancellor's public spending limits.
    The Government will pay for teacher training from the new opportunities fund although they have already admitted that they currently provide £296.8 million to train serving teachers under the grants for education support and training programme, approximately 5 per cent. of which is spent on information technology training. Money from the budget of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is spent on training library staff despite the fact that the Government plan to use the lottery for such funding.
    Tellingly, the Chancellor announced in his pre-Budget statement that the Government intended to set up child care schemes, the cost of which would be met by the Treasury and the new opportunities fund. He did not even seek to disguise that fact. He said:
    "Funds will be available to set up as many as 30,000 new out-of-school clubs, which will provide places for almost 1 million children. The total cost over five years is £300 million, which is now budgeted for in our plans and represents the biggest ever investment in child care. The cost will be shared between the Exchequer and the new opportunities fund …A national child care strategy is no longer the ambition of workless parents; it is now the policy of this country's Government". —[Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 777.]
    There was no attempt to disguise the fact that, according to the Chancellor, Government policy is being paid for by the lottery. Despite the Secretary of State's claim that out-of-school-hours activities are not part of core statutory school provision, which course it is, of course, the Government's responsibility to fund, it is clear that the Government already provide money for out-of-school child care initiatives from the Department for Education and Employment budget. There we have it in black and white; it totally contradicts the spirit of what the national lottery was destined to be when it was set up, and it certainly contradicts the basis on which the lottery has been such a success.
    Healthy living centres will compete either with NHS services, particularly those of GP fundholders and other primary health care providers, or with private sector health clubs, or both. Almost all the services that the healthy living centres will provide are already provided by GPs through the taxpayer-funded national health service. It is arguable that the whole basis of the NHS has moved further towards the provision of primary care. That was highlighted and emphasised in the White Paper, "Health of the Nation", and it is encouraging that, in the past few years, there has been such a focus on primary
    60
    care and preventive medicine. The White Paper makes it clear that healthy living centres are to be part of the Government's health care provision. The document states:
    "healthy living centres will play an important role in the Government's public health strategy".
    Mr. Ivor Caplin: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Spring: The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear", but we are debating taxpayer-funded activities within the NHS being paid for by the lottery, at the expense of good causes. If, after sitting for weeks in Committee, he does not understand the importance of that, he understands nothing. The Government's published analysis of the responses to the White Paper makes it clear that many of the responding organisations, such as local government, health, education and voluntary service organisations, were concerned that the new opportunities fund would simply be used to replace rather than add to core Government spending.
    The document states:
    "A section of respondents from the education sector argued strongly that some of the proposed areas of activity and interest in the New Opportunities Fund, (as well as NESTA), especially the training of teachers and librarians to use and teach information and communications technology, and out of school hours activities are core to the education mission. There were doubts and uncertainties amongst the same groups about whether the principle of additionality could be adhered to. Some education authorities and professional bodies as well as campaign groups were clear that this principle would not continue to be supported over time, and that this should be faced up to openly".
    6 pm
    The respondents to the White Paper who strongly supported the establishment of the new opportunities fund demonstrated, in doing so, how clearly the Government are breaching the additionality principle and how the lottery is destined to become, tragically, the engine of the Government. Many of those respondents were concerned that initiatives funded by the lottery should be co-ordinated with other aspects of Government policy. "Analysis of Responses to the Lottery White Paper Proposals" states:
    "There was a very positive welcome for developing Information and Communications Technology training programmes for teachers and librarians, consistently linked with the proviso that the programme should fit in with other DFEE initiatives. There was a particular concern that the apparent synergy between this White Paper and the Excellence in Schools White Paper should be captured. The Excellence in Schools White Paper proposes to increase levels of literacy, numeracy and information and communications technology skills. It was important that the Lottery initiative neither conflicted with nor repeated these initiatives".
    Similarly:
    "For example, one local authority said that it hoped that the development of Healthy Living Centres would be firmly placed within the broader public health remit of the White Paper Our Healthier Nation".
    In Committee, Labour Members not only made it clear that they supported the Government's decision to breach the additionality principle, but unashamedly admitted that they looked forward to taking credit for some of the Government's schemes. I can just imagine, as the next general election approaches, lottery-funded schemes being sold as being somehow a Government initiative, paid for by the taxpayer and of some great benefit, purely for party

    61
    political reasons. My hon. Friends and I had the clear impression that Labour Members were simply drooling at the prospect of this raid on the lottery providing things that they might find electorally attractive in their constituencies. As the expert in these matters, the Minister for Sport, will know, photo opportunities galore appear to be very much in their mind.
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I feel a photo opportunity coming on now.
    Mr. Spring: I fear that the Minister may be disappointed.
    There is another, more practical test of additionality. I confidently look forward to seeing queues of anxious Labour Members lining up to try to take credit for initiatives that have been funded from the lottery via the new opportunities fund even if, in the words of the Prime Minister, they are not the responsibility of Government. I hope only that they will have the decency—although I doubt it—to own up to the fact that these things will have come about at a certain cost, and that that will be faced by the good causes and the arts, heritage, charity and sports projects that should have received the money that has been diverted into the new opportunities fund to suit the Government's political agenda.
    We all know what is going on here. Peter Riddell was correct when he wrote in The Times on 6 April of the proposal to create the new opportunities fund:
    "a Treasury raid it still is, to evade tight limits on public spending and to find new sources of revenue without having to raise taxes."
    There we have it. The Government have not lost the itch to spend. They happen just to be spending money from the national lottery at the expense of the arts, sport, the heritage and the caring charities. It gives new meaning to the seven-year itch.
    Amendments Nos. 7, 2, 3 and 4 seek to re-establish the arm's-length principle in the distribution of lottery money, which, again, is under threat from the Bill. It is not only my hon. Friends and I who are concerned about that. For example, the Sports Council said in a letter:
    "We believe that the arms length principle between government and the Lottery distributing bodies should be maintained, and that the new power given to the Secretary of State to instruct us to `comply' with directions to delegate to specific organisations is too prescriptive.
    We are also concerned that the powers on the Secretary of State to issue directions to us in relation to our distributing strategies should not be too prescriptive. Delegate bodies must demonstrate that they can effectively account for expenditure of lottery funds."
    Here again we come to what is at the heart of our objections to the Bill. The Government claim, as they have on additionality, that they are adhering to the arm's-length principle, but, if that is true, why are they introducing in the Bill many powers that will enable them clearly to breach that principle by controlling how lottery money is spent?
    Obviously, I accept that the Secretary of State has the existing power under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 to give directions to the distributing bodies. That is not in dispute, but the Government recently published new directions that will, in effect, reduce the lottery's efficiency and its overall impact by allowing the distribution bodies to dispense with the requirements for matching funds to enable them to carry out the Government's political objectives.
    62
    That unwelcome development will, yet again, reduce the lottery's effectiveness and ultimately the public's faith in the national lottery, which stands at a high level at present. It will reduce the overall purchasing power of lottery funds; it represents a drift from encouraging initiative to fostering dependence. As ever, the Labour party is filled with rhetoric, but entirely misses the critical point that so endangers the success of the national lottery. The powers proposed for the Secretary of State in the Bill represent a wholly new departure from arrangements for the good causes in the 1993 Act. We object in principle to the idea of the lottery being used to fund areas that are the absolute responsibility of Government, but we also strongly object to the introduction of the order-making power in the Bill, which effectively gives the Secretary of State control of the new opportunities fund.
    We have a flavour of what is to come in the draft directions for the new opportunities fund. We see, for example, that the Secretary of State has already given a direction that healthy living centres should cover 20 per cent. of the country. One can argue, "Why not 15 or 25 per cent?" It is an arbitrary decision, made on a political basis. The new opportunities fund has, in a sense, had its instructions made in advance.
    If the Government planned to respect the arm's-length principle, they would have set up the new opportunities fund in the same way as the other good causes were set up. There is no need to have done it in this way. They would not have proposed an order-making power for the Secretary of State to specify on an ad hoc basis how the money in the fund should be spent. To enable them to get their hands on the proceeds of the lottery to supplement general public expenditure, the Government have dramatically increased the Secretary of State's control over the lottery.
    That order-making power does not exist in respect of any of the other good causes and was simply not envisaged when the lottery was first conceived, when both sides rigorously defended the arm's-length principle. It is a great tribute to those who introduced the Bill in 1993 that that principle being enshrined in legislation was approved by all hon. Members. It was achieved with true nobility of purpose. Why, therefore, is it being changed? The Government are incapable of providing a satisfactory answer.
    The Bill contains deliberately vague definitions of health, education and the environment. It enables the Secretary of State to make ad hoc decisions. Can the Government offer any other explanation or justification for including this order-making power, which is a great departure from previous legislation, other than that it will enable the Secretary of State flagrantly to use the lottery to pursue the Government's political agenda?
    It is extremely unfortunate for the long-term health and success of the lottery that the new opportunities fund will, unlike the other good causes, be under direct ministerial control. That is directly in conflict with the arm's-length principle supported by both parties when the original Bill was enacted, and it was much prized by the lottery industry.
    The Secretary of State and his successors will be able to specify new causes that will benefit from lottery money without further reference to Parliament. There is no point

    63
    the Minister telling us that new initiatives will have to be approved by affirmative resolution. In Committee, he said:
    "I want to make one further point clear, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider before, I hope, deciding to withdraw his amendment. He raises the spectre of the Secretary of State extending matters further: any further initiatives, over and above those in which the New Opportunities Fund will get involved, will—as he will appreciate from his close reading of the Bill—require affirmative resolution of the House. So, the powers remain with the House, rather than the Secretary of State."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 April 1998; c. 70.]
    How can the Minister sit there with a straight face believing that that in any way justifies the centralisation of power to the Secretary of State? That is utterly absurd. It was not the crowning parliamentary explanation of the Minister's life. He knows perfectly well that affirmative resolution is not the same as primary legislation: it will not require any measure of public support.
    Was the Minister really suggesting that an order-making power receives anything like the same scrutiny as a Bill during its passage? Of course it does not. Is he suggesting that the Secretary of State would have difficulty getting such measures approved by Parliament? The Government will not even have a proper debate on their proposals. Parliamentary scrutiny of something as important to the life of the nation as the lottery is crucial for its continued acceptance by the public and for its continued success, but the Government reject such a provision.
    By contrast, as the Minister knows full well, the 1993 Act required primary legislation to divert money from the original five good causes. This Bill gives the Secretary of State a mechanism to pay for any new scheme he chooses to fund. In Committee in the other place, the Minister admitted that the new opportunities fund was fundamentally different from the other distributing bodies in the way in which it was being set up and would operate. Lord McIntosh of Haringey said:
    "Of course, the relationship between the Secretary of State and the new opportunities fund, as proposed in the Bill, is different from that which exists between the Secretary of State and the other lottery distributors. There is no pretence otherwise."
    We are grateful for the candour of one Minister at least.
    Lord McIntosh went further when he made it clear that the activities of the new opportunities fund had deliberately not been clearly defined. The Bill has been drafted to give the Government maximum room for manoeuvre. Lord McIntosh said:
    "The relationship is different because the new good cause is different. The existing good causes are pretty well defined and the distributors are in the main well established as expert bodies within their fields. In the case of sport and the arts, the distributors are the key sectoral bodies; the Heritage Lottery Fund was not the biggest player but was well placed to understand the whole sector, and the National Lottery Charities board has quickly established itself as a respected and knowledgeable body in the charitable field."
    He added:
    "By contrast, the new good cause ranges over a vast area. It encompasses health, education and the environment, each of which in itself is broader than any of the other good causes."—[Official Report, House of Lords, Grand Committee, 22 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 71–72.]
    6.15 pm
    Mr. Prior: May I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the definitions in clause 6, which states:
    "'education' includes training and the provision of activities for children;
    `the environment' includes the living and social environment"
    Those definitions could hardly be wider.
    Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is the danger of the Bill. It includes an order-making power and centralisation measures, but it lacks provisions for parliamentary scrutiny. It could result in an increase in activities under the umbrella of the new fund without proper scrutiny, to the great cost of the original good causes, which need most support and financial backing.
    Mr. Christopher Fraser: I concur with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior). Does my hon. Friend agree that "environment" in this context also means the political environment? The Government may seek later to develop the political environment, and that is increasingly worrying.
    Mr. Spring: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the airport the other day, I saw an advertisement for a cosmetic called "Control Freak"—this may be of interest to the Minister for Sport; I mean that in the nicest possible way. The advertisement talked about taking the oil out of the system and replacing it with something better. It reminded me of the way in which the Bill is being orchestrated by the Secretary of State of a Government who are the most incredible bunch of control freaks in the history of government in this country.
    The Minister in the other place admitted that the order-making powers in the Bill were different from what had gone on before. We are not in agreement with the establishment of the new opportunities fund, as the Minister for Arts implied in Committee, although none of us understood what he was on about. The Minister seemed unable to grasp the fact that we were fundamentally opposed in principle to the establishment of the new opportunities fund. As some Labour Members pointed out, although it may be desirable to spend money in some of these areas, it should not be pinched and raided from the national lottery.
    We want to make it absolutely clear by our amendments that we are opposed to the establishment of the new opportunities fund, and to the way in which the principle of additionality and the arm's-length principle are being flouted. We believe that the removal of those two key elements will gravely damage the long-term success and viability of the national lottery.
    Mr. Fraser: Before I speak—
    The Minister for Arts (Mr. Mark Fisher): Before you speak?
    Mr. Fraser: Before I come to the main thrust of my speech, I should like to allude to some of the work that Labour Members did or, rather, did not do in Committee. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) came top of the list, with nine interventions and two speeches. I should

    65
    like to continue down the list as an illustration of how the Bill should have been more fully debated by Labour Members—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. This is all very interesting, but the hon. Gentleman must deal with the terms of the amendments.
    Mr. Fraser: I will indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is, however, sad to note how the Government ignored what we had to say about additionality. The Hansard reports of the Committee would make interesting reading in that respect.
    The purpose and heart of the Bill are to allow the Government to get their hands on money from the lottery. The Government have tried to dress up the legislation in nonsensical talk about the evolution of the lottery and the need to restore public confidence in it. However, the Government's approach to the Bill in Committee was a sure-fire way of destroying that public confidence. The fact is that, after so many years of whining in opposition, the Labour party now, in government, has to make decisions, circumscribed by the difficulty of being bound by the previous Government's spending limits.
    In Committee, Labour implied—although not in so many words—that power has come its way, and it will be used to raid the lottery for health, education and the environment. The Government argue that they must look to the lottery for funding. Of course they must: the Chancellor has presented his case to the country over the past year, and that has left the Government with no alternatives. That means ditching the additionality principle straight away. Labour Members failed to recognise that in Committee; they also failed to speak up in defence of what the Government are doing.
    Governments can always make up new definitions of good causes, thereby moving the additionality goalposts. That is precisely what the Government are doing. They have introduced a range of devices allowing the Secretary of State to control how lottery money is spent. The fact that Labour Members seem to believe that that is fine is extremely worrying, given that the Bill will have profound effects well beyond those that the lottery was set up to achieve.
    The arm's-length principle has been ditched, too—and the Government appear equally unconcerned about that. The silence from the Government Back Benches has been deafening, and it has been left to the Opposition to table amendments designed to preserve the original intentions behind the lottery. No one in the Labour party seems to care about the fact that, when in opposition, Labour stood four square behind the principles of additionality and arm's length and sought to enshrine them in the original Bill. Now we are told, "That was then." Labour's former principles appear to count for nothing, and it would seem that the Government have changed their priorities. Their view is: if the lottery has to be used to fund these new priorities, so be it.
    Put simply, the Government intend to use the national lottery to subsidise public spending without raising taxes. The Treasury is seeking an additional £1 billion by the back door, and the Bill paves the way for that.
    By setting up a new lottery distributing body under the direct control of the Secretary of State, the Government
    66
    are giving themselves the chance to do as they please with the money. Writing in The Times, Peter Riddell made the point very clearly:
    "The new fund also violates the basic principle, reaffirmed by Tony Blair last summer, that it would 'not be right to use the lottery to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities'".
    The Government are breaking the additionality principle that was so vehemently supported when the lottery was set up in 1993; and they are doing so to finance mainstream health, education and environment programmes. "Environment" is a generic word, covering a multitude of projects that we cannot anticipate at present. It is open to this or a future Government to misuse the term, which is why I would argue against its inclusion in the Bill.
    The idea of an information-rich and an information-poor society has been debated at some length elsewhere, and the Government have stated that they want everyone to join in the information-rich society. In Committee, I told the Minister that schools should therefore offer all pupils an equal chance to participate in that society—hence the teaching of technology must be part of core Government spending. I was not wholly convinced by the response that I was given by the Minister. Public spending programmes continually evolve. Some hon. Members, including me, made the point on Second Reading that the Government cannot justify transferring to the national lottery the costs of such evolution. I should like to know how any of the planned projects fall within the remit of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—on current evidence, they do not. They all fall into areas for which Governments have traditionally accepted responsibility. The projects in question have been mooted by the Secretaries of State for Education and Employment and for Social Security; but they were rejected by the Treasury, so now they have to be paid for by the lottery.
    As has been said, the Bill brings in an order-making power allowing the Secretary of State to determine how lottery money is spent, thereby at a stroke overturning the arm's-length principle. It is the Secretary of State who will specify initiatives. Other distributing bodies set up by the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 are truly independent of Government, and all involved in that arrangement have witnessed the benefits of such independence. Now the Secretary of State will exercise enormous control over the new opportunities fund. That runs against the whole spirit of the establishment of the lottery, which thus far has been a remarkable success.
    Evolving Government spending programmes should not be paid for by plundering the lottery. Because of the initiatives that the new opportunities fund will carry, the Secretary of State will become a distributing body. I concur with the view of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), that the whole idea is Treasury-led and means abandoning the hands-off principle. The independence of the good causes will be put in jeopardy. Had the Government wanted to respect the arm's-length principle, they would have set up the new fund along the lines of the other distributing bodies: they chose not to do so. Furthermore, they would not have proposed for the Secretary of State a power to specify, on an ad hoc basis, how the money in the fund is to be spent. The fact that the Secretary of State can involve himself fully justifies the concern expressed by my hon. Friends that he will decide on the scope and direction of his involvement on a whim or fancy.

    67
    The Minister may recall that I put it to him in Committee that the arm's-length principle and the additionality principle go together. If the Secretary of State did not have the power vested in him, he would not be able to breach those principles. The power vested in him means that anything he spends has to count as Government spending because he is part of the Government. He has given himself the mandate that he needs.
    6.30 pm
    The truth is that the Labour party is changing the purpose of the national lottery. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Arts will agree that the Secretary of State is intervening in the way in which lottery money is distributed, as the Labour party manifesto promised he would. Labour stated:
    "There has been no overall strategy for the allocation of monies and no co-ordination among the five distributor bodies about the projects deserving to benefit from the National Lottery."
    That quotation comes from a document entitled "New Labour: Because Britain Deserves Better", published in April 1997.
    Policy directions by the Secretary of State will be introduced with the passage of the Bill. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State referred in detail to some directions when he said without any intended irony that they were important to ensure that
    "lottery money is going where it counts."—[Official Report, 7 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 170.]
    I wondered at the time whether that was not a Freudian slip and whether the Secretary of State had unconsciously decided to reveal that the money would be spent where Labour votes counted. That has been my suspicion since that comment was made.
    The Government want to establish a new direction for the lottery, one that fits with the broader sweep of Government policy and which will serve as a means for redistributing wealth by funding a range of social programmes. To make matters worse, the activities of the new opportunities fund have not been clearly defined. Why have the Government drawn up such vague definitions of health, education and the environment? As I said, "environment" is a generic term, and I should be interested to hear the Minister explain his precise understanding of the environment—social, economic or political—in this context.
    We have had few clues from the Government, so we cannot be clear what their intentions are. The Government will not even have a debate in the House on what they propose. The 1993 Act would have required primary legislation to divert money from the original five good causes, yet these proposals come from a party that professes to support open government. I support the new clause.
    Laura Moffatt: I am a little confused about why the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) should be amazed that in Committee Labour Members found it difficult to take an active part, when all that we have heard today from Conservative Members is
    68
    a rehearsal of what we heard then. Given the uninspired new clause, I am beginning to wonder whether there is truly any real opposition to the Bill.
    It was very difficult to sit and listen to the arguments about additionality and the wonderful contribution to the debate made by Mr. Riddell in the newspaper. I am sure that he is a terribly interesting writer, but I listen much more to the people I meet in the street who are in favour of the proposals.
    Mr. Spring: I am interested to hear the hon. Lady use the word "contribution". Will she confirm that she made no speech in Committee and that her sole contribution was a single intervention?
    Laura Moffatt: I am glad to say that that intervention left the hon. Gentleman speechless for few moments, which pleased me immensely.
    I hope that we shall shortly finish this debate and see the Bill in place, so that it can reach the people who are interested in what the new opportunities fund will bring. It is sometimes galling to have to listen to the same trite old nonsense, when people want lottery money to be spent as the Government propose.
    I was recently lucky enough to attend a session organised by my local health authority to deal with healthy living centres. They are the reason why I was inspired to contribute to debates on the Bill. I am a nurse of 25 years' standing, and the proposals seemed to me to be a new way to bring good health to our communities and to inspire people to take their health into their own hands.
    Mr. Prior: Will the hon. Lady explain what is wrong with raising taxes to fund health?
    Laura Moffatt: This is a new way, a way to involve communities. We get caught up in the nonsense about additionality, but people on the street are asking when they can contribute and how they can work with their general practitioners. It has been said that the proposals would do terrible damage to private health clubs, but if private health clubs had any sense, they would be entering into partnerships with the local groups that are setting up the healthy living centres. The Opposition have completely missed the boat.
    Mr. Fraser: The hon. Lady is ranging rather wide, so perhaps I can ask her to clarify whether she agrees that the money going to healthy living centres will undermine the good work currently being done by GP fund holding practices.
    Laura Moffatt: I do not believe for one moment that it will undermine the work being done by GP fundholders. In fact, I shall carry on talking about the meeting that I attended with many GPs in West Sussex. They were very keen to take part in the programme and were asking whether it would be only for inner cities or whether rural areas could contribute. They wanted to know how they could show that they knew people who suffered poor health and whom they could help to adopt a healthy way of living, so I do not think for one moment that GPs will be threatened. In fact, they will welcome the proposals with open arms, as will others in our communities and our children.

    69
    The new opportunities fund involves new initiatives, things that have not been done before and on which we shall be able to expand. Indeed, 20 per cent. of our communities will be able to take part. That is very exciting. I understand that the areas where the health action zones are located will naturally have priority, but I shall be very excited when the first centre is set up.
    I listened to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), who is currently involved in a conversation, saying that we must have a sense of national pride in our arts and treasures. Of course we must, but, as a nurse of many years' standing, my national pride means making sure that we have a healthy nation that can be proactive in achieving good health and which can live longer. I shall be very proud when the first healthy living centre is set up.
    Mr. Collins: The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) made an interesting speech. Although I agreed with her on one point, I shall start with another, with which I disagreed. The hon. Lady said that as people want the proposals in the Bill, we should jolly well get on with them. No doubt some people want them, but it is equally clear that others do not. It is the duty of the House properly to debate matters on which there is division in the country and not simply to sweep aside debate on the ground that because the Government want something, they should have it without debate or discussion.
    I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of health, education and the environment. If I had a limited sum of money, I would always prefer to spend it on schools or hospitals rather than on skating rinks or opera houses. For precisely that reason, some of those facilities are clearly intended to be funded by the taxpayer, under a system whereby one can go to prison for failing to contribute to the national health service or state education. Other things that are less important but still valuable are funded in another way. That is why the lottery was set up. As long as those good causes were reliant on taxpayer funding, politicians of any party would always sideline, exclude and reduce them. The lottery was set up on a principle of additionality, which not only had bipartisan support at the time, but arguably enjoyed stronger support from Labour than from the Conservatives.
    I pay tribute to the role played by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) as Prime Minister in bringing about a national lottery. Had it not been for his drive in overcoming the bureaucratic and political obstacles to the creation of a national lottery, we would have nothing to discuss today.
    The principle of additionality is extremely important and so is new clause 2, in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The principle of additionality that it sets out is defined in exactly the language employed by the Prime Minister, not in an off-the-cuff speech in a Sedgefield pub, but in his foreword to the White Paper "The People's Lottery", on which the Bill is based. Therefore, it falls to the Government and the Labour party to explain precisely why they are not happy with the wording in new clause 2, which seeks carefully to include in the Bill the words used by the Prime Minister in a declaration of Government policy after the general election and in an official White Paper.
    Some Opposition Members believe that the Government are not happy about the principle of additionality being written so clearly on the face of the
    70
    Bill, precisely because the story in The Times this morning is right. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his own campaign—which has rather less to do with the progress of the British economy and rather more to do with his ambition to become the next leader of the Labour party—is seeking to prove his own toughness by establishing tough public spending limits for as far ahead as we can foresee. That means that the Government can fulfil their early election pledges—such as those on class sizes and hospital waiting lists, which they have failed to fulfil in their first 13 months in office, that they have little prospect of meeting in the next 13 months in office and which they may or may not meet in the lifetime of this Parliament—only by raiding national lottery moneys to fund education and health spending, which, in the normal course of events, should be funded by the taxpayer. That is one agenda pursued by the Bill, and it would be limited by new clause 2.
    There is another agenda, however, which is addressed by amendment No. 4, in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Clause 7, as drafted, would allow the Secretary of State to set out initiatives that would apply throughout the United Kingdom or in one or more areas.
    The Minister for Sport is listening carefully to one of his hon. Friends, but I believe that he has a direct and personal interest in the possible use of the new opportunities fund in one particular part of the United Kingdom. He represents a London constituency, and London is doing extremely well out of the national lottery. As we all know, the Minister for Sport may have another rather more personal political agenda relating to a certain political post in London. If the new opportunities fund could be used to benefit London, perhaps to the disbenefit of other parts of the United Kingdom, but to the great joy and happiness of the citizenry of the metropolis, the Minister for Sport might feel that the citizenry of London would reward him for his part in that, by electing him to the post of lord mayor.
    The Minister knows that he has tough opposition. Lord Archer has made it clear that were he to be elected lord mayor of London, he would never write another book, and that makes it a tough electoral platform for the Minister for Sport. He will find it extremely difficult to come up with a platform policy to beat that.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We really cannot have a diversion about what may happen in the future election of the mayor of London.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Collins: I apologise for that, but it relates to why the new opportunities fund and the provisions that amendment No. 4 would strike out—enabling the new opportunities fund to benefit one particular area of the United Kingdom—are so important. There should not be even a suspicion of doubt that the Government or any Minister within it might seek to use lottery funds to benefit a particular geographical area within the United Kingdom. If I cannot refer to London, for reasons that you rightly pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may touch on the prospect of the provisions that would be struck out by amendment No. 4 being used to benefit areas that happen to be represented by members of the governing party.
    It is worrying that the Bill grants such enormous discretion to the Secretary of State to direct moneys to enormously popular projects relating to education and

    71
    health, wherever and for whatever reason he or she deems fit. My hon. Friends who served on the Committee tell me that, throughout the discussions on the Bill, Labour Members were enormously excited by the prospect of lottery money being spent on projects in their constituencies, having been directed there by the Government.
    Mr. Fraser: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that in Committee the high aspirations of Labour Members resulted from the knowledge that the Government could deliver on those aspirations.
    Mr. Collins: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely clearly. If amendment No. 4 were not accepted, we would risk the Government being able to use lottery funds in the pursuit of pure party political advantage.
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. First, may I remind the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) that he should not get up to make a point while clutching a brown envelope?
    I remind the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that I receive letters from hon. Members of all parties asking, "Why hasn't scheme X in my constituency received more money?" It is perfectly valid for hon. Members to lobby on behalf of organisations. Hon. Members of all parties have been present when large cheques have been handed over from the lottery or the Millennium Commission in the presence of the press. No one ever claims that the hon. Member managed to get the funding or that the Government provided it. It is a form of publicity in which all hon. Members have indulged.
    Mr. Collins: I bow to the Minister's expertise on public relations initiatives and stunts, but his analogies relate to the Millennium Commission, which is an arm's-length body. There is no question of any Secretary of State being in a position to instruct the Millennium Commission as to how it spends its money. Amendment No. 4 would strike out the provision that
    "the New Opportunities Fund shall comply with any directions given to them by the Secretary of State."
    That is what causes concern, not just among Opposition Members, but among bodies that supported the principle of arm's-length responsibility in respect of the distribution of lottery funds and which are extremely worried by the way in which the legislation is moving towards hands-on control by Secretaries of State who currently serve under a Labour Government. In future, they may be of a different political party, but, in any event, they should not be directly involved in such decisions. That is why our new clauses and amendments would return the national lottery to the principles that led to its creation, its great success and its widespread public support.
    Mr. Damian Green: I support the new clauses and amendments, which would save the Government from themselves. The Government believe that their policies will give them short-term popularity, but they will lead to long-term opprobrium when people realise the damage that is done to the national lottery,
    72
    which has for several years supported many good causes which are valued throughout the country. Once the lottery is damaged and has lost the trust of the people, it will have great difficulty regaining that trust and will no longer be able to provide as much support for good causes as it has during its first four years.
    The Government's warm words disguise their ill-intentions. The new clauses and amendments would restore the two principles that the Bill badly breaches: additionality and the arm's-length principle. All fair-minded people—certainly all those who have followed every kick of the ball in this match—agree that additionality has always been difficult to define, but the Government are clearly trying to sweep the principle away. Under the Bill, any spending could legitimately be funded by the lottery, and the current division between spending on what is essential, which should be funded from taxation, and spending on what is desirable, which the lottery has always funded, could not be maintained, unless the Government accept the new clauses and amendments—which I do not expect them to do.
    There is nothing that would not be covered by the principles set out by the Government. The lottery could fund anything under the new system. Conventional public spending has always covered a wide range of activities. The level of public spending that society regards it as sensible to fund has gone up and down over the decades, but there has always been a clear core of services that are best provided from collective endeavour through taxation. That covers spending on defence, the police and, under the welfare system that we have had for most of this century, health and education.
    Items of expenditure that would be funded by the new opportunities fund, such as information technology training for teachers and the healthy living centres on which the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) is so keen, would normally fall within those broad boundaries of conventional public spending without anyone blinking. If the Government announced that they proposed to spend public money on extra IT training for teachers, nobody would consider it remotely remarkable; it would be a reasonable use of conventional public spending. However, saying that this year's priority was a new set of opera houses or sports stadiums would be bizarre, particularly for a Government who claim to want to put pressure on public spending.
    Although the theoretical boundary for what should fall under the additionality principle may be difficult to define, in practice the distinction between the essential and the desirable is clear. If the Bill is not amended, it will drive a coach and horses through that division and allow almost any expenditure to be funded by the lottery. We all know that the Government are doing that so that they can spend more money without appearing to raise taxes.
    The people will see through that attempted dishonesty. The White Paper was predictably and drearily called "The People's Lottery". The Government seem to forget that the people are not dim and notice political dishonesty. We are witnessing such political dishonesty. The people will see that items that they expect to be funded from taxation are to be funded by the lottery. They will regard the Government as dishonest and cease to trust them. [Laughter.] Labour Members may laugh, but I look forward to seeing them in two or three years when their popularity has fallen. I am not greatly concerned about

    73
    the Government's popularity. I shall not lose sleep when they sink into unpopularity. However, I shall lose sleep over the fact that they will drag down with them the reputation of the national lottery, which is doing a lot of good for this country. When the lottery is seen to be a plaything for politicians who want to spend money while pretending not to raise taxes, people will be turned off and will stop playing the lottery, resulting in less money being available for good causes. Labour Members should regret that.
    The most ridiculous defence that we heard in Committee was that anything that had not been funded before could legitimately be funded from the lottery. That argument supposes that the world stands still and technology never changes, particularly in health and education. Twenty years ago, IT training for teachers would have been meaningless because IT had not been developed. It is now essential for education, and should be funded from education spending. The Government have decided to fund it from money that should not be used for essential spending.
    Additionality is not the only principle to be badly breached. The Government profess to support the arm's-length principle, but their actions belie their words. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) has returned to his seat, because I am about to say something nice about a Liberal Democrat—admittedly a long-dead one, who once famously said that in the long run we are all dead. Lord Keynes was a Liberal who invented the arm's-length principle when he set up the Arts Council. The Government are doing their best to destroy that principle.
    The new opportunities fund destroys the arm's-length principle in many ways. We have already heard about the problems with geographical distribution. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) that Labour Back Benchers eager to persuade Ministers to divert money their way for political reasons were heard not just in Committee: every Labour contribution on Second Reading was designed to elicit extra money. As the Minister for Sport has said, that is entirely legitimate, and we all do it. However, it is not legitimate to give the power of distribution directly to Ministers, because that will result in their indulging in straightforward pork-barrel politics. That will damage public confidence in the lottery and reduce people's willingness to play it, cutting the money available to good causes.
    We have heard about healthy living centres. Again, short-term popularity will contrast with long-term political opprobrium for the Government, because they will be available only in the 20 per cent. of the country regarded as most deprived. The general practitioners in West Sussex who are desperately hoping for such centres will not get any. They will be hugely disappointed and the hon. Member for Crawley will have a lot of explaining to do to her GPs in the coming years. With their budgets permanently under pressure, health authorities will decide not to spend money on such centres because they will know that lottery money is going to them. The existing health service budget will be diverted away from such desirable spending.
    The new opportunities fund will also have an incredibly elastic definition of the environment. It can mean absolutely anything. The Department of the Environment
    74
    has grown beyond all recognition in the past 10 years. Over the next 10 years, the definition of the environment in the Bill will also grow greatly and will be seen as another piece of straightforward pork-barrel politics.
    My overall reason for supporting the new clauses and amendments is that, without them, the sum of the mass of detail in the Bill will bring the lottery into severe disrepute and greatly concern hon. Members on both sides of the House. In its four or five years, the national lottery has done enormous good for the country. The Bill that damages it will harm the country enormously. Without the amendments and new clauses, that is what the Bill will do.
    7 pm
    Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I well remember discussion about a national lottery first arising when I was in the Treasury in the late 1980s. We thought about whether we should make a serious proposal and worked quite hard on it. As everyone knows, in the end, Mrs. Thatcher ditched the idea. The crucial problem with which we grappled was exactly the subject of this debate—additionality. The problem was how to get money to causes that could be seen to be quite distinct from core Government responsibilities that were funded from general taxation.
    Whatever we hear from Ministers tonight, I am absolutely confident that everyone in the country understands the fundamental distinction between spending on, for example, capital infrastructure for the arts, sports and heritage, and core funding in, for example, education and health. People will grasp over a run of years that the creation of the sixth good cause has blurred that distinction. They will realise that, in a world in which some things are clearly black and others clearly white, this area is grey, and that that greyness is enabling the Government to use lottery funding slowly but steadily to substitute spending from general taxation.
    The national lottery has been a great success, partly because the Conservatives succeeded in finding a way of creating a lottery in which there was such a clear distinction. People want to participate in something that is not just a ramp for the Government to get hold of extra tax revenue but has a sense of excitement that is derived partly from knowledge of where the money will go. That will be eroded by the Government's proposals, but it will be put right if the amendments and new clauses are accepted.
    The Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that he agrees with the principle of additionality. I shall not bother to quote his words, because they have been cited on many occasions. It is clear that one of Labour's manifesto pledges will be partly funded by the sixth good cause, even though anyone who read the manifesto when it was published would have understood that the pledge would be funded from general taxation. There has clearly been a breach of principle, and people will gradually grasp that.
    The sixth good cause represents not only additionality but—to coin an even worse term—subtractionality. It will subtract money from the other five causes. It is no good people saying that the five causes will continue to receive exactly the same funding. It is absolutely clear that they will receive less money than they otherwise would have done.
    The creation of the shadow account almost certainly breaches the law. When I asked the Minister for Arts about that in February, he said that the statutory authority for

    75
    setting up the shadow account was the National Lottery Bill. If that is not a clear case of retrospection, I do not know what is. It must be a retrospective action to pass a law to justify an act that has already been executed. If the Minister wants to explain why that is not retrospection, I shall gladly give way. I see that he does not.
    The Government have browbeaten the five good causes into accepting the proposal. They know that such retrospective action is challengeable in the courts, but they will not embark on a legal challenge because they need a relationship with the Government. The Government have escaped what should be, and easily could have been, an extremely embarrassing event.
    The Minister for Arts is looking at the clock as I speak, so I shall conclude by asking him a few questions. What will he do when lottery fatigue sets in? Will he allow receipts that go to the sixth good cause to fall to protect existing funding of the five good causes? What will happen when people become accustomed to the flow of funds to core activities in education and health but lottery fatigue sets in and resources fall?
    Mr. Banks rose—
    Mr. Tyrie: If the Secretary of State wants to say something, he is welcome to do so.
    Mr. Banks: I am not the Secretary of State; I am a humble sports Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman play the national lottery?
    Mr. Tyrie: Yes, I have played the national lottery. In fact, not long ago, I won about £80, so I am feeling particularly happy about the lottery. Perhaps the Minister will tell me how he is doing. Perhaps I am collecting some of his losses.
    If it becomes clear that the funds for the sixth cause to which bodies initially became accustomed are no longer available, will the Minister for Arts be prepared eventually to use general taxation to plug the gap, or will he allow funding for the sixth good cause to fall? I support the amendments and would very much like to hear answers to my questions.
    Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) spoke of lottery fatigue. Looking at the face of the Minister of Sport, I know exactly what he means: there is a distinct sign of fatigue on the Labour Benches.
    We must remember that the lottery has been a huge success and has raised a huge amount of money for the good causes because of the two key principles that underlie it: the good causes identified are in addition to normal public spending and the funds are distributed at arm's length from the Government.
    The new opportunities fund will have an extremely broad remit. From the preliminary guidance provided by the Department, it seems that the fund will also be highly prescriptive. We are told:
    "The Fund shall, by September 2002, commit funds to projects that, between them, should establish or develop healthy living centres accessible to around 20 per cent. of the population".
    76
    We are told:
    "The Fund shall commit funds to out of school hours education projects which taken together should provide regular activities involving at least half of all secondary schools".
    Proposed section 43C of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 makes it clear that the new opportunities fund shall comply with the Secretary of State's wishes.
    Let us compare that with a brochure that came through the post this morning from the National Lottery Charities Board, which has just distributed £133 million to 1,306 organisations to help the homeless, animal projects, village and community centres and projects to develop the voluntary sector. Most of us know that additionality is a difficult concept to define, but we all know when it is breached. If you cast your eye down the list of projects in your constituencies, you will know exactly what is—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that he is addressing the Chair and must use the third person.
    Mr. Prior: I apologise. It is clear to most of us when the concept of additionality is being broken.
    I wish to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt). I agree with what she said about healthy living centres, and we are not opposed to them. However, we believe that they should be funded through normal, general taxation.
    The problem with the Bill is that clause 13 erodes the arm's-length principle for all the other good causes, and makes it clear that all other distributing bodies must produce a strategic plan that must comply with the wishes of the Secretary of State. That extension of Government control is over not only the new opportunities fund, but all other funds. That goes to the heart of our objections to the Bill. It is no longer a people's lottery, any more than the former Governments of eastern European countries were people's Governments. It is now a Government lottery. It is in danger of losing the support of the people, and the ultimate losers will be the good causes.
    Mr. Peter Brooke: First, I declare an interest. Within the past month, I have won two £10 prizes, which have encouraged me to continue; it was some time prior to last month that I last won. Secondly, as the Minister for Sport has been accusing the whole House of writing him begging letters, I am sure that he would acknowledge that I have never written him one—not least because I pay him the compliment of assuming that he would have nothing to do with the decision. Therefore, I might as well save my ink.
    The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) said that she had been listening to a repetition of the Committee debates on Report. That is not true in my case—partly because I was not on the Committee and partly because I want to allude to remarks made earlier today. The hon. Lady did not speak in Committee apart from one intervention—which I have checked—of which she was proud. I cannot tell whether, in her remarks about additionality today, she was implying that she did not believe in the principle of additionality—contrary to her party's previous position—or whether she did not believe in its relevance to the Government's proposals. I mention the matter because it is of some importance to the debate.

    77
    I wish to refer to an exchange I had earlier today with the Minister for Film and Tourism at Question Time. I am sorry that he is the only one of the Secretary of State's ministerial team who is not present. I will not say anything hostile about him; I shall just describe what he said. The Ministers present will recall a remarkable definition of additionality given by the Minister on 21 July 1997, which I quoted on Second Reading.
    The issue of additionality arose this afternoon when I asked the Minister—as a supplementary question, following a question from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about local authority initiatives in tourism—whether the lottery would be paying for English tourism in the future. I do not have access to the Minister's precise reply and we will have to wait for tomorrow's Hansard. However, he said that it was not possible for him to say anything about that matter because, as I would understand, a comprehensive spending review was going on and he could not say who would pay for English tourism in future.
    The Minister did say that the issue of whether the lottery should pay for English tourism or not had been discussed. The Minister for Arts shakes his head—
    Mr. Fisher indicated dissent.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Brooke: When we look at Hansard tomorrow, we will see what the Minister for Film and Tourism said. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) was sitting next to me—
    Mr. Fraser indicated assent.
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend nods his head in terms of his recollection of the reply. The implication is that a policy or a principle amounts to a prefabricated decision—a standing fact of Government affairs.
    If the lottery will not be substituted for spending on English tourism, the Minister for Film and Tourism did not need to make any allusion to it, or to the comprehensive spending review. He could simply have said that lottery funds will not be used on English tourism. He did not say that. I said that I would not be derogatory about him, but a reasonable description—and not an evaluation—would be that his answer rambled a bit. We will see tomorrow precisely what he said, but he certainly did not rule out specifically the lottery paying for English tourism. Against that background, I am left with concern that the principle of additionality is further eroded by the Government.
    The Secretary of State corrected me on certain things I said about the consultation when the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) spoke on Second Reading; it was a helpful intervention. All of us are agreed that fewer than 100 individuals contributed to the consultation. The Secretary of State knows that most of the 600 responses came from organisations. It can be no surprise to anyone that organisations would have said that they were in favour of lottery money being spent on what they do. It would be odd if they had not done so, for the very reason that the Minister for Sport gave when referring to begging letters. I am left distinctly uneasy about where the principle of additionality stands this afternoon.
    78
    I wish to refer briefly to the arm's-length principle. The hon. Member for Crawley said, effectively, "All power to the Government's elbow. We hope that they spend any money they wish on things of which we approve." I do not want to sound like Nestor. I have said previously that I was not the architect of the national lottery legislation; one could produce a decent-sized architectural practice from those who said that they were that. I simply had a subordinate job in the master mason's department.
    The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry), to his credit, has sat through the debate today, and he will recall our debates in the Chamber, in Committee and elsewhere when the legislation was forged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) said, one of the principal reasons why this is the best lottery in the world is that the money does not go to the Treasury, and we have avoided it doing so.
    The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde will recall our debate about charities, and their fears that they would be disadvantaged by the fact that they would get only 20 per cent. of the money going to good causes. The only evidence we had to engage in that debate was the experience of Irish charities. It was clear that the problem in Ireland, in effect, had been that the money was going back to the Government for the Government to decide which charities should do better. Some said that they had done very well out of the Irish lottery, while others said that they had done badly; it had depended totally on the Government's whim. Au fond, that is why the Opposition are uneasy about what the Government are about.
    Mr. Fisher: For these remaining stages of the Bill, it has been good to have the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—the former Secretary of State for National Heritage, who introduced the original legislation in the House—here to contribute to our deliberations. All hon. Members recognise that we have had enormous benefits from the national lottery, and that is in no small part—despite his modest denial of any role in the architecture of the legislation—due to the right hon. Gentleman. His seeing it through in the first place has given great pleasure and benefit to the people of this country. His speech was, by a long way, the shortest, most intelligent and most interesting contribution from the Opposition Benches. Before he gets too carried away by my compliments, however, I should add that, given the quality of some of the contributions of his colleagues, that remark is modest.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked for clarification on what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Film and Tourism said. My right hon. Friend did not mean to imply that the lottery would ever provide a substitute for Government expenditure on and support for tourism through the English tourist board or the British Tourism Authority. He was referring to the fact that, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, tourism-related matters, such as the arts and heritage—piers at our great seaside resorts, for example—have benefited from the lottery, which has been for the good of tourism and of communities. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are examining arts and heritage as part of the comprehensive spending review.
    Mr. Brooke: As the answer of the Minister for Film and Tourism to my question was long, it is a little

    79
    surprising that he did not enter the same grace notes as the hon. Gentleman has, with which I have no problem—they were part of the discussions that we had on Second Reading of the original Bill.
    Mr. Fisher: I have explained the position of my right hon. Friend and the Government, so perhaps we can move on.
    I welcome the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) to his role as shadow Secretary of State. It is good that he is listening to our debate—I hope that he will contribute to discussions later this evening. However, I hope that he has to wait a long time before he succeeds the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster in introducing legislation—he will do well if he introduces legislation that is as constructive and well respected. We shall do our best to ensure that he has a long, patient wait.
    It struck me that, the longer the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring)—who led for the Opposition—spoke, the less he had to say. Despite the fact that, amazingly, he spoke for 44 minutes, he did not seem to add much to the interesting speeches that he had made before—strangely, he seems to be taking a long time to grasp that the Government support the principle of additionality every bit as much as the Opposition do. He is obviously yearning to oppose us, but he cannot find much to oppose, as we all agree on additionality. We have supported the principle, which the previous Government introduced, both in our manifesto and in everything that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said for extremely good reasons of clarity and, as Mr. Peter Riddell said—he has been much quoted in our deliberations—to prevent the Treasury and other Departments from raiding the funds.
    It is important that we maintain additionality and arm's-length principles—I make it clear that the Government are committed to the principle and practice of additionality. Our manifesto said that lottery funds should remain strictly additional to Government expenditure, and the Prime Minister said:
    "We don't believe it would be right to use Lottery money to pay for things which are the Government's responsibilities."
    That could hardly be clearer, but, despite the fact that we said it time and again in opposition and say it again tonight, the Opposition are slow to recognise it.
    In our deliberations on the 1993 Act, on the White Paper and on the Bill, we have all agreed that it is extremely hard to define additionality. That is why both this Government and the previous Government decided that it would be sensible not to attempt to define it, but to create a principle to which we could all subscribe and which could be kept in practice. We can argue the toss—we did so in opposition, as some hon. Members have said—but we learned over the years in which the previous Government ran the lottery that that was the most pragmatic way in which to proceed. It is very difficult to find a definition in law that would stand up and bear the necessary test of pragmatic implementation, so, like the previous Government, we believe that the common-sense test is the best.
    I can say little more on the subject. We have clearly failed—the failure is mine—to persuade the Opposition that we believe in additionality. I believe that our actions,
    80
    and the actions of the arm's-length bodies that distribute lottery funds, demonstrate that belief. I do not think that the people are in any doubt that the sums are in addition to, and do not replace, Government expenditure—the people are under no misapprehensions; they know that, even if the Opposition do not.
    The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who is no longer in the Chamber, asked what would happen if there were lottery fatigue and the flow of funds dried up. I think that he misunderstands how the lottery funds work—they are project funds for short-term, specific initiatives; not core funding for any of the activities. If he understood that, he would understand why his question was inappropriate.
    We have clearly not succeeded in convincing the Opposition, although I believe that we shall persuade the House, as we have persuaded the people. The Government believe in additionality and in the arm's-length principle; we ask the House to reject the proposed measures.
    Mr. Spring: I agree entirely with the Minister on one thing: he has totally failed to convince the Opposition or to respond to our points. It is a great disappointment that, instead of dealing in general terms with the arm's-length principle or with additionality in practice, the Government are failing the national lottery and the people's confidence in it.
    Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 276.

    Division No. 287]

    [7.27 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Gray, James

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Green, Damian

    Baldry, Tony

    Greenway, John

    Bercow, John

    Grieve, Dominic

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Boswell, Tim

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Brady, Graham

    Hammond, Philip

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hayes, John

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Heald, Oliver

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Burns, Simon

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Butterfill, John

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Cash, William

    Hunter, Andrew

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Chope, Christopher

    Johnson Smith,

    Clappison, James

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Collins, Tim

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Colvin, Michael

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Lansley, Andrew

    Cran, James

    Letwin, Oliver

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Lidington, David

    Duncan, Alan

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Faber, David

    Luff, Peter

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Flight, Howard

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fox, Dr Liam

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fraser, Christopher

    Madel, Sir David

    Gibb, Nick

    Major, Rt Hon John

    81

    Malins, Humfrey

    Steen, Anthony

    Maples, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Swayne, Desmond

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Syms, Robert

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Page, Richard

    Townend, John

    Paice, James

    Tredinnick, David

    Paterson, Owen

    Trend, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Prior, David

    Viggers, Peter

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Walter, Robert

    Wardle, Charles

    Robathan, Andrew

    Whittingdale, John

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Wilkinson, John

    Ruffley, David

    Willetts, David

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Wilshire, David

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Shepherd, Richard

    Woodward, Shaun

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Yeo, Tim

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Spring, Richard

    Mr. John M. Taylor and

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Mr. Stephen Day

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Coaker, Vernon

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Allen, Graham

    Connarty, Michael

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Cranston, Ross

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Crausby, David

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Ashton, Joe

    Cummings, John

    Austin, John

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Banks, Tony

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Barnes, Harry

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Bayley, Hugh

    Darvill, Keith

    Beard, Nigel

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Davidson, Ian

    Berry, Roger

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Best, Harold

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Betts, Clive

    Dawson, Hilton

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Blizzard, Bob

    Denham, John

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Dismore, Andrew

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Dowd, Jim

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Drew, David

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Browne, Desmond

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Burden, Richard

    Edwards, Huw

    Burgon, Colin

    Efford, Clive

    Caborn, Richard

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Fisher, Mark

    Canavan, Dennis

    Flint, Caroline

    Caplin, Ivor

    Flynn, Paul

    Casale, Roger

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Clapham, Michael

    Fyfe, Maria

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Gapes, Mike

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Gardiner, Barry

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Godsiff, Roger

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Goggins, Paul

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Clelland, David

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Clwyd, Ann

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    82

    Grocott, Bruce

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Grogan, John

    Martlew, Eric

    Gunnell, John

    Maxton, John

    Hain, Peter

    Meale, Alan

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Michael, Alun

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Milburn, Alan

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hanson, David

    Mitchell, Austin

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Moffatt, Laura

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Heppell, John

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Hill, Keith

    Morley, Elliot

    Hinchliffe, David

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Hoey, Kate

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Hope, Phil

    Mudie, George

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Mullin, Chris

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Norris, Dan

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Hutton, John

    Olner, Bill

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jamieson, David

    Pearson, Ian

    Jenkins, Brian

    Pendry, Tom

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Pickthall, Colin

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Pike, Peter L

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Plaskitt, James

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Pond, Chris

    Jones, Ms Jenny

    Pope, Greg

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Purchase, Ken

    Khabra, Piara S

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Kidney, David

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rammell, Bill

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Rapson, Syd

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Raynsford, Nick

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Laxton, Bob

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lepper, David

    Rogers, Allan

    Levitt, Tom

    Rooker, Jeff

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Roy, Frank

    Linton, Martin

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Lock, David

    Salter, Martin

    Love, Andrew

    Sawford, Phil

    McAllion, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sheerman, Barry

    McCabe, Steve

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

    Singh, Marsha

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Skinner, Dennis

    McDonnell, John

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    McFall, John

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    McIsaac, Shona

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Soley, Clive

    McNulty, Tony

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Spellar, John

    McWalter, Tony

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Mandelson, Peter

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Stevenson, George

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    83

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Watts, David

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    White, Brian

    Stringer, Graham

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    (Swansea W)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    (Dewsbury)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wills, Michael

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Winnick, David

    Tipping, Paddy

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Todd, Mark

    Wise, Audrey

    Touhig, Don

    Wood, Mike

    Trickett, Jon

    Woolas, Phil

    Truswell, Paul

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Vaz, Keith

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Mr. Kevin Hughes and

    Wareing, Robert N

    Jane Kennedy.

    Question accordingly negatived.

  New clause 4

    WINDING UP OF FUNDS ALLOCATED UNDER SECTION 22(3)(c)
    `() In section 30 of the 1993 Act (winding up of funds allocated under section 22(3) (e)) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted:
    "Within one year of exercising its powers under section 28(1) the Secretary of State shall—

    (a) prepare a report containing an assessment of the performance of the bodies which distribute money under section 25(1) of the 1993 Act;

    (b) set out the criteria governing the reallocation of sums held under section 22(3)(e); and

    (c) consult any body which distributes money under section 25(1) and other interested bodies".'. —[Mr. Maclennan.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Maclennan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in clause 6, page 7, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 8 and insert—
    '(1) In relation to any sum that is paid into the Distribution Fund under section 21(2) of the 1993 Act after 31st December 2000, section 22(3)(e) of that Act shall have effect as if for "on projects to mark the year 2000 and the beginning of the third millennium" there were substituted "on or connected with education, environment and public health, including children's play.".
    (2) Section 30 of the 1993 Act (winding up of fund allocated under section 22(3)(e)) shall cease to have effect.
    (3) The Secretary of State may by order substitute a later date for the date that is for the time being specified in subsection (1).'.
    No. 1, in page 7, line 43, at end insert—
    '(6A) In section 28 of the 1993 Act (power to amend section 22) in subsection (2)(a) for "5 per cent." there shall be substituted "13i per cent".'.
    Mr. Maclennan: I have pleasure in moving the new clause and I shall be brief. It is designed to enable the Minister to give some indication of what the Government propose following the winding-up of the Millennium Commission in respect of the substantial expenditure involved. There is anxiety, particularly in the
    84
    voluntary sector, that the money is in a sense floating money, which could be diverted from good causes to other, no doubt desirable, public spending objectives—I can candidly declare that the new clause was suggested by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. There is also concern that the very fact that that shift will take place might impact on the ability of voluntary organisations to attract funding and it is certainly appropriate to raise those fears well in advance.
    The Government should be able to give undertakings that they will consult widely with the voluntary organisations and the other good causes about how best to utilise the money, bearing in mind the Government's expressed commitment to the additionality principle, which was underlined in the previous debate and which I do not call into question in general.
    The new clause also suggests an appraisal of the work that has been done by the existing distributing bodies, which must be appropriate and sensible when considering how best to deal with moneys that will not be spent in the future. Of course, it is difficult to predict what the volume will be by that time and whether it will have peaked and be on a downturn, but that would only make that course of action more urgent. I hope that the Government will find the new clause helpful and that it will enable them to give us some glimmerings into their thinking.
    Mr. Spring: We have listened with interest to the comments of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). I was not clear whether he would press the new clause to a Division. I hope to secure your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to separate amendments Nos. 8 and 1, which we have tabled, from the new clause if necessary.
    The amendments in this group deal with the Government's raid on the original good causes and the need to protect those causes. The reason for the raid is simple. The Government made a series of promises in opposition that were incompatible with the tight control of public expenditure. Indeed, once a week we have had the sight of the Prime Minister having to defend the fact that those early pledges, particularly on health and education, have not been borne out in practice and that, in fact, the reverse has happened. That is part and parcel of the problem. Given the Chancellor's views on public expenditure, Ministers are scratching around for alternative sources of cash to pursue the political agenda that is inherent in the new opportunities fund. As a result, the lottery, which was set up as a fund to pay for projects that would, in the words of the 1992 Conservative manifesto,
    "restore our heritage and promote projects which will become a source of national pride",
    is, if Royal Assent is obtained, to turn into the milch cow for Ministers to supplement their departmental budgets by raiding it for that express purpose, through the generosity of the Secretary of State.
    7.45 pm
    Even under the Government's original plans, the good causes would have lost out. The National Lottery etc. Act 1993, which was enacted under the former Conservative Government, provided for the Millennium Commission, which finances projects to mark the millennium, to be wound up once the celebrations are over and the projects

    85
    all paid for. That money would have been re-allocated to the other good causes. However in 1996, the Labour party in opposition decided that it would not reallocate the money to the original good causes but would set up its own fund to subsidise the budgets of other Departments.
    Let us be clear. Under a Labour Government, the original good causes were always destined to lose out; it was only a question of when. None of the amendments would prevent the Government from setting up the new opportunities fund. They deal with the fundamental problem of the Government's smash-and-grab raid on the lottery.
    Amendment No. 8 deals with whether the new opportunities fund should replace the Millennium Commission, as was promised in Labour's manifesto, or whether it should simply elbow its way to the front of the queue as a sixth good cause. In view of the threat to the lottery, we also want to establish a minimum percentage below which the share of the proceeds of the lottery allocated to the original good causes will not fall. We are concerned that the Government will try to take an increasing percentage of the proceeds of the lottery for their own new good cause and we were not at all assured by the so-called assurances of the Minister for Sport in Committee. I hope that this evening he will give us further assurances, as they have not thus far been satisfactorily forthcoming.
    In respect of making the new opportunities fund a replacement for the millennium fund, amendment No. 8 would give the Government the opportunity to honour their manifesto commitment on the lottery. I remind members of the Standing Committee that we had the truly appalling sight on a number of occasions of Labour Members voting against their manifesto commitment—a ludicrous situation. Accepting the amendment would restore to the original good causes some of the money that they will lose under the Government's plans.
    In its manifesto, the Labour party gave a commitment to create a new millennium fund—what is now called the new opportunities fund—to replace the existing fund. Indeed, the 1997 manifesto, "New Labour, because Britain deserves better", stated:
    "Labour has already proposed a new millennium commission to commence after the closure of the Millennium Exhibition, to provide direct support for a range of education, environment and public health projects, including those directed at children's play, currently excluded from the lottery".
    The Opposition's amendments would give effect to that commitment.
    Perhaps the House would care to reflect here on the irony of the Government, barely a year in office, facing the embarrassment of being held to implementing their manifesto commitments by the Opposition. I accept that this may be small beer compared with the appalling travesty as regards the early pledges, which have simply not been carried out—the growth in waiting lists and the difficulties in education—but it is a principle of considerable importance for the continuation and success of the national lottery.
    We are giving the Government another opportunity to consider their over-hasty raid on the lottery and the damage that the Bill will do to the original good causes by depriving them of money that they had expected. We ask the Government to think about the damage that they are doing to the lottery by turning it into a form of
    86
    voluntary taxation from which to subsidise general public expenditure on health, education and the environment. The Government have brought forward the creation of the new opportunities fund to let them get their hands on the lottery as soon as possible.
    The Bill will mean that the arts, charities, sport and the heritage will lose one sixth of the proceeds of the lottery until the Millennium Commission is closed, and a fifth of the proceeds thereafter. That results from the Government's decision to introduce their own good cause before the Millennium Commission is wound up. The new opportunities fund, to which we object in principle, was conceived as a replacement for the millennium Fund, not as an additional sixth good cause.
    The Government are so hemmed in by the embarrassment arising from their failed pledges and their performance on health and education, and by their self-imposed public spending constraints on the Chancellor, that they are desperate for cash. The lottery is the ready source. As has been said, the real lottery winner will be the Chancellor, at the expense of good causes up and down the country.
    Labour announced its decision to set up the new opportunities fund before the closure of the Millennium Commission only during the general election campaign. There was no mention of the effects that it would have on the good causes, or on the lottery. It was not made clear then, and the Government have persistently failed to admit it since, that the original good causes are losing as a result of the switch. Sums in the region of £140 million to £150 million will be taken from the good causes and put into the so-called shadow account for distribution after Royal Assent.
    The good causes would, of course, have lost out anyway. They had previously expected the Millennium Commission's share to be divided among them when it was wound up. When the decision to bring forward the new opportunities fund was announced, Labour claimed that it had been made possible only by the Wednesday draw. That was complete nonsense, and they knew it. The only reason why the original estimates of about £9 billion rose to about £10 billion was the spectacular success of the first year of the operation, which far exceeded expectations. A midweek draw was always planned, as well as scratch cards and the other games that have been introduced. The Wednesday draw was not an unexpected windfall, and it is nonsense to suggest that it generates a finite sum.
    The fact is that the Government wanted to get their hands on the lottery money as soon as possible and were prepared to set up a new good cause to do so, even if it meant taking from existing good causes. In Committee, the Minister acknowledged for the first time that the Government had brought forward their raid on the arts, charities, heritage and sport by saying:
    "when we first proposed the new good cause in our manifesto and in the lottery documents published before the election, we anticipated that it should follow the running down of the Millennium fund. We have had second thoughts, however, which is perfectly reasonable. We were surprised and pleased at the strength of support for the new good cause. As it was so widely welcomed, it seemed perverse and unnecessary to delay it for several years. As it was supported by the public… we feel that if the content is right we should go ahead now, be decisive and get on with it."
    The Minister could offer no credible justification for why the Government should have brought forward the date of their raid, except political expediency. He was not

    87
    prepared to admit that they simply wanted to get their hands on the money. He claimed, unconvincingly, that the proposals were popular—though he presumably did not mean popular with the new causes, which do not share his view. The Minister refused to make public the details of consultation with existing good causes. I asked him to do so, and he talked about some sort of seamless flow. I fear to say that that was not a particularly satisfactory answer.
    The Minister has claimed that the distributing bodies agreed. However, he was not so definite in Committee. There was no suggestion then of agreement. He said:
    "We have running discussions and consultations with all the distributing bodies. They are fully aware of the plans and happy with them. Consultation is not an exercise, but a continuous process …It has always been made clear that the other distributing bodies will receive £1.8 billion each, and they have accepted that. That was the understanding on which they planned …The distribution bodies have always accepted that figure; it is the basis on which they have been able to plan. The important thing was the amount of money that they were to receive—£l.8 billion. They will still receive precisely that sum."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 28 April 1998; c. 45–46.]
    What a contrast those assertions make with the responses to the Bill made by the original good causes. Many people who have an interest in this subject because of their involvement in the distributing bodies—for example, Lord Gowrie and Lord Rothschild—make a very different interpretation. It is absurd to suggest, as the Minister does, that they are delighted and pleased that traditionally under-resourced parts of our economy that are always put at the back of the Treasury queue will once again be hit severely by this raid.
    Labour Members should be grateful to have the opportunity to make sure that the Government keep at least one of their promises. The amendment will let them clear their consciences by doing that. By accepting the amendment, the Minister would ensure that the original good causes continued to get the percentage of lottery proceeds that they were originally promised, rather than the reduced percentage that will result from the premature creation of the new opportunities fund.
    Amendment No. 1 deals with the setting of a minimum percentage share for the good causes. The great fear of the original distributing bodies is that the Bill is the beginning of a remorseless chipping away at their resources. They are concerned that the Government plan to take a growing percentage of the proceeds of the lottery to pay for their own new good cause. The bodies fear that this is the beginning of a series of raids.
    The Bill is specifically designed to ensure that that happens. Despite being pressed on Second Reading by a number of my hon. Friends—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)—and being pressed again in Committee, the Government have failed to undertake to adhere even to the reduced new percentage allocations contained in the Bill. I extend to the Minister, once again, the opportunity to give that assurance, and I should be delighted if he did.
    In Committee, the Minister claimed that it was absurd of the Opposition to want to amend our own National Lottery etc. Act 1993. He was being somewhat disingenuous; he knows that no Government would have had any incentive under the 1993 Act to divert money
    88
    from one distributor to another. It is different now. The Secretary of State is, in effect, setting up a political fund under his own direct control. He is introducing sweeping powers that will enable him to gerrymander the distribution of lottery money. He is changing the very basis on which the lottery operates and on which it has been such an enormous success. The Government now have an incentive to vary the percentages even further to favour their own good causes, and that is why existing good causes are worried.
    I have repeatedly said that it is dangerous to set a precedent for future Parliaments by entrenching in legislation the opportunity for some future Secretary of State to abuse the lottery for political reasons and to change the balance of the lottery in a way that is deeply destructive to the lottery and the under-resourced good causes. The Government are not prepared to offer genuine reassurance to the good causes, and that is why we are resisting the Bill.
    As so often with this Bill, it is not the introduction of a single power but the combination of powers, a sort of block building of centralisation of control, that puts a dangerous amount of control in the hands of the Secretary of State. The apparently harmless power to vary the percentage allocation to each good cause in the original Act can be combined with the creation of the new opportunities fund to allow, in theory, the diversion of up to 75 per cent. of money for good causes, and eventually 80 per cent. to the Government's own good cause.
    The Government repeatedly resisted this amendment, which was tabled perfectly reasonably by Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Committee. They combine lukewarm assurance of their good intentions to the good causes with an abject failure to give them statutory effect. They have failed to commit to a percentage for the good causes but say only that the good causes would get £9 billion if the proceeds reached £10 billion. They will not commit even to the reduced percentage share in the event of proceeds exceeding £10 billion, as Camelot confidently predicts that they will. Will they commit to percentages in the Bill today? We await an answer.
    8 pm
    The Government also made it clear that, in the event of a shortfall, the original good causes will lose out, meaning that there is a possibility of a further fall for them. As Conservative Members have noted, there is always the risk of lottery fatigue, which has been seen in other countries. What assurances can the Minister give against the possibility of revenue shortfall for the good causes, including sport, that are so genuinely concerned about the matter? The Government will not even give a commitment that the original good causes will continue to receive any money at all after the current licence expires in 2001. Will they give clear assurances today?
    This is an opportunity for the Government to show good faith and to set a percentage floor below which the good causes will not fall. The minimum share that we propose would not have been necessary without the creation of a new good cause under the direct control of the Secretary of State. The Bill centralises far too much power in his hands.
    The new good cause is radically different from the previous ones. The 1993 Act sets out the five areas to be supported by the national lottery on an equal percentage

    89
    basis: the arts, sport, national heritage, charity and the millennium. The money was to be drawn on by distributing bodies to make grants to such projects as they chose to support, within their terms of reference. The Secretary of State had no power to tell them what projects to support. The new opportunities fund is to have no such freedom.
    As the Government's note on clauses 6 puts it:
    "rather than providing general support to its sectors as the other distributors do, it will support a rolling programme of specific initiatives. These will be determined by the Secretary of State."
    The first three initiatives are to be IT training for teachers and librarians, out-of-school-hours activities and healthy living centres. The Government claim that such initiatives are consistent with the arm's-length principle. They are not. The new opportunities fund will simply be a Government agency with limited operational autonomy. What is to stop the Secretary of State diverting more and more lottery money to the new opportunities fund at the expense of other good causes? We have not had a satisfactory answer.
    We have already been told that the new cause's share will rise to 20 per cent. in 1999 as millennium spending tails off. Why not 25 or 50 per cent? There is nothing in the Bill to stop it. The existing percentages can be varied by ministerial order, and it would be tempting to do so. To set a precedent and give a future Secretary of State the opportunity to do that in an unscrupulous way would be a terrible legacy of our consideration of the Bill.
    The sums involved are not negligible. The distributors have so far had about £5 billion. The good causes can expect another £5 billion over the next three years. The Secretary of State is at liberty to channel up to £3.75 billion out of the expected £5 billion to the new opportunities fund. He does not have to give the five other distributors more than 5 per cent. each of the total. That minimum of 5 per cent. was put into the 1993 Act before this voracious new cause made its appearance. That is at the heart of the difficulty.
    In view of the changed nature of the national lottery and of the composition of the good causes, we believe that the percentage is too low. It does not sufficiently curb the Secretary of State's political appetite, now or in future. To put it simply, we wish to raise the minimum percentage for all the causes to 13.33, the present percentage allocated for the new opportunities fund. The effect would be to ring fence £3.3 billion of the £5 billion for the five original good causes, as opposed to only £1.25 billion under existing legislation. The Secretary of State would still have the flexibility to give the new opportunities fund more than the others, but not nearly as much flexibility, with all its inherent dangers, as now. I ask again whether the Minister will give a binding undertaking that in this Parliament, he will not reduce the level below 16.67 per cent.
    The arts, sport, heritage, the charities and even the millennium fund should have such protection. It is with that protection that the distributing bodies have carried out their work effectively and won the confidence of so many recipients of lottery money. The Bill, with its centralising powers and the ability given to the Secretary of State to interfere in the smooth working of the lottery, demands that if the lottery is to continue to be the success that it has been in the past and should be in future, the good causes need proper protection. The Bill as it stands
    90
    makes that more unlikely. The minima required to make it work are something that we urgently wish to raise once again for the Government's consideration, in the hope that, even at this late stage, they will think again.
    Mr. Fraser: I wish to confine my comments to the protection of the good causes, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). We all accept that the national lottery has so far exceeded expectations. The original good causes had expected to benefit from public enthusiasm and support and to receive their fair share of the £1 billion excess projected over the first seven years of the lottery's operation. Not least, they expected the Government to keep their general election promise that the new opportunities fund would be introduced to replace the millennium fund. There is now a sixth good cause, as well as the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. Everyone's relative share can only fall. That means that the original good causes will inevitably lose out.
    The White Paper is worth quoting. It says:
    "Although the existing good causes will be receiving a smaller share of Lottery revenue, the success of the Lottery means that they can still plan on receiving the same amount in total as was envisaged when the Lottery was set up".
    The Secretary of State is telling the good causes that they will get less in future. They will get the same amount as was predicted when the lottery was set up as a paper concept. They are being told to forget the years of success and not to worry that the Government will not establish a minimum percentage below which their share of the proceeds will not fall. They must press on and be grateful for what they can get.
    Our amendments give the Government the opportunity to honour their manifesto promise that the new opportunities fund should replace the millennium fund. As the Bill stands, the Government have brought forward the creation of the new opportunities fund so that they can get their hands on the lottery money as soon as possible. The Treasury is, after all, desperate for cash that only the lottery can provide.
    Public awareness of that grab-for-cash policy is growing. Hon. Members may have seen newspaper reports that the Treasury will take 20p on every lottery ticket when the sixth good cause is introduced. Independent research was carried out by David Wornham, senior lecturer at Bristol business school, and quoted in The Daily Telegraph on Monday 25 May. The article stated:
    "Mr. Wornham said: 'One of the most disturbing findings is people's assumptions of where the money goes. The public believes that between 15p and 20p in the pound finds its way to charities.
    In reality, the figure is less than 6p—and that doesn't take into account how much charities have lost from a drop in charitable contributions since the lottery began. To find out where the money is going,' he said, 'you need look no further than the Exchequer.
    Once direct and indirect taxation is taken into account, together with the use of lottery money to replace public expenditure, the Government's "cut" upon realisation of the new sixth cause will turn out to be over 20p in the pound, not the published figure of 12p.'"
    I could go on, but that illustrates my point and provides confirmation, if confirmation is needed, that the real lottery winner is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. To rub salt in the wound, the Government continue to dispute that the existing good causes will lose out, which is quite incredible when one considers the evidence. If public

    91
    confidence in the lottery starts to fall, not least because of newspaper reports such as the one I have just quoted, they will really start to feel the pinch.
    The fact that the Secretary of State can involve himself completely justifies the concern expressed by my hon. Friends. The Secretary of State will involve himself and decide on the scope and direction of his involvement at a whim and a fancy. Having recognised that as a dead certainty, we seek through our amendments to limit the powers of the Secretary of State and to limit the amount of money he can divert into the Government's new opportunities fund at the expense of the original good causes. To guarantee them an allocation of 13.33 per cent. offers them a future, albeit a lean one; at the moment, they fear for the future and face the prospect that the Government plan to take an ever-increasing percentage of the proceeds for their own salvation.
    The current model of awards is transparent and free from accusations of political gerrymandering. Ministers cannot tell us how that positive characteristic will be safeguarded in future—I hope that the Minister will answer that question this evening. If they believe that there should be safeguards, the Government should be happy to give an undertaking to the original good causes, which they currently cannot and will not do. Instead, the Government have every good reason to vary the percentages even further in future to the benefit of the new opportunities fund as the economic situation inevitably worsens and the calls for health, education and environment spending increase.
    The Government have made it clear that, in the event of a shortfall, the original good causes will lose out. The Government's apparent lack of support for the good causes increases the concern felt by those good causes and poses the question: what does the future hold for the good causes? I suspect that their future is not particularly rosy, given the wide range of opportunities for Government interference offered by the Bill. They do not even have the comfort of an assurance that they will continue to receive money after the current licence expires in 2001. I should like the Minister to give an assurance today on the future of the good causes.
    Mr. Green: I shall speak mainly to amendments Nos. 8 and 1, but I shall first briefly address new clause 4. I regret the absence of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) in more than the usual formal sense in which those words are used in the House, because I am genuinely unsure about whether I have completely understood what he wants to achieve with his new clause. As I understand it, he wants to constrain the behaviour of the Secretary of State after the millennium fund has been wound up. That seems perfectly sensible and there is much to be said in favour of such a course of action, but, in a form of argument that will be familiar to those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have attended debates at the Conservative party conference, I disapprove of the new clause because it does not go far enough.
    8.15 pm
    If it is sensible to restrain the behaviour of the Secretary of State after the winding up of the millennium fund,
    92
    it would be equally sensible to do so now, especially in the context of the Bill which brings so much power over distribution under the Secretary of State's purview. One of the principal objections to the Bill has always been that it involves the nationalisation of large parts of the lottery distribution mechanism, turning it from a national lottery into a nationalised lottery. That lies at the root of many of the Opposition's objections to the Bill. One of the purposes of amendments Nos. 8 and 1 is to retain some independence for those bodies distributing to the good causes that have done so well over the past four years.
    I am sure that the Minister will advance once again the specious argument that we heard several times in Committee; that the cake has got bigger, so it does not matter that the percentage of the cake that the existing good causes are to get is being reduced, as they were planning to receive only that amount of cake anyway. There are two reasons why that is an invalid and specious argument. First, if it can be done once, it can be done again. All the good causes will rightly realise that they have become a target for Ministers of this and future Governments—that they are seen as a convenient way of relieving public spending pressures in almost any circumstances. That will have a direct effect on the way they act from now on. The danger is not merely a theoretical possibility for the future, as many of the things the good causes do involve long-term planning; if they are less sure of the level of funding they are to receive for many years ahead and if they are to act prudently, as most do, they will not commit themselves to large projects or long-term revenue funding. That in itself will be damaging.
    Secondly, the good causes are being cheated out of money. They recognised that the cake was growing faster than was originally forecast and planned accordingly. It is undeniable that the demand for bids has improved both in quantity and in quality over the years, as more bodies have got used to the methodology of bidding and worked out how to put together a successful bid. All the distributing bodies say that they would like to pass a higher proportion of bids now than they did two or three years ago, simply because they are generally of better quality, but the result of the Bill is that they will be able to pass only a lower percentage than before, which will be extremely damaging.
    The ability to plan ahead will be particularly affected, and that will be increasingly harmful. In the past, large capital projects have been funded, but we all accept that, in future, lottery funding will move towards revenue funding. If the good causes feel that they have to cut off revenue funding after two or three years, future artists and athletes may not be given the opportunities that they deserve and that they could be given under the lottery as currently constituted.
    Existing good causes will know that the new opportunities fund is open ended and can be expanded to almost any extent. The Bill would allow expansion to continue, so the good causes would be right to be even more fearful about the future as the opportunities for political manipulation introduced by the Bill become ever more attractive to future Secretaries of State.
    The present division is crude but fair. Nobody would argue that there is any great science in deciding that five good causes should each receive 20 per cent. of the money. We could have had endless arguments about whether charities were more worthy than the arts and

    93
    whether sport was more worthy than heritage. The simple method—which has, as far as I know, received barely a murmur of protest—of dividing the cake five ways by giving 20 per cent. to each cause is seen to be perfectly fair. In this case, complication is the enemy of trust in the long term. By introducing complication into the distribution mechanism, the Government are eroding the trust that exists between them and the distributing bodies. That is likely to damage the bodies' morale and the amount of good that they can do.
    I urge the Government to accept the amendments, which are in no way wrecking amendments. They would not stop the Government setting up the new opportunities fund or taking any of the significant measures in the Bill. If the House has a surprising burst of sanity and accepts the amendments, it will enshrine protection for the existing good causes so that although the Government could set up the new opportunities fund, that would not cause the collateral damage to the good causes that the Bill will inflict. I urge the Minister to have a last minute change of heart and accept the amendments.
    Mr. Prior: It is rather sad that we have to debate amendment No. 1, which would increase the minimum allocation from 5 to 13.33 per cent. We should not feel obliged to do so. We are debating it because Conservative Members are genuinely concerned about protecting the good causes. The lottery has been a tremendous success, as has the distribution of lottery funds, but, over the past few months, in Committee and in debates in the House, many Conservative Members have come to feel that we can no longer trust the Government to ensure that the money is spent properly.
    We do not trust the Government because we are not convinced by their defence of the additionality principle. We are convinced by the Bill's wording that the lottery can no longer be described as being at arm's length from the Government. The combination of those two aspects of the Bill makes us feel the need to increase the minimum percentage allocation to protect the good causes.
    What leads me to distrust the Government is the fact that they are legislating retrospectively and have been fiddling around with shadow accounts. There was no need to do that. If they had been honest, they could have increased the percentage to the new opportunities fund later, but they did not want to. They deliberately made the Bill retrospective to make it appear as if the percentage was less. That was a deeply unnecessary and reprehensible act. The Government will grab as much money as they possibly can to use for their own purposes. That was not the intention behind the lottery; it was not even the intention of the Government when they were in opposition, when they fought strongly for the additionality principle.
    It is vital to protect the interests of good causes, first, for the sake of the lottery. As long as people see that the lottery is independent and that the money goes to good causes, not mainstream public spending, they will continue to play it. The danger of lottery fatigue setting in will be greater if the Bill is implemented.
    We are anxious to protect good causes, secondly, for the sake of good government. It is important that taxation is transparent. The taxpayer and the electorate should know where the money comes from to finance public spending. This is sleight of hand—the Government are
    94
    taking money from good causes to fund their pet projects. I do not necessarily disagree with the projects that they are spending the money on, but it is wrong that the money is being taken from the lottery.
    The third reason why it is important to protect good causes is for the sake of the causes themselves. If lottery fatigue sets in and, over time, the causes that are supported by the distributing funds spend the money on revenue rather than capital, it is essential that they have a longer and longer time horizon. If there is in the background the permanent threat that the Government may take more money away from the good causes, that will undermine the causes in the long run.
    For those three reasons I support, with some sadness, the proposed increase in the minimum allocation from 5 per cent. to 13.33 per cent.
    Mr. Brooke: I declare an interest as the chairman of a trust involved in archaeology and ecology in the Andes, primarily in Peru, which has made an application to the National Lottery Charities Board. I see concern written on the face of the Minister for Sport; I give him a categorical assurance that I shall not communicate or correspond with him about it. I mention that body because, as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) will recall, it was the charities' concern about their allocation in the original Act that occasioned a fair amount of debate between us.
    There was a recognition that, as the Millennium Commission money ran out with the coming of the millennium, there would be an opportunity to consider the reallocation of the money and whether the charities should receive more. At that stage, we would know how they had spent the money so far. In that respect, I agree with new clause 4, which has been tabled by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) as it relates to the purpose of a review.
    I have not had a briefing by the National Lottery Charities Board, which is my constituent. In the fourth sitting of the Standing Committee, on 30 April, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) referred to such a briefing. I am not in any way acting on behalf of the board. I apologise for some unfamiliarity with the narrative. When I was a child, my mother taught me at her knee what I always believed to be a verse from the Old Testament: man look not back at the furrow ploughed by thee. I have never been able to find it in holy writ, but I have not given up hope. I do not spend much time revisiting my past and, if I am unfamiliar with any detail, I apologise.
    My recollection is that the Home Office was originally responsible for the National Lottery Charities Board. I was conscious that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who was then Secretary of State for National Heritage, received into her Department the voluntary activity that had previously been looked after by the Home Office. I do not know whether she took responsibility for the charities fund at the same time, but I am conscious that the Government have moved the voluntary activities back into the Home Office. If the Government are creating a new good cause, it is a little illogical to spend money on issues that have nothing to do with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport when they criticised the earlier movement of voluntary activity to the Department of National Heritage.

    95
    I say, as a bystander, that there has been a lack of coherence in the development of the Government's thinking. There was a Stephen Leacock character who jumped on his horse and rode off in four directions at once. There has been an element of that in the transmogrification of the Government's policy, which has been curious in view of the emphasis that they have placed on strategy and their criticism that there was a lack of strategy in the previous thinking.
    I believe that the Minister for Sport will reply to the debate, and I welcome the opportunity to hear from him more precisely what the Government's intentions are. I do not know whether, in his responsibility for heritage buildings, he has been high over the nave in Wells cathedral, but if he has he will have seen etched on the floor the design work of the masons in the middle ages, which is still visible 500 or 600 years later. We shall see the Minister for Sport set out such markings, and we shall have an opportunity to verify them over the next five years. I had profound sympathy with the observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) that complication is the enemy of trust in these matters. The simpler the Government can make what they intend to do, the better it will be for the lottery.
    8.30 pm
    Dr. Julian Lewis: I should like to add to my considerable reputation for parliamentary eccentricity by saying that I was always doubtful about the whole concept of the lottery. I felt that it would damage existing charities and drain from them funds that would otherwise go directly to them. My outlook was probably soured by the brilliance of George Orwell's description in "Nineteen Eighty-Four" of the effects of a lottery in a totalitarian society. He said:
    "The Lottery, with its weekly pay-out of enormous prizes, was the one public event to which the proles paid serious attention. It was probable that there were some millions of proles for whom the Lottery was the principal if not the only reason for remaining alive. It was their delight, their folly, their anodyne and their intellectual stimulant."
    I thought that, with such a start, the lottery could only be a somewhat corrupting force in society. The Bill shows that it is also corrupting the Government. Effectively, the Bill is the second stage in the Government's attempt to make good their promise to try to keep their spending and tax-raising targets at Conservative levels. The first stage of that attempt was the raid on the pension funds and the second stage—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are debating the new clause and the amendments. We are not worried about possible inequities of the lottery. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could hang his jacket on that peg.
    Dr. Lewis: The amendments seek to ring fence the amount that will be available for good causes. Good causes were nominated to enable money that formerly went to charities to continue to be spent on such activities. There is an attempt to get away from the safeguards that were provided for the lottery. That is part of a general, corrupting strategy to enable the Government to get their hands on money that, had the lottery not been created,
    96
    would have gone to charity. That charitable money will be used for Government expenditure. I predict that this is not the last time that such an unethical sleight of hand will be employed.
    Mr. Banks: The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) described himself as eccentric. That is a middle-class word for loony, and he adequately proved his case. The lottery has been a great success and the hon. Gentleman was wrong to oppose it. People go in for the lottery because they want to win oodles of cash. I do not wish to strip away all the talk about good causes, but that is why I go in for it. So far, I have been unsuccessful, apart from a few tenners here and there, but I dream about the big one coming along, as do many people. As I fail, week after week, to win the biggie, I have the consolation of knowing that money is going to good causes. It is clear that people do the lottery to try to win prizes.
    The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) spoke about Wells cathedral. I have never been high in the nave of that cathedral—I have never been high anywhere—but I was interested to hear that the right hon. Gentleman will not spend much time revisiting his past. According to the interests that he declared, he will spend some time in Peru.
    The Opposition amendments demonstrate two matters. First, they show the Opposition's inability to decide their position on the new good cause. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Arts said, in Committee and on Second Reading, the Opposition argued that there was something intrinsically wrong about spending lottery money on health, education and the environment. However, amendment No. 8 accepts the idea in principle, merely postponing it for a few years. Secondly, the amendments demonstrate the Opposition's failure to recognise that we are not harming the existing good causes. They are receiving the £9 billion that everyone expected them to receive when the lottery started.
    Perhaps it is rather odd to say in this place that there comes a point when we ought to try to trust each other. [Interruption.] I knew that Opposition cynics would not accept that. They have described my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as if he were Josef Goebbels. Somehow, there was an evil manifestation sitting next to me and planning all sorts of dire happenings to the existing good causes. My right hon. Friend is a perfectly sweet, decent honourable gent who does not have a vicious thought in his mind. The House should trust him.
    The Liberal Democrat new clause 4 gives us a chance to explain our approach to the reallocation of the millennium stream, which seems to have worried people.
    Mr. Brooke: I greatly enjoyed the Minister's reference to his right hon. Friend. In his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on National Heritage, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) once said to me, "Of course I trust you Secretary of State: it is the ones who come after you about whom I am worried."
    Mr. Banks: I do not know anything about impending reshuffles. There has been one in the Opposition and we constantly read about them in the Government. Whoever is Secretary of State—and I know that it will be the present incumbent for many years—can be accorded the same trust as my right hon. Friend. Why should we want

    97
    to destroy the existing good causes? It offends me somewhat that Opposition Members should feel that we have ulterior motives—that we are somehow intent on destroying the existing good causes and the national lottery. On Sunday, the front page of The Observer stated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had squirrelled away £50 billion. That is a great deal to squirrel away, but I think that we can rely on our Chancellor to manage the economy in good order and to make sure that there are sufficient funds for our spending priorities.
    The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) apologised to me for the fact that he would not be here for the winding-up speeches. I thank him for that and for his short speech. I assure him that when the time comes for us to decide how to reallocate the millennium share, we shall carefully consider what the lottery distribution bodies have achieved and the case for giving each a higher share. There is no assumption that it should go to the new opportunities fund. If that happens, it will be because we have concluded, after looking at all the good causes, that it is the right thing to do. We shall obviously take account of the representations by hon. Members and others on the merits of each good cause and, to address one of the issues in the amendments, we shall explain the basis on which we have decided the allocation.
    When deciding what to do with the millennium share, we must try to ensure that each body has the potential to achieve at least as much as it has already achieved. We have adequate arrangements in place to ensure that we can evaluate the effectiveness and performance of each body. As the right hon. Gentleman will know from his membership of the Public Accounts Committee, the Department is accountable to Parliament for the effective use of national lottery distribution funds. As part of its normal sponsorship activities for the lottery overall and for individual distributing bodies, the Department is continually engaged in reviewing the performance of those distributing bodies. We will look very carefully at what has been done by each of the bodies and what can be achieved in future. That is the way in which we shall assess the performance of those lottery bodies, but, before reaching any final decision, we shall, of course, listen to what the lottery distributors and others have to say about the case for increasing the share of each good cause.
    The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) effectively said that the Bill goes beyond the manifesto. The manifesto, covering as it did the whole range of Government's responsibilities, dealt with the lottery only briefly. We did publish, as he acknowledged, during the election campaign a policy document, "The People's Money", which set out in more detail our plans for widening the benefits of the lottery. It fleshed out our plans for the new good cause and made it clear that the lottery's success enabled the new good cause to be established while the millennium stream was still continuing. Who could object to that? If having such a new good cause is a good idea, why not do so as soon as it can be afforded without damaging the other good causes?
    "The People's Money" received wide and favourable media coverage, and we all know the result of the election that followed a week after its publication. The ideas in "The People's Money" are, in all essentials, the same as those that were put forward in our White Paper last July, which nine out of 10 respondents supported. I fail to see why it is not perfectly legitimate for us to base the Bill
    98
    on ideas that we put forward so clearly before the election and which were so comprehensively endorsed by the British people.
    The hon. Member for West Suffolk is completely wrong to imply that there is some fundamental difference between the new good cause and the existing good causes. Is he saying that arts, sport and heritage are not core Government responsibilities? That may be his view, but it is certainly not mine.
    I turn to the matter of damaging existing good causes, which was raised by the hon. Members for Ashford (Mr. Green) and for West Suffolk. The Opposition have returned to the most tired argument that has been used throughout the passage of the Bill—that we are taking money away from the existing good causes. That is simply not true. The Bill reduces the percentages that the arts, sport, heritage and charities will receive, but the greater than expected success of the lottery means that those are smaller percentages of a bigger total—in terms of hard cash, which is surely what matters to everyone, particularly the lottery distributing bodies, the existing good causes will receive £1.8 billion each during the current licence period, exactly the same as was forecast when the lottery started.
    The other point that was made was that the good causes were counting on the extra income. The Opposition, when in power, never guaranteed that there would be no changes in the good cause percentage. They must have envisaged the possibility because they included in the 1993 Act provision to change the percentages by order. They never made it clear how they might use that power.
    Mr. Brooke rose—
    Mr. Banks: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who knows a great deal about the 1993 Act. He can explain why no guarantee was given in that Act that there would be no changes in the good cause percentages, and why a 5 per cent. minimum was put in. That meant effectively that, for the five good causes, the amount could have been reduced to 5 per cent. and that could have been done by order in the House, if the present Opposition had been in government. Seventy-five per cent. could have gone somewhere else. We are giving far more of a guarantee to the existing good causes than the previous Government ever gave during their period in office.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Brooke: I was seeking to intervene to make a point that flows out of the exchange between us. Given that the original intention was that we should ideally have a debate in each Parliament, with the ability to change the percentages by order thereafter, having listened to the opinions of the House, would the Minister, when the time comes, be prepared to recommend to the business managers the possibility of having just such a debate at that stage, so that the House can contribute to the discussion of the allocation?
    Mr. Banks: The chief business manager—my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip—is sitting next to me whispering sweet nothings in my ear. I am sure that he heard what the right hon. Gentleman said and will be seized of the good sense of his suggestion.

    99
    Let me finish on the commitment to the existing good causes. This is very important and it is where the trust element must come in. Time and again throughout the passage of the Bill, here and in another place, the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister for Arts and my noble Friend the Deputy Chief Whip in the other place have made our position on future changes on allocations abundantly clear and I am happy to repeat them.
    First, barring the extremely unlikely circumstances in which lottery income for good causes is less than £10 billion in total, we will ensure that each of the existing good causes receives by 2001, when the present licence expires, the £1.8 billion expected at the time that the lottery started. Secondly, the Government have taken no decision on how any returns beyond £10 billion might be allocated—there is no assumption that they automatically fall to the new good cause or any other. Thirdly, the Government have no plans beyond those that they have announced already—the reduction in the millennium share to 13 per cent. and the increase in the new good cause to 20 per cent. in autumn 1999—to alter the funding of the existing good causes. That applies both to 2001 and beyond. That is fairly clear; one cannot be more explicit about that.
    There is no way that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is setting out to ensure that culture and sport do not receive money beyond 2001. I cannot make it any clearer than that and I hope that the hon. Member for West Suffolk will accept that point. I reject both the amendments.
    Mr. Spring: With the leave of the House. The reassurances that the Minister has sought to give are wholly unsatisfactory because, as he knows, the new opportunities fund is a creation which involves a massive centralisation of power in the hands of a Secretary of State, which makes this completely different from the other good causes. Therefore, to protect the good causes, we seek to ensure that the minima are changed. As Lord McIntosh accepted, this is a radically different situation. Therefore, we will concentrate on amendment No. 1 to put down a clear marker to those who are concerned—the recipients of the lottery and those in the distributing bodies. We want to ensure as best we can that the smash-and-grab raid on the lottery does not continue and worsen.
    Question put and negatived.

  Clause 6

    THE NEW GOOD CAUSE AND THE RE-ALLOCATION OF LOTTERY MONEY
    Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 7, line 43, at end inser—
    '(6A) In section 28 of the 1993 Act (power to amend section 22) in subsection (2)(a) for "5 per cent." There shall be substituted "13 ⅓per cent".'.—[Mr Peter Ainsworth.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 120, Noes 277.

    Division No. 288]

    [8.48 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Luff, Peter

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Bercow, John

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Body, Sir Richard

    MacKay, Andrew

    Boswell, Tim

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Madel, Sir David

    Brady, Graham

    Major, Rt Hon John

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Malins, Humfrey

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Maples, John

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Mates, Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Butterfill, John

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Moss, Malcolm

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Clappison, James

    Page, Richard

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Paice, James

    Collins, Tim

    Paterson, Owen

    Colvin, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Prior, David

    Cran, James

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Duncan, Alan

    Ruffley, David

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Faber, David

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Fabricant, Michael

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Flight, Howard

    Shepherd, Richard

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Fraser, Christopher

    Spring, Richard

    Garnier, Edward

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Gibb, Nick

    Steen, Anthony

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Streeter, Gary

    Gray, James

    Swayne, Desmond

    Green, Damian

    Syms, Robert

    Greenway, John

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Grieve, Dominic

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Townend, John

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Tredinnick, David

    Hammond, Philip

    Trend, Michael

    Hayes, John

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Heald, Oliver

    Viggers, Peter

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Walter, Robert

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Wardle, Charles

    Hunter, Andrew

    Whittingdale, John

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Widdeoombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Wilkinson, John

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Willetts, David

    Johnson Smith,

    Wilshire, David

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Woodward, Shaun

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Yeo, Tim

    Lansley, Andrew

    Letwin, Oliver

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Mr. John M. Taylor and

    Lidington, David

    Mr. Stephen Day.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Barnes, Harry

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Allen, Graham

    Beard, Nigel

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Berry, Roger

    Ashton, Joe

    Best, Harold

    Austin, John

    Betts, Clive

    Banks, Tony

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    101

    Blizzard, Bob

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Boateng, Paul

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Grogan, John

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Gunnell, John

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Hain, Peter

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Browne, Desmond

    Hanson, David

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Burden, Richard

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Burgon, Colin

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Caborn, Richard

    Heppell, John

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Hill, Keith

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Hinchliffe, David

    Canavan, Dennis

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Caplin, Ivor

    Hope, Phil

    Casale, Roger

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Clapham, Michael

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Hutton, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Clelland, David

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Clwyd, Ann

    Jenkins, Brian

    Coaker, Vernon

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Connarty, Michael

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Cranston, Ross

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Crausby, David

    Jones, Ms Jenny

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    (Copeland)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Darvill, Keith

    Khabra, Piara S

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Kidney, David

    Davidson, Ian

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Dawson, Hilton

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Denham, John

    Laxton, Bob

    Dismore, Andrew

    Lepper, David

    Dobbin, Jim

    Leslie, Christopher

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Levitt, Tom

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Drew, David

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Linton, Martin

    Edwards, Huw

    Livingstone, Ken

    Efford, Clive

    Lock, David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Love, Andrew

    Ennis, Jeff

    McAllion, John

    Fisher, Mark

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    McCabe, Steve

    Flint, Caroline

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Flynn, Paul

    McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McDonnell, John

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McFall, John

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    McIsaac, Shona

    Gapes, Mike

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Gardiner, Barry

    McNamara, Kevin

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McNulty, Tony

    Godsiff, Roger

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Goggins, Paul

    McWalter, Tony

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    102

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Martlew, Eric

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Maxton, John

    Singh, Marsha

    Meale, Alan

    Skinner, Dennis

    Michael, Alun

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Milburn, Alan

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Miller, Andrew

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Soley, Clive

    Moffatt, Laura

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Spellar, John

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Motley, Elliot

    Stevenson, George

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Mudie, George

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Mullin, Chris

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Stringer, Graham

    Norris, Dan

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    O'Hara, Eddie

    (Dewsbury)

    Olner, Bill

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Tipping, Paddy

    Pearson, Ian

    Todd, Mark

    Pendry, Tom

    Touhig, Don

    Pickthall, Colin

    Trickett, Jon

    Pike, Peter L

    Truswell, Paul

    Plaskitt, James

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Pond, Chris

    Vaz, Keith

    Pope, Greg

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Wareing, Robert N

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Watts, David

    Prosser, Gwyn

    White, Brian

    Purchase, Ken

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Rammell, Bill

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Rapson, Syd

    Wills, Michael

    Raynsford, Nick

    Winnick, David

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Wise, Audrey

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Wood, Mike

    Rogers, Allan

    Woolas, Phil

    Rooker, Jeff

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wyatt, Derek

    Roy, Frank

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Salter, Martin

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Sawford, Phil

    Mr. Jim Dowd.

    Question accordingly negativd.

  Clause 17

    OBJECTS
    9 pm
    Mr. Spring: I beg to move amemdment No. 5, in page 17, line 36, out from 'potential' to 'and' in line 40.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 6, in clause 27, page 22, leave out lines 8 and 9.
    Mr. Spring: In the course of the past few days, I have read the Secretary of State's book "Creative Britain".

    103
    In it, he describes the huge increase in our exports of radio and television material, the increase in employment in that area and the massive rise in sponsorship of the arts and in the number of cinema admissions. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for so generously applauding the Conservative Government's 18 years in office. It was precisely the conditions created by that Government which led to the explosive increases so graphically set out in his 27-page introduction.
    As we have made clear in respect of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts—NESTA—we are not against the setting up of a national fund for talent; there is considerable merit in the idea. Indeed, it is based on a Conservative concept. It builds on the well-established and admirable philanthropic tradition of this country. We entirely support the principle of a fund that supports individual talent.
    We are fortunate in having many people of considerable talent who have contributed to our national life and won so many Nobel prizes. Our success compares extremely favourably with that of any other country, especially given our small population.
    The sad truth, however, is that the Government have missed an important opportunity. Elements involved in the establishment of NESTA in the form suggested in the Bill put at risk the success of the whole venture. We greatly regret the fact that the Government have chosen to establish it in this form. I appeal to the Minister even at this late stage to persuade the Government that NESTA' s objectives are incompatible with the sort of body that we believe could successfully nurture our national talent. We are deeply sceptical of the idea of setting up a quasi-governmental body, some of whose objectives will be overtly commercial.
    We know now why the Government have determined not to set up NESTA as an independent charity, despite the clear commitment given before the election to do so. As the Minister explained, the Government have decided to graft a commercial remit on to the original concept for NESTA, which, by definition, loses it the advantages of charitable status. The amendments are designed to remove the commercial elements and turn NESTA into the genuine trust for talent that the entire country would applaud. To set up a national endowment with true nobility of purpose would secure the support not only of the House, across party political lines, but of the whole country, desirous of enabling talented individuals to realise their talents to the full.
    We accept the advantages of establishing a body such as NESTA as an independent endowment, but, regrettably, NESTA, as proposed, will not be fully independent of the Government. As a consequence, it risks not being able to attract money from independent sources, which is a crucial element in the long-term success of NESTA. That is the crux of our concern about the establishment of that body.
    As I said on Second Reading, people simply do not quickly volunteer to give money to Government bodies—even Bernie Ecclestone, I dare say, might find it difficult to be so persuaded.
    104
    I remind the House of the Labour party's commitment to NESTA:
    "Our immediate objective would be to have NESTA-supported ideas earning copyright revenues by 2001. The National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts would be a national trust for talent, helping to turn bright ideas into successful and innovative businesses. It will be constituted as an independent charity."
    I stress those last few words. Labour continued:
    "NESTA will invite successful figures in the arts, technology and science to contribute part of the value of their copyrights and patents to help the young talent of tomorrow. These contributions will go into a permanent endowment fund. To give NESTA an initial boost, limited contributions will be set aside from the new Lottery fund to add to this endowment".
    That commitment is to be found in the Labour party document of 23 April 1997.
    The Prime Minister reiterated those proposals before the election. In a press release on 27 April, he said:
    "We propose to give a Lottery-aided launch to our proposal for a national talent fund—a National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. NESTA will be an independent charity which will encourage successful people in the arts and sciences to donate part of the proceeds of their talent to an endowment fund which will foster new talent for the future".
    Those words are to be applauded.
    The amendments would remove the commercial aspect of the objectives set out for NESTA. They would give it a proper coherence and a real opportunity to acquire the national support that it deserves. In effect, they would make it work. There is a danger that the initial endowment of £200 million will be put at risk because NESTA, as currently constituted, will not attract the additional funding over time.
    As I said in Committee, we broadly support the aims of NESTA and would support the idea of just such an independent body dedicated to nurturing talent, especially in the arts. Indeed, the Conservative manifesto of 1997 included the following pledge:
    "We will encourage the use of Lottery money to train young athletes and artists, with revenue funding for bursaries, concessionary tickets to professional performances and support for young people's organisations and productions."
    Therefore, there was considerable cross-party support, which the Government have unfortunately now put at risk.
    NESTA was in fact the development of an initiative first announced in April 1996 by my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), to whom I pay tribute.
    It was always the view of the Conservative party that the lottery would evolve. That view was reinforced as the popularity of the lottery grew among those playing it and the communities that benefited from lottery grants. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said on Second Reading:
    "there is the prospect of moving rather more from capital funding to revenue funding, which was always envisaged at the outset and, again, is perfectly sensible. The only points at issue are the specific details of what is proposed and the timing."—[Official Report, 7 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 187.]
    I am happy to congratulate the Government on following the path set by the previous Administration, but they are risking the very success and popularity of the lottery by using it to fund areas that it was not originally set up to finance. Potentially, that could damage the image of the lottery and could end in failure.

    105
    In Committee, we learned of the Government's continuing determination to use the lottery to supplement public expenditure on health, education and the environment—I use those definitions in the broadest possible terms. The amendments simply highlight another unexpected and unwelcome departure in lottery funding under Labour.
    We debated in Committee the unfortunate decision—which I believe will be regretted—to place NESTA under the control of the Secretary of State rather than to make it a genuinely independent body, as was at least the Government's original stated intention. We debated the disturbing funding arrangements for NESTA, which show that the Government have no faith that it will ever perform as an independent, self-financing body or that it will ever manage to attract significant contributions from independent sources. The evidence, as we shall see, is the scope for the Government to raid the original good causes to pay for NESTA.
    We are also concerned about the requirement placed on NESTA not merely to encourage talented individuals in the fields of science, technology and the arts and to contribute to public knowledge and appreciation, but to seek out and sponsor commercial success in those sectors. It is simply the latest incarnation of Labour's long-standing desire to pick winners, as the previous Labour Government sought to do so unsuccessfully. It is a further sign of Labour's inexhaustible faith in Government rather than the private sector.
    As we look back on the development of the venture capital industry in Britain, we must recognise that, although we have had many successes, more could be done. There is certainly an argument that many of the most important British inventions have been commercially exploited elsewhere. However, we recognised that when we were in government, in the considerable changes to the tax regime for venture capital. We sought to encourage and secure seedcorn capital, by the tax changes introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke). That is the way forward. If the dynamics of the small business sector, particularly the seedcorn, are to be nurtured and encouraged, it is through the tax mechanism and not by the Government picking winners. We have been there before, and I believe that once again it will be a considerable failure.
    A similar amendment was proposed and rejected in another place, when my noble Friend Lord Skidelsky said:
    "The contention seems to be that we are very good at inventions but banks or others are reluctant to back them, so they end up being exploited overseas. The argument that our innovators have suffered from lack of venture capital is an old one, but it is very hard to prove. Surely, whatever the case, NESTA should not seek to become a venture capitalist or business angel in its own right. We should have learned by now that government agencies should not try to second guess the private sector. In the end it is the taxpayer, or in this case other National Lottery initiatives, who suffers the losses of bad decisions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, Grand Committee, 29 January 1998; Vol. 585, c. 108.]
    The difficulty about establishing that objective for NESTA is that in practice it may well embody the very worst kind of corporatist second-guessing. It is an ominous precedent which I wish to highlight again.
    By adding that specific aim to NESTA's remit, the Government are establishing a further call on the lottery in an area that should be the responsibility of the
    106
    Department of Trade and Industry—if the Government have any role, other than via the clear tax incentives that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe introduced in the latter years of the previous Government. The Minister should reflect on that. If it is necessary or desirable to amend the tax regime, something should be worked out between the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry that would satisfy the integrity of NESTA. We should be happy to support such a policy, which would be separate from the commercial remit being given to NESTA.
    9.15 pm
    The conventional new Labour wisdom is that the British economy is blighted by short-termism that prevents the British people from fulfilling our true potential; that we do not have a sufficiently vigorous or flexible enterprise culture to take advantage of all our talent for innovation. It was clear from the comments of Labour Members in Committee that the private sector was an alien and mysterious world to them, because so few had any practical experience of it.
    The aim of the clause is return to the state-sponsored enterprise for which there is no evidence of success in this country over a long period. If a market for an idea or project cannot be found in the private sector, it is folly for the Government to imagine that they know better. It is regrettable that the Government have chosen to saddle NESTA with that objective. We urgently ask them to reconsider, even at this late stage. If they were prepared to do so, we should happily support the establishment of NESTA.
    We discussed all the issues comprehensively in Committee, but the Government rejected outright any amendment that we proposed. At no stage did they even consider looking again on Report at any of the points that we had raised. That is unprecedented in the experience of many and shows the insecurity of Ministers. How much better it would be if NESTA were set up as a charitable trust—as the Government originally intended—along the lines of the National Trust, which was established by a series of Acts of Parliament and commands the support of millions throughout the country, or the Prince's Trust, which makes grants to businesses, but does not take on commercial risks. The Government are proposing a beast that is neither fish nor fowl. It is not charitable in its aims, so it cannot benefit from charitable status and will not attract the general public support that a charity enjoys, but it will not make any money either. Instead of attempting to be a venture capital arm of the Government, NESTA should act as a real endowment for talented individuals.
    Governments have a miserable record of picking winners in this country. There is no reason to suppose that that will change. I ask the Minister once again to consider the great potential that NESTA has. A clear message of bipartisan support could be sent out from the House. Creating a widely appreciated national endowment for talent is within the Minister's gift, but he must accept that the commercial element contains the seeds of NESTA's destruction and its lack of public acceptance.
    I hope that the Minister will reflect on what I have said today and what my hon. Friends said so often in Committee. He should return to the assurances given when the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, set out the original concept. If the Government returned

    107
    NESTA to what was originally envisaged, even at this late stage, real hope would be offered to those talented and successful individuals who would enjoy the benefits of the endowment from the national lottery that NESTA offers.
    Mr. Tom Pendry: I had intended to make a lengthy speech on Third Reading, but as my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have been so forthright and clear in their answers on Report, I am left with just one narrow point that relates to amendment No. 5. It follows a point that I made on Second Reading which does not appear to have been acted on in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) made a similar point. It relates to NESTA and our promise—which I wrote—in the sports election manifesto. Page 10 of that document states:
    "The endowment will not focus solely on excellence. It will be inclusive in its approach, encouraging access and partnership across the whole range of sciences, humanities, sports and the arts."
    On Second Reading, I suggested that the Government might see a way in which to develop a useful sporting role for NESTA in, for instance, sports science or sports information technology—both of which are crucial to developing world-class sport in the UK. Unfortunately, the Government seemed unable to move on that point in Committee. They appeared reluctant even to acknowledge the omission. I am sure that it was merely an omission and that the Minister for Arts was right at the time. Perhaps he is saving his best card until tonight, and will give sport—and me—some encouragement in the concept of NESTA at this very late stage. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench on their handling of the Bill.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity briefly to add to the excellent remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) in pursuit of acceptance of amendments Nos. 5 and 6. I want to add to his remarks, not least because his reference to the Labour party's desire to pick winners struck a great chord.
    When I entered the civil service way back in 1979, one of our tasks in what was then called the industrial planning division—it seems a rather archaic title now—was to start to dismantle some of the measures that the previous Government had implemented precisely to pick winners. The National Enterprise Board, which was very like what the Labour party proposes, went about the task of trying to put public money into industrial and commercial enterprises with the objective of making money for the country and the taxpayer. Of course, it failed to do either.
    I say that as somebody who was once responsible for the science and technology budget in the Department of Trade and Industry. I disposed of £440 million. I shall elaborate briefly on the interesting debate on which my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk briefly touched. He criticised the Labour party's desire to move towards the market in proposing that NESTA should provide resources, take stakes in companies and acquire property to pursue commercial exploitation of an invention, new product or process.
    In moving towards the marketplace, one must realise that one is not behaving in the same way as one would in a genuine market. There is a conjunction of two
    108
    principles—one of exploitation close to the marketplace and one of additionality. I found when working on the science and technology budget that, when one moves public money for the purposes of subsidy closer to the marketplace and at the same time applies the principle of additionality—I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister says that that is not to be applied in this context, although I suspect that it will be—one ends up with projects right at the margin of commercial exploitation. The market itself is quick to leap on those products, processes and inventions that have readily exploitable commercial potential. It leaves to the publicly funded or publicly subsidised body those projects that are not obviously commercial or will not obtain a full return. The net result is that the market says that the publicly funded operator can have all the projects that are right at the margins where the returns are doubtful.
    To reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk was saying, Ministers should not be sanguine about the possibility of the project bringing forward returns to the taxpayer or NESTA for subsequent reinvestment. On the contrary, my hon. Friend was right to emphasise the value of the endowment in relation to talented individuals. That is precisely where the public sector—at some distance from the marketplace—does not necessarily exploit the potential.
    I hope that we have learnt not to seek to direct subsidy close to the marketplace in substitution for commercial judgments. I hope that we have learnt that there is a role for the public sector through the subsidy of research that is essentially some distance from the marketplace. There are significant externalities to the United Kingdom economy from subsidising that research because not all the benefits of that research can be appropriated to a particular project or the promoter. That is why the public sector puts funding and subsidy into projects further from the marketplace.
    Interestingly, there are precisely the same potential externalities available if one subsidises individuals who have talent—and I say that with a constituency interest. It is highly probable that many individuals in the area around Cambridge are precisely those who have the talent to bring their projects, products, processes and inventions to the marketplace. What they do not lack is the commercial exploitation around Cambridge. What is important to them is the process of bringing them out of some of the world-class research institutes in Cambridge university and giving them a start.
    That start will often be focused on their talents as individuals, demonstrated in the research environment. It will not necessarily be in relation to a particular project, but it will be in relation to their broader talent. In just the same way as public subsidy should be directed towards blue-skies research, the endowment should be directed toward people who can look to the blue skies but who are not necessarily close to the marketplace. On that basis, I support the new clause.
    Mr. Prior: I wish to make two points in support of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). First, NESTA is mixing its drinks—mixing thoroughly laudable charitable aims and commercial aims. The great risk is that the almost inevitable failure of its commercial objectives will ultimately overwhelm its sensible charitable ones. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) that

    109
    the history of Government organisations in terms of picking winners is a bad one. When they pick losers, it casts a shadow over the worthwhile charitable objectives.
    I am glad to see the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry in the Chamber, as I wish to refer to the myth that there is a shortage of capital in the United Kingdom for decent ventures. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire that, at an early stage, potential entrepreneurs, scientists and artists need help, encouragement, training and education. However, a lot of capital is available in the commercial market and, in Cambridge, there are venture capital groups that specialise in science and high-tech firms. I ask the Government not to delude themselves into thinking that there is a shortage of capital.
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Fisher: I am glad that there is a measure of agreement that NESTA is fundamentally a good idea and that the United Kingdom is good at invention, design, engineering, science and medical and artistic innovation. Despite one or two comments from Opposition Members, I think that there is also general agreement that we are not so good at developing ideas in the private sector or at developing ideas and bringing them to the market.
    In framing NESTA, the Government have been guided by three important reports: the 1997 Confederation of British Industry report "Breaking the Growth Barriers for Technology-Based Small and Medium Sized Enterprises"—a snappily named document—which identified the need for early-stage finance and seedcorn investment; the 1997 House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology report "The Innovation-Exploitation Barrier", which identified the need for management of innovation, highlighting the importance of intellectual property; and the 1996 Bank of England report "The Financing of Technology-Based Small Firms", which called for partnership between the public and private sectors.
    All three reports identified a weakness, which is not to say that there is no good work. It was encouraging to hear from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) that there is, perhaps inevitably, a clustering in and around a great university such as Cambridge, which means that many good ideas will be produced and brought to market. However, Cambridge is perhaps better placed than some other areas to benefit from seedcorn investment; it will not be alone, but success there may not be reflected throughout the country. The belief that we are failing in some respects has led the Government—with, I think, the general support of the Opposition—to press forward with the idea that, good though we are at innovation, we are less good at developing ideas and bringing them to fruition; it will often be for the private sector to take on those ideas, products and services.
    There is some confusion about what NESTA will do. It will not be a rerun of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation—it will not be a Government company sponsoring new ideas. It will do specific things: it will provide limited seed capital; it will provide guidance on the protection of intellectual property rights; it will raise awareness among banks about technological entrepreneurship; it will support networks for creative individuals; and it will provide a one-stop source of
    110
    information. Those are practical ideas, which cluster around the problem—we do not intend that NESTA will replace the market.
    In his short but helpful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) asked whether NESTA would also support sport. He will appreciate that the projects that NESTA backs will be a matter for its chairman and board, who will be appointed very soon. However, there is no reason why sports products and services should not be supported, particularly where new technologies can help to improve performances, training or the medical understanding of sport, for example—it is easy to see where there may be interesting and fruitful conjunctions between technology, innovation and sport. I am sure that my hon. Friend will work with those organisations that will present interesting new ideas to NESTA.
    There is some confusion about whether NESTA will operate on the margins and whether it will duplicate the private sector. Although we appreciate that there are some dangers that it could do so, it is not our intention that it should. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) said that there was plenty of venture capital; I agree that there is plenty for some good ideas, but we should not ignore the 1995 report of the European Venture Capital Association, which identified the fact that, in that year, only £23 million was available for small and early-stage businesses, amounting to only 1 per cent. of the venture capital activity in this country. That suggests that there is not the scale of capital that there might be—which probably accounts for why we have been losing the benefit of the development of some of the innovations and techniques with which we have benefited other countries.
    Labour Members consider this a good, constructive, practical idea, and we commend it to the House. We think that amendments Nos. 5 and 6 would knock out the core of the development of products and services, the importance of intellectual property and the economic realisation of what NESTA is intended to foster and nurture, and we therefore hope that the House will reject the amendments if they are pressed to a vote.
    Mr. Spring: The Minister made a point about the possible lack of venture capital in this country. The subject is debatable and arguable, but let me make another point to him again.
    The Minister fails to understand that if the Government indeed believe that there is a shortage of venture capital as seedcorn investment potential in this country, this is not the way to address the problem. It should be addressed by means of tax and other incentives. We should not put at risk an endowment, thereby depriving it of its charitable status. The Government are responsible for a total confusion of opportunities, which I very much regret. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are adopting such a means of dealing with a problem that they think exists.
    Mr. Fisher: The hon. Gentleman is being unusually doctrinaire. We are not talking about alternatives. Of course there is room for the tax system and the private sector, which perform their task very well and will continue to do so. They are not alternatives: we need them both. We believe, however, that there are gaps and

    111
    weaknesses, and that our proposed system can work along with the existing tax incentives and seedcorn capital from the private sector and strengthen this important area.
    Mr. Spring: I am afraid that that does not answer my point. The simple truth is that the system will not work. It has never worked in this form before, and it certainly will not work now.
    The most important aim of the national endowment was to secure a charitable status. It was an endowment which all of us could have been happy to support. It is a great shame that the Government are so determined to affix this particular commercial remit to the whole concept of NESTA. The House could have sent out the clear message that NESTA has an important role to play, across party divisions, as a national endowment body. Adhering to the old-fashioned and long-past idea that Governments can pick winners and impose a commercial remit destroys the value of NESTA in its entirety.
    I do not want to press the matter further, but we want to put on record our fear that NESTA—which has so much potential—is put at risk by the way in which it has been constructed in the Bill. I think it a great shame that the Government have moved away from their original commitments, which we would have been happy to support.
    Amendment negatived.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    9.39 pm
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    Let me first give a warm welcome to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) in his new capacity as shadow Secretary of State. In my dealings with him here over a number of years, I have always found his approach both courteous and constructive, and I look forward to fruitful and robust debate with him across the Floor of the House. He seemed to spend most of this afternoon and this evening reading my book. I recommend it to him as a somewhat more productive exercise than reading the fulminations of Mr. George Walden on the subject.
    The Bill has been the subject of much interest both inside and outside the House. It has also been subject to thorough scrutiny by the House. I place on record my thanks to members of the Standing Committee and especially the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton) for their excellent chairmanship. The Committee was thorough in its scrutiny, and all the issues were debated thoroughly—indeed, so thoroughly that reading the proceedings of the Committee it seemed to me that the same speech was made on different occasions by several Committee Members. On some occasions, it appeared to be repeated several times within the same speech.
    I must also thank my colleagues the Ministers for the Arts and for Sport for their sterling work both in Committee and on Report. Nor should I neglect to mention my noble Friend the Deputy Chief Whip in another place and my noble Friend Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale for their careful stewardship of the Bill in that place.
    112
    We have never sought to argue that the lottery as introduced by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and his colleagues was anything other than a basically good idea. I appreciate the sincerity with which the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and their colleagues sought in discussions on the Bill to preserve what they see as fundamental aspects of their vision of the lottery. My only regret is that we have not been able to persuade them that we agree with them on more than they realise and, where we disagree, we are improving on what is there already, not spoiling it.
    I also thank the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) and the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) for their contributions from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am grateful for their support on many issues and their intelligent probing on others.
    Last, but definitely not least, I should thank all my colleagues on the Labour Benches who played a part in the discussions on Second Reading, in Committee and today. Their constructive and well-informed support, based on their knowledge of their constituents' needs, has been most welcome and has reminded us constantly of the rightness of what the Bill seeks to achieve.
    The Bill delivers our clear commitments in our manifesto and pre-election documents to making something good even better. If the amendments agreed by the House find favour in another place, as I very much hope, this Bill will pass into law playing a significant part in achieving the four aims that we set out in our White Paper: first, widening the benefits of the lottery to health, education and in due course the environment; secondly, reforming the way in which lottery distribution works throughout all the existing good causes; thirdly, setting up the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts; and, fourthly, securing confidence in the way in which the lottery is regulated and operated. In connection with the last of those aims, I am particularly grateful that the House has agreed to important amendments to set up a National Lottery Commission and to open up National Audit Office access to the operator.
    The Bill is delivering our commitments, but it is only part of a wider picture. I ask the House to note, in particular, that today I am issuing new policy directions, under my existing powers, to the Arts Council of England, the English Sports Council, the National Lottery Charities Board and the National Heritage Memorial Fund.
    On Second Reading, I told the House that I was starting consultations on those new directions and it is particularly pleasing that they have been strongly welcomed by the distributary bodies and that they are being issued in final form with very little change.
    The new policy directions for existing distributors will, among other things, shift the focus away from big spending on bricks and buildings towards ensuring that more lottery money goes to people and activities. They will acknowledge the developmental needs of children and young people. They will remove the requirement for significant levels of partnership funding, which will make it easier for less wealthy organisations and areas to benefit. They will, for the first time, encourage distributors to consider how their strategies will contribute to sustainable development, and will invite them to consider the contribution that they can make through the

    113
    good causes to reducing economic and social deprivation. They will ensure that all regions and parts of society can benefit from the lottery.
    I want everyone to have confidence that the money for good causes is allocated fairly and goes where it is needed. That is a central strand in our reform of the lottery, and our new directions will help us achieve it. I am particularly pleased that our proposals have been strongly welcomed by the bodies concerned. The Bill will help lottery distributors to be more strategic and proactive in their use of lottery money. We are streamlining the distribution system and helping applicants to cut through bureaucracy to make it easier for small community groups to find out about the lottery and receive grants. In many cases, decision making can be pushed closer to the grass roots.
    Taken together, the Bill and the associated directions open an exciting new phase in the lottery's existence. I commend the Bill to the House.
    9.46 pm
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words on my appointment. Our paths have crossed several times in recent years, and I hold the Secretary of State in considerable respect. One afternoon, I even had charge of his dog; we need not go into that now, but I can assure the House that the dog came to no harm.
    It is a great honour for me to have slipped out of my stage management role of the past two years into playing a small speaking part at the end of deliberations on the Bill. I am well aware that the real stars were those who slogged through Committee. I pay tribute to them all, particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) who guided the Opposition clearly and well. There were valiant contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), for Ashford (Mr. Green), for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). I pay tribute, too, to my immediate predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who brought his unique blend of elan and intelligence to his role in opposition. He is committed to listening to and speaking up for people whose lives are affected by the Secretary of State's Department.
    I have considerable respect for the Secretary of State. It is a pity, therefore, that he has been crunched so early by pressure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On the back of his finely decorated book, there is a picture by Damian Green—[HON. MEMBERS: "Damien Hirst."] I mean Damien Hirst; I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green). The painting is titled, "Beautiful snail crunching under the boot painting", and it reminded me of the Secretary of State crunching under the boot of the Chancellor.
    The previous Government set up and handed on the most successful lottery in the world. I hope that all hon. Members agree that that is some achievement, but we would never have claimed that the lottery was perfect. There are ways in which it can be improved. There are some welcome measures in the Bill. We have, for example, no fundamental objection to the clarification of the regulator's powers. We would support any sensible measure to improve the workings of the lottery, such as the introduction of better ways of handling smaller grants or removing bureaucratic impediments.
    114
    As my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk said, we support the principle of the creation of the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, but we do not support it as a quasi-venture capital outfit controlled by the Secretary of State. Conservative Members warned of the dangers of a Government trying to pick winners. In particular, we will continue to support measures that would increase the funds available to the arts, sport, heritage and charities. Our first objection to the Bill is that far from assisting those good causes, it damages them.
    In answering that charge, the Government have sought to claim that the changes that they are making will benefit other good causes, such as out-of-hours activities in schools, health, the environment, science and technology. Those are indeed good causes, but that is not the point. If such causes are to be funded, they should be funded from central Government receipts, not by a raid on the arts, sport, heritage and charities.
    The Government also tried to argue that the good causes will not suffer because the lottery is so successful that it is providing more money than originally expected. This is utterly bogus. The extra money may or may not be forthcoming. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk mentioned lottery fatigue, which has occurred in other countries. I am glad that the Minister for Sport is not suffering from lottery fatigue and that his lust for the lottery remains unabated, even if the bills are getting onerous.
    In any case, expectations have been built up by both the recipients and distributors of lottery proceeds. The Bill puts those expectations at risk. The distributing bodies know that and the Secretary of State knows it, too, as he acknowledges in his book. I have not read it all the way through, but I have read some of the reviews; it is a cruel world. He says:
    "the distributing bodies have adjusted their expectations upwards to reflect the success of the lottery."
    The Bill is a semi-veiled attack on the arts, sports, charities and heritage. Unease about the Government's ability to deliver their pre-election nods and winks is turning into real concern and anger.
    Our second objection to the Bill involves a fundamental breach of the principle of additionality. We have heard much about that today and throughout the course of the Bill. I was on the Standing Committee in 1993 that considered the Bill that introduced the national lottery. My two clearest memories are first, that if the Liberal Democrat spokesman had had his way, we would not have had a national lottery at all; and secondly, I recall the immense pressure brought to bear on the Committee, especially by the arts world and the sports world, to ensure that money from the lottery was safeguarded against any attempt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pilfer it to support central Government funding in other fields. Labour members of the Committee voiced their vociferous support for the principle of additionality.
    The undertaking on additionality was given, and adhered to, by the previous Government. Despite the promises made by the Prime Minister and others at the general election, that undertaking has been broken by the Bill. Those lottery promises are due to join the mounting heaps of broken promises that the Government seem determined to leave behind.
    Our third objection is that the Bill ignores the clearly established principle that lottery money should be distributed by bodies that operate at arm's length from the

    115
    Government. As the sorry story of the Bill has unfolded, it has become increasingly clear that the Government intend to use the new opportunities fund to divert money to its own favoured projects. The new opportunities fund and NESTA will be directly under ministerial control. We do not and cannot accept such a massive increase in political control over lottery players' money. The reason for that, once again, is contained in the Secretary of State's colourful book, although there is a sad lapse from his normal eloquence, so I shall torture the House only briefly with his grammar. He says:
    "In a very real way, lottery players think of lottery money as `their' funds far more determinedly than they do with taxation."
    That is exactly the point—it may not be well expressed, but it is perfectly reasonable.
    Finally, the original national lottery was based on an understanding that it would be used to support local initiatives by local people with local support. The Bill undermines the principle of local support by introducing an unwelcome and subversive centralisation of power. The distributing bodies will, for the first time, be given explicit powers to solicit bids for money, and who is it has the power to appoint members of the distributing bodies? It is none other than the Secretary of State, who can also give them directions as to how they should distribute the proceeds. For the last time—
    Mr. Chris Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Ainsworth: I was just about to quote again from the Secretary of State's book, but I give way.
    Mr. Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am tempted to observe that the face may have changed, but the speech has not. He must accept that all the existing distributors in arts, sport, heritage and charities fall under exactly the same qualification of appointment by the Secretary of State and being subject to directions from the Secretary of State to which he has just referred.
    Mr. Ainsworth: Will the Secretary of State deny that the Bill contains new powers that he can exercise in that direction? No, he will not deny it.
    Mr. Smith: Let me make it perfectly clear: the new opportunities fund will operate in exactly the same way and under exactly the same rules as the other distributors. Parliament will have the power to introduce new initiatives from time to time, but the independence of the new opportunities fund as a body will be exactly the same as that of the other distributors.
    Mr. Ainsworth: The fact is that the Bill and the measure to which I have referred, which the Secretary of State appears not to affirm, is a wholesale attack on the existing good causes and represents a major extension of the Government's control over the national lottery and those who are likely to benefit from it.
    For the last time, I shall refer to the Secretary of State's book. [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] I have already referred to it almost as many times as the Secretary of State referred to it in his recent article in The Spectator and I
    116
    do not want to give it any more publicity. In a sinister example of new Labour-speak, the right hon. Gentleman says:
    "We now have the chance to reorient"—
    I like that—
    "the lottery so that it reflects more closely the people's priorities."
    We know that, in new Labour-speak, the "people's priorities" are in fact the Government's priorities. The Government always think that they know best. The Bill takes away control from the distributing bodies and gives it to the Government; it takes money away from the arts, sports, heritage and charities and gives it to the Government; it breaks the principle of the arm's-length management and extends the dead hand of Government control to lottery procedures. That is the way to create, not a people's lottery, but a Government's lottery and a lottery for bureaucrats. That is a way to expand political patronage at the expense of the original good causes.
    Throughout the debates on the Bill, the Government have failed to acknowledge those concerns and have resorted to the evasion and sophistry that are becoming their hallmark.
    The Bill betrays not only the promises made by Ministers before the general election—we are used to that, although that would be bad enough—but the national lottery that we created. On those grounds, I urge my hon. Friends to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 129.

    Division No. 289]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Casale, Roger

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Allen, Graham

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Clapham, Michael

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Ashton, Joe

    Clark, Dr Lynda

    Austin, John

    (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Banks, Tony

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Barnes, Harry

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Beard, Nigel

    Clelland, David

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Clwyd, Ann

    Berry, Roger

    Coaker, Vernon

    Best, Harold

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Betts, Clive

    Coleman, Iain

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Connarty, Michael

    Blizzard, Bob

    Cooper, Yvette

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Cranston, Ross

    Boateng, Paul

    Crausby, David

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cummings, John

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    (Copeland)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Browne, Desmond

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Darvill, Keith

    Burden, Richard

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Burgon, Colin

    Davidson, Ian

    Caborn, Richard

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Canavan, Dennis

    Denham, John

    Caplin, Ivor

    Dismore, Andrew

    117

    Dobbin, Jim

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Drew, David

    Linton, Martin

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Livingstone, Ken

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Edwards, Huw

    Lock, David

    Efford, Clive

    Love, Andrew

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    McAllion, John

    Ennis, Jeff

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Fisher, Mark

    McCabe, Steve

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Flint, Caroline

    McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

    Flynn, Paul

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    McDonnell, John

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    McFall, John

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Gapes, Mike

    McNulty, Tony

    Gardiner, Barry

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Gerrard, Neil

    McWalter, Tony

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Goggins, Paul

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Martlew, Eric

    Grogan, John

    Maxton, John

    Gunnell, John

    Meale, Alan

    Hain, Peter

    Michael, Alun

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Milburn, Alan

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hanson, David

    Mitchell, Austin

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Moffatt, Laura

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Heppell, John

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Hill, Keith

    Morley, Elliot

    Hinchliffe, David

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Hoey, Kate

    Mudie, George

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Mullin, Chris

    Hope, Phil

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Norris, Dan

    Howells, Dr Kim

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Olner, Bill

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hutton, John

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Pearson, Ian

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Pendry, Tom

    Jenkins, Brian

    Pickthall, Colin

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Pike, Peter L

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Plaskitt, James

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Pond, Chris

    Jones, Ms Jenny

    Pope, Greg

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Purchase, Ken

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Khabra, Piara S

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Kidney, David

    Rammell, Bill

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Rapson, Syd

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Laxton, Bob

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lepper, David

    Rogers, Allan

    Leslie, Christopher

    Rooker, Jeff

    Levitt, Tom

    Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

    118

    Rowlands, Ted

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Roy, Frank

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Salter, Martin

    Todd, Mark

    Sawford, Phil

    Touhig, Don

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Trickett, Jon

    Sheerman, Barry

    Truswell, Paul

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Singh, Marsha

    Vaz, Keith

    Skinner, Dennis

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Ward, Ms Claire

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Watts, David

    Soley, Clive

    Welsh, Andrew

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    White, Brian

    Spellar, John

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    (Swansea W)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wills, Michael

    Stevenson, George

    Winnick, David

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wise, Audrey

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Wood, Mike

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Woolas, Phil

    Stringer, Graham

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wyatt, Derek

    Swinney, John

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    (Dewsbury)

    Mr. David Jamieson and

    Taylor, David (NWLeics)

    Mr. Jim Dowd.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Fraser, Christopher

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Garnier, Edward

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gibb, Nick

    Baldry, Tony

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Bercow, John

    Gray, James

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Green, Damian

    Body, Sir Richard

    Greenway, John

    Boswell, Tim

    Grieve, Dominic

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Brady, Graham

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hammond, Philip

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Hayes, John

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Heald, Oliver

    Burns, Simon

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Butterfill, John

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Cash, William

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Hunter, Andrew

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Chope, Christopher

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Clappison, James

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

    Johnson Smith,

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Collins, Tim

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Colvin, Michael

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Cran, James

    Lansley, Andrew

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Letwin, Oliver

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Lidington, David

    Duncan, Alan

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Duncan Smith, lain

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Evans, Nigel

    Loughton, Tim

    Faber, David

    Luff, Peter

    Fabricant, Michael

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Fallon, Michael

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Flight, Howard

    Mcintosh, Miss Anne

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    119

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Madel, Sir David

    Steen, Anthony

    Malins, Humfrey

    Streeter, Gary

    Maples, John

    Swayne, Desmond

    Mates, Michael

    Syms, Robert

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Townend, John

    Page, Richard

    Tredinnick, David

    Paice, James

    Trend, Michael

    Paterson, Owen

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Pickles Eric

    Viggers, Peter

    Prior, David

    Water, Robert

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Wardle, Charles

    Whittingdale, John

    Robathan, Andrew

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Wilkinson, John

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

    Willetts, David

    Ruffley, David

    Wilshire, David

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Woodward, Shaun

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Yeo, Tim

    Soames, Nicholas

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Mr. John M. Taylor and

    Spring, Richard

    Mr. Stephen Day.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

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 National Lottery Bill [Lords] and the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Betts.]
Question agreed to.

Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [Lords]
  Clause 6

    RATE OF STATUTORY INTEREST
    10.12 pm
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 1, leave out
    'made with the consent of the Treasury'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 4, line 10, at end insert—
    '(c) avoid the risk that purchasers enjoying a dominant
    position in a market may seek to renegotiate payment terms to the disadvantage of suppliers in that market.'.
    No. 3, in page 4, line 10, at end insert—
    '(3) The power to make an Order under subsection (1) above is without prejudice to the making of a further Order varying the provision made under paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection.
    (4) No Order shall he made under subsection (3) unless any preceding Order under that subsection (or, as the case may be, an Order under subsection (1)) has been in force for at least six months.'.
    No. 4, in page 4, line 10, at end insert—
    '(3) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the terms of any order under this section are promulgated by such means as are calculated to bring them to the attention of businesses and other commercial undertakings as effectively and speedily as possible.'.
    Mrs. Gillan: On 14 May, in Committee, I said that. due to the Minister's unsatisfactory responses, I intended to raise matters concerning the interest rate on Report. This group of amendments gives the Minister a chance to clarify the area that she dealt with so inadequately then.
    I wish to deal first with the setting of the rate of interest and then the communication of that rate of interest to businesses and the speed and frequency with which the rate may change. In Committee, the Minister set great store by further consultations with business and others to establish the efficacy of the initial rate that was published in the draft order—the base rate plus 8 per cent. I hope that she can explain in detail how that can possibly work as it will be at least four years before some businesses can use the Bill against, for example, the public sector. Will they be excluded from the consultation process for the next four years? I presume that they will, but I hope that the Minister will categorically confirm or deny that point. If it is confirmed, a vast swathe of industry and business will be excluded from the consultation process that she has heralded.
    Will the Minister explain in detail how, precisely, she arrived at the figure of 8 per cent? I believe that she initially favoured 4 per cent.—so she has doubled her original figure. That shows how wrong she was, so it is difficult to be reassured that she knows what she is doing.
    The mechanisms in the Bill for setting the interest rate are similarly open to question, as the final rate will depend on the Minister's colleagues in the Treasury. Will she explain, in detail, how she expects the relationship

    121
    between her Department and the Treasury to work and how potential conflicts between the two Departments will be resolved?
    There is no provision in the Bill to protect businesses from rapid rate changes at the whim of the Government. In Committee, the Minister failed to answer my questions, so I hope that she will now deal with them. How frequently could the interest rate be changed? Will it be weekly, monthly or biannually? Would it not be better to provide a minimum period so that businesses could have some certainty? It is feasible that, in times of highly volatile interest rates, the rate could change daily as a result of these measures. The Minister has had due time to consider these matters and I hope that she will come forth with the answers.
    Businesses are confused about how they will be told about the changes to the rate. The Minister has said that she will distribute a free users guide to businesses. Perhaps she will elaborate on that. How many copies of the guide will be printed? Does she intend to send it to all businesses, or is this another burden on businesses, which will have to make efforts to find out what is going on? What budget will be set aside for this leaflet? Will it be reprinted every time the rate changes?
    The amendments were tabled because of the Minister's poor performance in Committee. I hope that she will now provide the answers to these questions.
    Mr. Eric Forth: I shall concentrate my remarks on amendment No. 2, which I hope will force the Minister to return to the issue that my hon. Friends and I raised on Second Reading and in Committee. We fear that the Bill would induce companies in a dominant position to renegotiate their terms of trade with their suppliers if the burden of interest set under the Bill were to become too onerous. The more onerous the rate of interest, the greater is the incentive for purchasers to renegotiate their terms of trade.
    We have argued throughout that there will be a great temptation for a company that faces an unduly harsh penalty to reconsider its terms of trade instead of being content to operate on a net 30-day basis—admittedly with the possibility that the payments made could drift out beyond that period.
    My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has frequently carried out his own expert analysis of the impracticability of a strict adherence to an over-strict payments regime. I hope that he will return to that argument, because I always enjoy hearing it. I would argue that it is certain that businesses, particularly when in a dominant position, will decide that if they are to he held strictly to an impractical 30-day payment regime, it would make a lot of sense to negotiate alternative terms of trade of 45, 60 or even 90 days with their suppliers to make the payment mechanism more operable and to ensure that penalties are not unnecessarily incurred.
    The onus is therefore on the Minister to persuade us that such a response by a significant number of purchasers would be unlikely. If it is not, the whole argument behind the Bill will be shown to be fatally flawed. The amendment is a small but significant attempt to countermand such a natural response and inexorable process.
    122
    If what I fear actually comes about, it will make nonsense of the Bill. It has been said time and again during the Bill's previous stages that the purpose of the legislation, which I query, is to protect relatively small firms from being dominated or even exploited by larger ones. That argument is false because I suspect that as many late payment difficulties arise among small firms as between small and large firms. If the Bill succeeds in any of its objectives, it will thus end up penalising small firms as much as—perhaps even more than—large ones.
    The amendment attempts to get round the dilemma thus:
    "purchasers enjoying a dominant position in a market may seek to renegotiate payment terms".
    Although I do not know to what extent it will be effective, it at least recognises the dangers that I have outlined and tries to prevent their coming to pass. I want to hear from the Minister why my fears are unfounded and hence why the amendment is unnecessary. If she fails to explain that, I can only assume that her logic—it is usually impeccable—will drive her to accept the amendment, which is a mild but realistic attempt to correct an imbalance that I fear may arise if the Bill is enacted unamended.
    My argument has not yet been properly answered, on Second Reading or in Committee. I therefore welcome the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends have re-presented it, in the hope of a fuller answer from the Minister. The Minister looks as if she is in a generous and compliant mood tonight. I hope that, having heard my speech and the one I sense we are about to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire, she may be prepared to accept our amendment. Before we proceed any further, we at least expect a proper answer to our points.
    Mr. Richard Page: Amendment No. 2 has about it the air of a hard commercial head butt. This is the amendment which shows why the Bill will be ineffective when it has to be implemented in the marketplace.
    Despite what my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, I hope that he does not press the amendment to a Division. It would be impossible to implement, just as the whole Bill will be impossible to implement to the benefit of the small business sector for which it is designed. The Bill will have a marginal effect, which is one of the reasons it has not been introduced before.
    I ask my right hon. Friend not to press the amendment because the Government have no answer to the question that lies behind it. He is absolutely right to ask for an answer. If a valid answer were forthcoming, it could revolutionise the approach to the Bill taken by some Conservative Members, but I strongly suspect that such an answer will not be forthcoming.
    The amendment basically asks what is to stop a purchaser negotiating disadvantageous terms with a supplier. When a big boy is talking to a little boy, what is to stop the big boy negotiating terms that are disadvantageous to the little boy? In Committee, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry hinted coyly that certain things could be done to redress the balance. I should very much like to hear what could be done if the terms were felt to be unfair or out of kilter, but I strongly suspect that no response will be forthcoming.

    123
    The Bill will undoubtedly regularise credit terms, which must be welcome. Despite the blandishments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, I shall not run through the credit cycle process for the third time. I have done so twice. When I read the record of my performance I was overcome by my brilliance, but a third time would be going too often to the well. However, I envisage certain phrases appearing in the arrangements made between companies, such as that payments will be made by X number of days after the monthly statement has been delivered. I envisage X being not 30 or 40, but 50 or 60, because companies will want to ensure that they cannot be caught by the statutory right to interest. I can see that number of days becoming a very comfortable cushion—a real protection against any possible charge of statutory interest.
    The amendment aims to
    "avoid the risk that purchasers enjoying a dominant position in a market may seek to renegotiate payment terms to the disadvantage of suppliers in that market."
    The Bill reveals the Government's lack of commercial knowledge; many credit arrangements are at odds with each other. How many suppliers supply goods on terms that do not match the purchasing orders? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, the Bill was introduced to protect small businesses, but I can see it being used to their disadvantage.
    I should like the Minister to tell us what happens when a dominant supplier or purchaser draws up terms that are "considered unfair" for the smaller company. What will be done to protect the small business, which is what the Bill was designed to do? The explanations offered so far show that the Bill is flawed.
    If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, among all those who no doubt will be clamouring to speak on Third Reading, I shall explain how all the aims of the Bill could be achieved by another means in a fraction of the time and at a fraction of the cost. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about how the Bill will protect a small firm against a dominant supplier.
    10.30 pm
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on her move to the shadow Foreign Office. Tonight's debate is almost her swan song in the role of shadow small business Minister. I have very much enjoyed our exchanges across the Dispatch Box and I shall certainly miss them.
    I am not surprised, however, that the hon. Lady has been moved. After all, during one of her first interviews as shadow spokesman, in The Sunday Times on 30 November 1997, she was reported as attacking
    "her own party for losing the small-business vote at the general election. In an extraordinarily candid interview with the Federation of Small Businesses she admitted the Tory Government got its small business strategy wrong. 'Mea culpa,' she said. 'We did not get it right in all areas.'''
    That was surely the understatement of the year. I understand the hon. Lady's embarrassment.
    I appreciated the speeches of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page).
    124
    The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire has always opposed the introduction of a statutory right to interest, as does the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Had his party been brave or foolhardy enough to do so, he would have voted against the Bill on Second Reading—but the Opposition dared not vote against it on Second Reading as they would have appeared to be anti-small business as well as lost the vote.
    The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham is in a very embarrassing position because, when she was first elected, she signed an early-day motion supporting the right to statutory interest. Not merely was she a signatory to it; she was one of the first six names.
    I was startled when the Opposition tabled amendment No.1. After all, it was an Opposition amendment in another place that introduced the very words that it seeks to amend. However, we have come to expect U-turns from the shadow Trade and Industry team, and the hon. Lady has not disappointed us with her parting shot.
    In another place, the Government were convinced by the arguments of Lord Home. In amending the rate of interest we shall take account of all views, if practically possible. Within the Government, we shall certainly wish to consult and be guided by the Treasury on any interest rate.
    In view of amendment No.1, I should not be surprised by amendment No.2, but I am puzzled. It would oblige the Secretary of State to consider, among other factors, whether the rate would lead to dominant firms renegotiating their payment terms to the disadvantage of suppliers. To meet the new criterion wholly, it would be necessary to set the rate at 0 per cent; otherwise, theoretically, there may be the possibility of a dominant firm renegotiating a contract to avoid the interest rate. That is why it is entirely sensible for the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire to urge his party not to vote for the amendment tabled by its Front-Bench team.
    Mr. Forth: The Minister seems to be arguing in a black and white way. We are talking about judgment. There may be an appropriate rate that could be applied and would be broadly accepted as reasonable, but if the rate became penal, dominant suppliers might be driven to renegotiate, as we fear. Surely the Minister will concede that somewhere between those two is the possibility of a rate that would work in most cases without driving companies to renegotiation. Her argument about a rate of 0 per cent. is too absolute. Will she not at least admit a balance of probability?
    Mrs. Roche: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument. That is why we consulted and listened to the Bank of England. In a recent survey conducted by the Midland bank to be published next month, 79 per cent. of those surveyed supported the statutory right to interest, and 77 per cent. said that they would use it. Those who responded knew our proposal for the rate.
    Taken to its logical conclusion, the amendment would result in policy following the lead of those who wanted to avoid its intent, which would be ridiculous.
    Mr. Page: One reason why I urged that the amendment should not be put to a vote is that I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends appreciate its impracticality. Our aim is to ask how the Government are going to protect

    125
    small firms against a dominant supplier or purchaser if it is felt that the terms are becoming unreasonable. The hon. Lady is running around the park without addressing that fundamental question.
    Mrs. Roche: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am addressing the amendment, which was tabled by the Conservatives. Having studied the Bill closely, the hon. Gentleman will know that we have drafted it to protect small firms and prevent companies from contracting out of the legislation. The Bill safeguards the position of small businesses.
    As I have said, I am puzzled by the amendment. In the other place, the Opposition Front-Bench team sought to ensure that the criteria for setting the rate of interest were not set in stone. We were persuaded that we should insert the words, "among other things". The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham has reversed that policy.
    Amendment No. 3 is unnecessary and unhelpful. There is no need to provide an order-making power to amend an order. The order to be made under subsection (1) can be amended simply by making another order under the same subsection. The proposed subsection (4) would prevent the Secretary of State from amending the interest rate for six months after making an order, regardless of any advice that she may have received from business and other representatives. That is not helpful.
    I understand the concerns that have been expressed. It is important that changes to the interest rate are made known effectively and speedily. The Government have worked with trade associations, business representative organisations and the business links network to publicise the Bill and the likely interest rate. As part of the Better Payment Practice Group's campaign to improve the payment culture, we shall highlight the proposals through a publicity campaign.
    Mrs. Gillan: I am pleased that the Minister has dealt with some of my points on this group of probing amendments. How often does she envisage the rate may change? Does she intend to go to the expense of republishing the leaflet every time it changes? For the sake of businesses listening to the debate, she should clarify the mechanism.
    Mrs. Roche: I understand the hon. Lady's points. If she will bear with me for just one moment, I shall deal with them.
    Following—I hope—Royal Assent, I shall publish a user's guide to the Bill, which businesses will be able to obtain free of charge. Members of the Better Payment Practice Group are committed to promulgating that guide. The Department will also write to trade associations and business links to ensure that they are aware of the guide and can inform their members of how they may obtain their free copies. By those means, we can effectively bring to the attention of business the initial interest rate.
    Should it be necessary to change the rate—I am not going to predict at this stage how frequently it will change—we will use similar routes to inform businesses of the change. Incidentally, that same commitment to providing information applies to other orders made under the Bill, such as the commencement orders for the phasing arrangements.
    126
    For the first time, all business representative organisations are sitting down together to do something about improving the culture of late payment—something which the previous Government failed to achieve. I urge the House to oppose the amendments if they are not withdrawn.
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank the Minister for her kind remarks at the beginning of her response to the group of amendments.
    Mr. Clive Betts: It did not last long.
    Mrs. Gillan: I, too, will miss the Minister. I have enjoyed our exchanges across the Dispatch Box, although I have not enjoyed her hackneyed comments. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I wish that she would get some new material; this audience is certainly very tired of it.
    When I signed the early-day motion, I naively thought that statutory interest on late payment of debt might solve the problem and change the culture. It was only when I went into the matter in detail with Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry, and businesses and trade associations, that I realised that the proposal was not a panacea, but yet another burden on business.
    The Minister ought to be embarrassed because, in an interview in Network, she admitted that almost 60 per cent. of lobby groups representing smaller businesses were opposed to a statutory right to interest on late payment of debts. I have nothing to be embarrassed about, but the Minister should be ashamed that she is proposing legislation which, she admits, is not popular among smaller businesses.
    The Minister has not addressed the questions that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have raised; I am certainly not satisfied with the answers. She has ducked the question of how often the interest rate will change. Indeed, it seems that it could change daily. She failed to address the fact that many businesses will be excluded from taking any meaningful part in the consultation process, which she keeps going on about. Such businesses will not be able to exercise the protection afforded by the Bill, particularly against the public sector, so they can hardly be consulted on it.
    The Minister has not even given any indication of how much money will be set aside in the Department to promote the rate of statutory interest for businesses. She says that she will produce the leaflet free of charge; I hope that she has the budget to produce a leaflet as many as 365 times a year. If interest rate changes demand it, that is what she will have to do. She said that she is writing to trade associations and businesses links. I must tell her that not all small businesses are either members of trade associations or have contact with business links. In other words, she is quite prepared to leave a large swathe of small businesses in ignorance or put them to the time, trouble and expense—which can hurt a small business—of finding out what her large Department is proposing.
    It is clear that the Minister has not, and will not, respond well to the amendments. They were tabled as probing amendments to try to elicit decent and healthy responses, which have not been forthcoming. In view of

    127
    the lack of information from the Government, it is not even worth pressing the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 11

    TREATMENT OF ADVANCE PAYMENTS OF THE CONTRACT PRICE
    Mrs. Roche: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 37, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 43 and insert—
    '.—(1) A qualifying debt created by virtue of an obligation to make an advance payment shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as if it was created on the day mentioned in subsection (3), (4) or (5) (as the case may be).
    (2) In this section "advance payment" means a payment falling due before the obligation of the supplier to which the whole contract price relates ("the supplier's obligation") is performed, other than a payment of a part of the contract price that is due in respect of any part performance of that obligation and payable on or after the day on which that part performance is completed.'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 9.
    Mrs. Roche: Following the Committee, we reviewed the Bill to ensure that none of the amendments agreed to had inadvertently caused things to fall outside the Bill that we would wish to be covered. Amendment No. 8 picks up the one issue we have identified. Its purpose is to ensure that the Bill operates on stage payments—that is, interim payments in respect of work actually done.
    During discussions in the other place, the Government tabled an amendment to clarify the operation of clause 4 on the period for which statutory interest runs. Inadvertently, however, that amendment has put stage payments into a state of limbo as they are caught by the definition of an advance payment in clause 11, although the clause does not stipulate from when interest will run.
    10.45
    Rather than invent a rule in clause 11 for genuine stage payments, we think the best approach is to take them out of clause 11 altogether. That is achieved through amendment No. 8. The effect of the amendment is that stage payments, where the payments are for work already done, are dealt with under clause 4(3) and (5) as appropriate.
    Amendment No. 9 is consequential on amendment No. 8. The new wording requires a change in the word structure in clause 11(4). It also serves to remove an element of ambiguity, as the obligation to pay the price is, in one sense, always present in a supply contract. These are technical amendments which improve the scope of the Bill and I commend them to the House.
    Mrs. Gillan: I do not know how long the Minister has been working on the Bill, but she has had at least a year in government. At this late stage, she is still proposing changes under the guise of technical amendments.
    In the other place, the Government tabled no fewer than 52 amendments. In Committee, another five were tabled by the Minister. Tonight, we have two further
    128
    amendments, making a grand total of 59 amendments to what she claims is a well-researched Bill. What is she up to? How can anyone have confidence in a measure that still requires modifications at this stage? I am sick to death of hearing from the Government that everything is under review. Surely by the time they propose legislation, the Government should have made up their mind about what they want to do without having to introduce remedial drafting at every stage in both Houses.
    I understand what the Minister wishes to achieve with the amendments, but what guarantees do we have that she will not find further flaws after the Bill has received Royal Assent? Nothing would surprise me. This is amateurish behaviour. In Committee, I had the impression that the Minister had finished hacking the Bill around. Tonight's performance indicates that, once again, she has decided to move the goalposts, a situation that is much to be regretted and which places another burden on businesses, which are trying to follow the passage of a Bill that has changed almost daily.
    The Minister has said that businesses need a stable environment and a degree of certainty in which to operate. She has made a real pig's ear of the Bill, while failing to listen to any constructive suggestions from the Opposition. I hope that she can tell the House whether, finally, she is satisfied with the Bill or whether there are more surprises in store.
    Mrs. Roche: Oh dear, oh dear! In Committee, I suddenly felt overwhelming sympathy for the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)—for whom I have a great deal of time—because she suddenly seemed to suffer a severe memory lapse about what happened under the previous Government, of which she was a member.
    The hon. Lady rightly wants to ensure that we get the Bill right. We believe that small businesses deserve nothing but the best, which is why we listen and consider. I remind her of what happened during consideration of the Gas Act 1995; on Report, the then Minister for Energy tabled 20 amendments.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) was making a preliminary remark before coming to the point. However, now that she has finished her preliminary remarks, which were not particularly pertinent to the amendment, we do not need to have another debate outside the scope of the amendment.
    Mrs. Roche: I absolutely agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is why I did not mention in my opening remarks the fact that, during consideration of the Education Act 1997, the hon. Lady, as a Minister, tabled on Report the widely criticised amendment No. 65—I knew that you would reproach me if I did.
    I have tabled Government amendment No. 8 to improve the Bill and I commend it to the House.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendment made: No. 9, in page 6, line 9, leave out
    'the obligation to pay it arises'
    and insert 'is payable'.—[Mrs. Roche.]

  Clause 17

    SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
    Mrs. Gillan: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 8, line 5, at beginning insert
    'Subject to subsection (2A) below,'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in page 8, line 5, after 'force', insert—

    '(a) as respects contracts where both the purchaser and the supplier employ more than 50 persons, at the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed; and

    (b) as respects any other contract,'.

    No. 6, in page 8, line 10, at end insert—
    '(2A) The power to make orders under subsection (2) shall not be exercised so as to provide for this Act to come into force, as respects contracts where the purchaser is a government department or a local or public authority, on different dates according to whether the supplier employs more than a prescribed number of persons.'.
    No. 7, in page 8, line 10, at end insert—
    '(2A) Where the power under subsection (2) to make different provision for different purposes is exercised by reference to the number of persons employed by a supplier, the Secretary of State shall publish—

    (a) the criteria used in specifying that number and,

    (b) the steps taken to ascertain whether that number is regarded as appropriate for the purposes of this subsection by persons representing businesses and other commercial undertakings.'.

    Mrs. Gillan: Once again, the amendments have been tabled to allow the Minister to clarify her thinking and to reveal her views on an extremely important part of the Bill's enabling powers—the phasing-in proposals. Sadly, the Minister proposes to prevent a significant proportion of businesses from using the Bill against Government Departments and agencies—the public sector. Businesses employing 50 or more employees will have to wait for four years before they can use the measure in their dealings with Government. In Committee, the Minister gave me the impression that she could change the proposals if she wanted to. However, she then bottled out and ducked the issue, which was of great regret to Conservative Members. I hope that, in tabling the amendments, we have given her a final opportunity to make amends.
    In my discussions with the Forum of Private Business—an organisation with which I know the Minister is familiar—I discovered that it felt aggrieved that she had not responded to my proposals or to its requests. There is a strong case for making the public sector subject immediately after the measure's implementation to payment of interest on all contracts. That is important both because of the trickle-down effect of better payment and because the public sector will largely escape liability until the final phase, as it principally trades with those business that the Minister defines as large—those with 50 or more employees. That does not seem to fit well with the Government's objective of leading the change.
    In Committee, I cited a case in which the company Davall Relays had suffered at the hands of the Meteorological Office—the Meteorological Office
    130
    withdrew a contract when the company asked it to pay within 30 days. I suspect that the Minister will say that the Meteorological Office was operating under the same terms and conditions that applied under the previous Government, but she must realise that the case I mentioned happened under the Labour Government, at a time when she was saying that no one should pay debts late.
    The Minister has done me the courtesy to reply to my letter, although I received her response only at 8.30 pm. I was wondering whether I would receive a response before our considerations tonight, but she replied just in time, which is better than what happens when one writes to some other Government Departments, which take three or four months to reply. I raise the matter as I have yet to be satisfied that the Minister is not, yet again, protecting Government to the disadvantage of smaller businesses—certainly those with 50 or more employees.
    The letter that I received confirmed that the Meteorological Office, when asked for a written undertaking that a payment be made within 30 days, "technically" thought that that constituted a counter-offer to its order, and therefore cancelled the order. The Minister wrote:
    "I understand that the contracts used to purchase items with an order value less than £500"
    that applied to the order that we are discussing—
    "had been in use for many years. It seems, unfortunately, that the Meteorological Office were reluctant to make an isolated change to the long standing standard conditions of their contracts. They therefore withdrew their offer."
    That was at a time when the Government were legislating for statutory interest on late payment of debt, with all the warm words being issued by the Minister and her Department.
    There was light at the end of the tunnel, however. The Minister's letter continued:
    "I am pleased to report that the Meteorological Office has now, in anticipation of enactment of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill, changed the terms of their orders to expressly reflect that they will pay all valid invoices on orders less than £500 within 30 days of receipt of an invoice."
    What of those over £500? Will the Minister tell us now whether she will insist that the Meteorological Office change its terms and conditions to apply to all contracts? If not, I think that business will see that this is a sham. It is appalling that a letter from a Minister who is taking legislation through at this stage should say only that it will apply to another Department for "orders less than £500". I am astounded.
    Mr. Forth: I hope that I am not pre-empting my hon. Friend. Should not the Minister also reassure us that she has reassured herself—in detail—that the Meteorological Office is capable of fulfilling the undertakings given in the letter? Given the expert analysis that our hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) has made repeatedly, I wonder—and I suspect that my hon. Friend may wonder—whether the office is capable of meeting the very tight undertaking that it has given. If not, is that undertaking worth the paper on which it is written?
    Mrs. Gillan: My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, with which I think the Minister will have to deal when she responds. If she does not, serious question marks will remain over the Government.

    131
    Equally important is the danger that, unless the measure is applied to all public sector debts, small businesses—as the Minister has defined them—may face discrimination in public procurement, as purchasing bodies avoid suppliers against whom they could face statutory interest. That is particularly pertinent in the light of the health service's record. More than 2 million bills are paid late by the health service alone, and it would, therefore, be in the interest of another part of Government to adjust its purchasing patterns for the next four years to avoid more expenditure in an area of Government that has already been grossly let down by the present Labour Administration.
    I hope that the Minister will set some targets according to which she can measure the success of the Bill, which in my view is otiose. It has long been feared that the legislation will lead to longer payment periods. I am not aware of anything that will prevent purchaser companies with a dominant position in the market from renegotiating payment terms to run into, for example, 120 days instead of 40 days. That means that the vendor will not get his money more quickly if too high an interest rate is set. Will the Minister now confirm that she expects no supplier to be worse off under the Bill, and will she now undertake to set and monitor the criteria by which her progress can be charted and her warm words can be judged by real commercial standards? I await her response with interest.
    11 pm
    Mr. Brian Cotter: I rise to speak to amendment No. 11, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). As hon. Members will be aware, the Liberal Democrats have long argued for a statutory right of interest on late payment of debts, and we welcome the legislation. However, as is often the case, the devil is in the detail, and our amendment would rectify a glaring error.
    At all stages, the Government have argued that the Bill is for the benefit of small businesses, and is intended to improve the crippling late-payment culture and to begin to put an end to the commercial exploitation of small firms by large firms. The Minister has also argued that the Government should give an example. However, as the Bill stands, large businesses are exempt from the right to charge statutory interest on other large businesses at the initial phase. In fact, large business will not be able to charge large business until the final phase of introduction. Why? Clearly, there is no economic rationale for that aspect of the phasing arrangements. In fact, the arrangements clearly contradict the intentions of the Bill, which are to improve the late-payment culture, specifically for small businesses, and will not enhance those objectives.
    The Government are sending out the wrong message to small businesses in that they are not prepared to make large firms part of the initial phase. A better payment practice between large companies would also have a desirable trickle-down effect on the economy, as the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said. The late-payment culture would be improved, and firms would be encouraged to use better credit management procedures, as was discussed on Second Reading.
    Our amendment would also ensure that government, at all levels, would be liable to pay statutory interest to firms with 50-plus employees—the public sector will
    132
    largely escape liability until the final phase is introduced. That does not seem to accord with the Government's intention, which was to lead the change, and does not provide the example that the Government should be setting. The Minister will acknowledge that she accepted during Trade and Industry questions that the Government's record on payment was not good, so it seems hypocritical of them to put businesses in a position in which they are liable to pay, when they are not prepared to put themselves in a similar position.
    Businesses have had and continue to have problems receiving payment from government at all levels. A colleague produced one example, and I have been assured that the legal aid fraternity is not good at settling bills. I am also greatly concerned about local government. We know that it is under some pressure with regard to financial settlements and that there will be the temptation for it to find all the ways it can in which to hold up payments, with the effect that I described.
    The wait-and-see approach that the Minister seems to be adopting is unsatisfactory. There is a general consensus in support of the phasing arrangements, but there is also a clear feeling that the Government should give an example. Feedback from various business organisations suggests that the current large against large arrangement, particularly the public sector aspect, is inadequate. The Forum of Private Business has conducted discussions on the issue, and seems to be well informed on the Bill. In discussions with representative organisations on the Better Payment Practice Group, it has found strong support for idea that the Government should be brought into the first phase.
    If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, the Liberal Democrats will certainly monitor Government payment practice.
    Mrs. Gillan: Oh gosh.
    Mr. Cotter: We will, indeed. We will name and shame when the opportunity arises, in line with the Government's argument.
    Our significant amendment would weigh the Bill in favour of small businesses. I ask the Minister to consider it seriously.
    Mrs. Roche: As regards amendments Nos. 5 and 6, there was extensive discussion in Committee of possible extension of phasing arrangements to include claims by all businesses against the public sector. As I have said, however, support for the Government's phasing proposals was considerable, as 87 per cent. of the business respondents to our Green Paper who expressed a view supported phasing. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) would surely agree that all small businesses will be able to claim against the public sector immediately the Bill becomes law. What is important about phasing is the opportunity that it gives to small businesses, which suffer most from late payment, to take advantage of the Bill straight away.
    Mrs. Gillan: How many businesses employing fewer than 50 people have contracts with the Government, and how many businesses employing more than

    133
    50 people have such contracts? What percentage of businesses fall into the Minister's categorisations of small and large businesses?
    Mrs. Roche: I can see why the hon. Lady is moving to sunnier climes. Her question exposes her ignorance of the way in which the sector is structured. We are talking about not only direct contracts with the Government, but the whole contractual supply chain. That is why it is important that the phasing arrangements give small businesses the right to take action straight away.
    We shall monitor carefully the effect of the legislation, not least through the payment observatory of the credit management research group at Bradford university, the establishment of which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has welcomed. If there seems to be a need to extend the right to large businesses earlier than we intend at present, we can do so under clause 17(2), after consulting interested parties, including the Better Payment Practice Group. However, given the support for the Government's proposals, I do not feel bound to amend the Bill at this late stage. We shall keep the matter under review.
    The same arguments apply to amendment No. 11, which seeks to extend phasing proposals to allow large businesses to claim against other large businesses from initial commencement. Should experience show that it is desirable to extend that right earlier than currently planned, the Government will do so. I made that clear in Committee, and I repeat it now.
    Mr. Cotter indicated assent.
    Mrs. Roche: I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
    As regards amendment No. 7, we fixed a threshold of 50 or fewer employees to define a small business, because a definition is needed for the initial transitional phases of the legislation, and it is important to small businesses that that definition should be transparent.
    We have set the threshold at 50 employees, which catches all micro-businesses, because we believe that any company employing more than 50 should be able to employ someone to manage the payment of bills. In using 50, we have used one of the limbs of the definition of a small firm in the Companies Act.
    The Government are pursuing other measures to ensure that small businesses, that is, those employing 50 or fewer staff, have the opportunity to develop the skills necessary to manage their payments. Reference has rightly been made to the Forum of Private Business. Its survey of its membership showed that only 29 per cent. of respondents opposed the size criteria.
    I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) for her kind remarks about my speedy response to her inquiry. I am delighted that, in anticipation of the Bill, we have been able to correct a payment practice that had existed in the office concerned for some years under the Government of which she was a member. That shows our commitment.
    Mrs. Gillan: Will the Minister now get to the point and say whether she will insist that the Meteorological Office applies the same new criteria to all bills over £500?
    Mrs. Roche rose— [Interruption.]
    Mrs. Roche: Perhaps the hon. Lady would have the courtesy for one moment to let me answer; I know how
    134
    impatient she is. She knows that all Departments are required to pay their bills within 30 days or as otherwise agreed. I am glad that she gave me the opportunity to point out, through the illustration provided by that case, that the thought of this legislation is biting already. It ill behoves someone who served in the Government of the former Deputy Prime Minister, who boasted about stringing along his creditors and set such a bad example to small business, to criticise this Government. If the amendments are pressed, I urge the House to reject them.
    Mr. Cotter rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot speak a second time. Only the mover of the lead amendment can do so.
    Mrs. Gillan: I am shocked by the Minister's response. It is obvious that she is being blackmailed into her position by her colleagues. She says that she relies on the consultation, which showed that the phasing in was widely supported; but, of course, that consultation was deeply flawed. If she had asked all businesses, "Should all businesses be able to take the protection of this legislation from day one?" they would have replied with a resounding and overwhelming yes in dealing with the public sector. It is obvious that she is seeking to protect other Departments, particularly those with gross late payment records, which may incur large sums of interest by way of penalty. In particular, I am thinking of the Department of Health, which, by the Government's own admission, will pay some 2 million bills late.
    I am very sad that the hon. Lady, who appeared to be cracking in Committee, has been forced back into this position. She is now introducing legislation that discriminates against all firms with more than 50 employees and cuts them off from the very lifeline that she has purported to extend to them. This is a gross abrogation of the duties that she took upon herself in taking on her ministerial duty. I am very disappointed. It is obvious that she cannot move her position, having been forced into it by other Departments—no doubt by Ministers in her Department as well as the Treasury. It seems pointless to ask the House to vote on the amendments, but it remains as my swan-song to this Bill that the Minister has proved to be a deep disappointment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Lady asking leave to withdraw the amendment?
    Mrs. Gillan indicated assent.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would have been helpful if she had said so.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    11.14 pm
    Mrs. Roche: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    It has given me great pleasure to have the honour to pilot the Bill through the House of Commons. As I have said all along, the Bill is a long-overdue measure—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who is to assume a position on

    135
    the shadow Trade and Industry team, should laugh at the Bill, which has been warmly welcomed by small businesses. It does not bode well for his shadow ministerial career; however, I look forward to welcoming him to his new responsibilities at Trade and Industry questions, when he might be in a better frame of mind.
    The Bill is a long-overdue measure to tackle late payment and the genuine harm that it does to small businesses. It is fair to say that small businesses are the lifeblood of the economy. I am happy to be able to provide to our small firms a statutory mechanism that they have wanted for a long time. Some in the House and elsewhere have wondered whether small businesses will be willing to use that mechanism and take up their new right when it becomes available. A recent survey by the Midland bank found that 79 per cent. of businesses support the legislation, and 77 per cent. of small businesses would use it. It is welcome that small businesses are looking forward to the legislation being passed.
    The Bill will recompense creditors who are kept from their money through no fault of their own. It will move the uncertainty regarding cash flow that is usually faced by those who are paid late to those who pay late. The issue of uncertainty is important, and I share the view of the Forum of Private Business that the legislation provides uncertainty for the late payer of the debt. That uncertainty manifests itself in three ways. First, there is the possibility of late payers having to provide a contingent liability in their balance sheets. Secondly, late payers risk facing a demand for statutory interest from receivers of their former late-paid suppliers. Thirdly, those who are paid late will be able to claim statutory interest from notoriously late payers when they retire, or are no longer trading with them.
    As a consequence, businesses will see that, should they pay late, they may be pursued by the creditor, a factoring company, or a debt collection agency that has been assigned that debt; and that that pursuit may take place at any point within the six-year statute of limitation, or other period in Scotland. That is a good reason to pay on time. I am sure that accountants in firms that habitually pay late would rather pay on time than carry such contingent liabilities financial year to financial year.
    As I have stated all along, the Bill provides small businesses and, in the not-too-distant future, all businesses the opportunity to exercise a new right in the fight against late payment. However, the Bill in itself is only one plank of the Government's efforts in that respect. The Government are committed to continuing work in direct partnership with businesses and their representative organisations. We want to ensure, through the provision of quality information and support, that businesses can improve their credit management. We shall also ensure that Government Departments understand that they are to lead by example. That is why Departments will be required to pay within 30 days or as otherwise agreed and why we are committed to publishing payment timetables.
    I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord Clinton-Davis for his efforts in piloting the Bill through another place; and to all my right hon. and hon. Friends who on Second Reading and in Committee so ably assisted the passage of the legislation.
    136
    I take this opportunity also to thank all the business representative organisations that provided an input during the Bill's progress. I thank Stan Mendham of the Forum of Private Business, whose unflagging dedication has been evident to all, certainly to the House.
    The Bill's time has come. It will be warmly welcomed by the business community, particularly small businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. I commend it to the House.
    11.19 pm
    Mr. Page: Despite the Minister's brave words just now, as the Bill made progress in Committee, we could see dawning on her face the appreciation that the Bill was slipping into the category of "It seemed a good idea at the time".
    The weaknesses of the measure became more and more apparent and we could see why all but one of the small firms' organisations said no to the statutory right of interest. The one that said yes was the smallest and the noisiest. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) exposed on Second Reading why that organisation concluded that the Bill would be a good thing: the survey was carried out in such a way that the answer could only be yes, yes and yes. When those small firms realise that they will still have to go to court and plough through legislation, there will be a group of disillusioned small business men and women.
    The Minister has behaved in a courteous and friendly fashion. Courtesy is not universally noted among the Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry, but she is a pleasant exception. She has loyally plodded on, but she has dodged a number of questions. I do not blame her for doing so. If I were in her shoes and I were being asked those questions, I, too, would dodge them. However, even at this last stage, those questions should be put to her again.
    Conservative Members asked about the methods for calculating the interest rate above the base rate. Having read clause 6, we were left with the image of the Secretary of State with a wet towel around her head, drinking black coffee and doing abstruse calculations to make sure that they picked the right figure. When we asked to see those calculations and the basis on which they were made, there was nothing—not a sausage. We discovered that the draft European Union directive being debated happened to use the figure of 8 per cent. above the base rate as the measure. That could well be a coincidence, and I would be prepared to accept that if we could see the calculations that led to that figure, which exactly matches that in the draft EU directive. That is a coincidence too far.
    The Minister has dodged the request by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who has so ably led us in the proceedings on the Bill, for examples of how the Bill's success will be measured. Not a single idea has been put forward to explain how we will examine whether the measure has been a success. Of course, examples will be produced to show how company A took company B through the process and obtained a statutory right of interest. Apart from the fact that there will be a little more interest, that could, and would, have happened under the existing system.
    I should be interested to see whether the Forum of Private Business, which has so valiantly championed the cause for a number of years, will be prepared in three or

    137
    four years to survey its members to discover whether they feel that the statutory right of interest has been of benefit to them. It should leave aside the fast-track procedures when they are eventually decided by the Lord Chancellor and the extra rate of interest and let them give an accurate answer to the question whether the statutory right of interest has been of advantage to them. I have a strong feeling that the boxes towards the insignificant end will be given most attention.
    The Minister dodged the fact, which was covered in an amendment tabled in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, that the Scottish Parliament will be able to amend the legislation. It is worrying that, on each side of Hadrian's wall, legislation may be interpreted and operated differently. That is not the way to maintain a united kingdom. Does Labour want a united kingdom?
    The Minister dodged the question why the Government should not give a lead. She gave some reasons for the Government's view, but they do not add up. The Government should lead by example. They should not cower behind and come in at the last possible stage. The Minister dodged two or three times the question of what the Government will do if perceived unfair terms and conditions are imposed by a dominant purchaser or supplier. There has not been a whisper from the Government about what they will do in such circumstances. The Minister will not have to dodge such questions for much longer, because the Bill is in its final stage.
    The Minister used some fine words about the break point of 50 employees, but the reason for choosing 50 is peculiar, and the calculation that led to it is not clearly understood by all hon. Members, not least by me. Why will she not adopt the European draft directive which, in the case quoted, uses the sum of 20,000 euros as the basis for court action or for operating a statutory right to interest? That is a matter for the future.
    We all agree that the Bill will regularise credit terms. However, even the Minister is starting to accept that it will not be surprising if credit terms for small businesses lengthen rather than shorten. All that the Bill tries to achieve could have been achieved by a better fast-track procedure in the small claims court, which is what has been promised. The Lord Chancellor is working on that, but he is rather like Dr. Who, because now and again he goes into the Tardis and comes out reborn and reinvigorated. The latest one popped out on 1 May and has promised that there will be a better fast-track procedure in the small claims court. That is the best way to help small firms to collect outstanding debts.
    The Bill is unnecessary. Guidance could be given to a court on the amount to be charged over baseline interest, and the court could be told that it should be higher than the current 3 per cent. In time, small firms will realise that they still have to go through procedures and go to court and that the companies that they are pressing for late payment have a right of reply. The 77 per cent. of companies that say, "This is what we want, this is right and we support it," will rapidly dwindle to a much smaller percentage.
    The Minister made an inaccurate statement, I am sure inadvertently, to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. She chided my hon. Friend for a memory lapse, but I remind the Minister that the previous
    138
    Government got all parties in the small business sector to sit down together. The previous Prime Minister launched at 10 Downing street "Your Business Matters". The list of attendees—I have been writing them down—is impressive. Apart from representatives of all the small firm organisations, the Governor of the Bank of England, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, representatives of the four clearing banks, several senior civil service officials and even the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy were there. After that, regional meetings were held throughout the country and a final meeting took place at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, where many measures to help small businesses in the payment sector were brought forward. I remind the Minister that this unity is not exclusive to her and to her Government. I was glad that all sectors of the business community combined to try to tackle the serious aspect of late payment.
    What will go through today pales into insignificance against what has happened over the previous few years. What is being done to make Government set an example in payment on time is absolutely correct. Making large firms state payment policy and payment practice in their accounts is a positive move in the right direction. The endorsement of the prompt payment CBI code was again the right move. The British standard on payment policy has real teeth, the only real teeth that I can see. If a company that has signed up to the British standard does not pay on time, trading standards officers can go in. Apart from training through business links, on which I know the hon. Lady is working—I am glad that she is—the other matter on which the previous Government should be commended is the removal of the iniquitous pay-when-paid system. Many small businesses and subcontractors welcome the passing of such an iniquitous operation. That is a roll-call of honour of which every Conservative Member can be proud.
    To sum up the Bill, I can do no better than quote one of the four clearing banks. When asked for its views, it said, "This won't work, but it might help to change the culture." Let us hope that it does, because this is a very expensive and tedious method of achieving very little.
    11.32 pm
    Mr. Cotter: I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on introducing it. Unlike my Opposition colleagues, I believe that, in the round, the uncertainty of late debt should be reversed following the Bill and that the culprits of the crippling problem of debt will find the boot on the other foot; so I congratulate the Government and, at the same time, hope that they have taken on board various points that have been made by me and colleagues nearby.
    The American writer Dorothy Parker once said that the two most beautiful words in the English language were "cheque enclosed". We hope that that will be heard much more in future. The statement will have a powerful and, I hope, true meaning when the Bill is implemented. Many businesses will have the right to break free from the late payment millstone which has hung around their necks and, in many cases, ruined their businesses. Small businesses in particular depend on tight budgeting to realise investment and to advance their projects. The Bill will help to create a better payment culture, providing a stick as well as a carrot.

    139
    Over the next few years, it will be exciting to see how the Bill progresses. In that connection, I welcome the Minister's commitment to monitoring and to accepting the need for the Government to produce annual reports on their record.
    I am concerned about some local authorities. Many of them have clear guidelines and procedures for payment. Bradford council has a computer system that is programmed as a matter of policy to pay bills on time automatically. I hope that others will follow that example.
    Concerns have been expressed by the Forum of Private Business. Discussions have been held in the past few days on the problem of parties sidestepping or avoiding paying interest as a result of subsequent actions. I understand that that has been considered carefully and that the Minister is satisfied that the issue will be covered. I hope so.
    I should not like to conclude without referring to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who has taken a strident part in the debate. I wish her much success in her new role. There was a worrying moment in Committee when she referred to fish being used for payment. I had an awful vision of fish being overdue and being dead and rather smelly. I was concerned about what state the fish would be in when it came to the two fish required to provide the interest.
    Mrs. Gillan: Tinned fish.
    Mr. Cotter: Tinned fish may be more acceptable. The hon. Lady threw fresh light on the expression COD—cash on delivery. I wish her well in the future. I also thank the Minister for ably conducting these proceedings and for courageously pushing ahead with the Bill, which I warmly welcome on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I believe that it will provide a solution for small businesses, which has been long overdue.
    11.36 pm
    Mr. Forth: I am almost as worried about legislation by survey as I am about legislation by referendum. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) said, it depends on the question that is asked. If people are asked, "Do you want a better life? Would you like life to be more pleasant? Would you like the Government or legislation to relieve you of your problems?" the odds are that they will say yes. According to the Minister, many bodies that claim to be representative have tended to say yes to these simplistic questions. I doubt whether their response would be the same if they were asked, "If penal rates of interest were to be introduced for late payments, would you like dominant purchasers to renegotiate their contract with you such that the payments would be even later than they already are?"
    As ever, the answer depends on the question. Whether we are dealing with legislation by referendum or legislation as a result of a survey, the danger is that we may mislead innocent people into believing that a legislative wand can be waved over their problem to make it disappear. By asking the wrong question, we are likely to get the wrong answer and to legislate in the wrong way, resulting in disillusionment.
    We have tried over and again to persuade the Minister of this danger, but she has not yet been persuaded. I suspect that we are unlikely to do so at this stage of the
    140
    legislative process. I have this dream that she will rise at the end of Third Reading and seek to withdraw the Bill, but that is unlikely. The Government should take much more care, because they are increasingly resorting to the seductive technique of survey or referendum. They ask simplistic questions and receive, unsurprisingly, positive answers. They then cite that as proof positive that the legislation has widespread support and will therefore succeed.
    I will not try to emulate the analysis offered by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire of how this impractical legislation is supposed to take effect. We have already heard this evening undertakings to the effect that public bodies will make payments of invoices within 30 days. I doubt whether anyone, public or private, has the mechanisms to guarantee that. How many organisations of any size, public or private, have in place the procedures to enable them to pay at that speed? The danger, then, is that—without a renegotiation of terms of trade—nearly everyone will become liable to the penalties specified in the Bill.
    Herein lies the danger: we are threatening to penalise people for acting in a perfectly normal and respectable way. That means running the risk that a number of businesses will seek to renegotiate their terms with their suppliers to avoid the penalties introduced by the Bill. That, in turn, will mean even later payments than are the norm now. I sincerely hope that that backlash will not follow enactment of the Bill; I fear that it may, however.
    Mr. Page: My right hon. Friend is powerfully putting the point that no company can run a monthly credit system for each individual article purchased during the month. To do so would wipe out the whole purpose of a monthly account.
    Mr. Forth: I agree, of course: my hon. Friend understands how business works. Regrettably, all too few of those involved in drawing up the Bill share his understanding. It is impossible to imagine businesses completing each and every invoice as an individual item, with no cut-off point, standard procedure, or mechanism of the kind that any efficient business must have.
    My hon. Friend and I both know—it would seem that no one in the Government does—that the assumptions underlying the Bill are quite impractical and will ultimately lead to the destruction of its aims.
    For reasons not yet satisfactorily explained—very little about the Bill has been—we are asked to accept that Government Departments will be treated much more leniently than the private sector; there is also an arbitrary cut-off point for numbers of employees. That, too, will lead to anomalies in the implementation of the legislation. We have made that point time and again and received but scant explanation in reply.
    There has been little understanding—uncharacteristically—by the Minister. We are left at this late stage of the Bill's progress with a large number of unanswered questions which are germane to the purposes and effects of the measure. Because those questions have not been answered, doubts must have been sown in the minds of those involved in business—large or small, representative or practicing—who must by now be extremely concerned lest the Bill prove to be counter-productive.

    141
    Far from protecting the interests of small businesses, this legislation could harm businesses in general, and possibly small businesses more than most. It would be tragic if that were to be the outcome of the Bill's passing into law.
    I give these warnings not with a sense of joy but with a sense of foreboding. I hope that I am proved wrong, but I fear that if the Government persist in basing legislation on answers to fatuous questions asked in superficial surveys, this is the kind of legislation that will result. If, during the legislation's passage through this House and the other place, we do not receive satisfactory answers from Ministers, perhaps it is because we are failing in our purpose—perhaps we have not kept the Minister here long enough, grilling and questioning her, or perhaps we have not tabled sufficient amendments, probing and substantive. If that is the case, we may have learnt our lesson this time, and perhaps next time we shall be much more rigorous in our approach. In any event, there are lessons to be learned by all of us.
    I hope that, even at this late stage, we may have got the Minister to think rather more carefully about the approach that she and her Department will take to legislation, and that the lessons learned from this Bill are not borne by the very businesses that it was designed to help.
    11.45 pm
    Mrs. Gillan: We have certainly had an interesting Third Reading debate, and I have no intention of repeating the excellent points made by right hon. and hon. Friends.
    I make it clear at the outset that there is no difference between Conservatives and the Government in so far as we do not support the late payment of debt. However, the Minister has not justified the legislation or even thought it through sufficiently. I think that she latched on to what she thought was a good idea to validate her new business-friendly credentials and pursued legislation that she herself has admitted was not supported by 60 per cent. of the organisations representing small businesses. Indeed, just before the Government came to power, I believe that the current Prime Minister received a letter from the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of Small Businesses outlining their opposition to the measure.
    During the Bill's passage, the Minister has failed even to refer to the remedies introduced by the previous Government in an attempt to change the culture of late payment. Instead, she has sought to gain notoriety from legislating, rather than putting in a sustained effort. In short, she has manoeuvred the legislation to provide excess protection for her friends in other Departments.
    I do not know whether you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the Minister are familiar with the Anglo-Irish poet Jonathan Swift who, in 1709, wrote:
    "Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies,
    but let wasps and hornets break through."
    However, during the Bill's passage, the Minister has certainly taken Swift to heart by allowing the Government, or the hornets and wasps, to remain a protected contractor for four years, while condemning the
    142
    small flies—businesses with 50 or more employees—to the wilderness, without the protection of this legislation to fall back on when they deal with the public sector.
    It was a Conservative Government who started the publication of Government Departments' payment records. Although the Minister tried to make cheap points in Committee, it was under a Conservative Government that improvements in the timeliness of payment by the Government were evidenced. Just as the minimum wage was not set during the passage of the National Minimum Wage Bill, thus hampering discussion on that Bill, the results of payment records under the present Government were not made available to the House to enable us to judge the progress that they have made. How much better it would have been if those records had been available and if the Minister could have persuaded her colleagues to guarantee timely payment to all suppliers, thus leading by example.
    It does not surprise me that the records were not made available. The responsibility of the Government is to govern and, in those terms, we do not seem to have a Government at all. When they are not delegating to others—for example, decisions on interest rates or the level of the minimum wage—they are pretending to be sympathetic to everyone and saying that they will carry out a review. Many of those reviews have been outstanding for more than 12 months.
    In this case, however, the Government decided to govern. They promised to establish interest on late payments. What do we find? They have tabled amendments to their own Bill at every stage. We have to be sceptical about the effects of this convoluted legislation, which is hardly likely to be understood by the small companies that are to benefit. So much was admitted by the Minister, who will be sending out explanatory leaflets, but we did not expect the Government to have second, third and fourth thoughts about their own measure.
    We are not confident that the Bill will produce the benefits that the Minister claims, but of course we hope that it does not cause the damage that we have outlined and for which there is so much potential. The House will appreciate that if one payment period is extended, the Minister will have failed.
    The Conservative party believes in supporting small businesses, so we shall not oppose the Bill at this stage. In summary, the Government make a lot of sympathetic noises towarfds businesses, but continue to heap greater burdens on them. Businesses already face a tax bill of more than £25 billion during the lifetime of the Government. In addition, they have to contend with the minimum wage, the working time directive, union recognition, paternity leave, works councils, the introduction of the euro and the fact that manufacturing industry is now officially in recession. Like a leopard, the Government never change their spots.
    It is with great pleasure that I hand over the mantle for this brief to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I am sure that he will continue to argue, as I do, that all Labour Governments are bad for business.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Thursday 4th June, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mrs. Ann Taylor relating to Modernisation of the House of Commons not later than Ten o'clock and such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.—[Mr. Betts.]

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

  FISHERIES MONITORING UNDER THE COMMON FISHERIES POLICY
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6123/98, a Commission Communication on Fisheries monitoring under the Common Fisheries Policy; also notes that the Communication builds on an undertaking given by the Commission to the Prime Minister at the Amsterdam European Council in June 1997; and endorses action being taken by the Government to secure more effective and consistent standards of enforcement across the Community.— [Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.

HUMAN RIGHTS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the Human Rights Bill [Lords].

HUMAN RIGHTS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

  Committee of the whole House
  1. (1) The remaining proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be completed in four allotted days and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the fourth of those days.
  (2) On each such allotted day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for any part of the period of six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock.

Business Committee
2. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
3. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken, but the resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings
4. For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by or under this Order:—
(1) The Chairman shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others):—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;

(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided though opposed, at any hour.
(3) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved on Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, or under sub-paragraph (1)(d) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments, Motions or provisions.
(4) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(5) If on an allotted day a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day or to Seven o'clock—

(a) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion, and

(b) paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for the period after Ten o'clock for which sub-paragraph (a) permits them to continue.

Supplementary
5. If a Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to amend this Order and if an effect of the Motion would be to provide a greater amount of time for proceedings on the Bill, the Question on that Motion shall be put forthwith and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
6. If a Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown to supplement the provisions of this Order in respect of further proceedings on the Bill, the Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, at any hour and proceedings on the Motion, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three-quarters of an hour after they have been commenced.

Interpretation
7. In this Order "allotted day" means any day on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day.—[Mr. Betts.]

Strathclyde Police (Racism)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
11.51 pm
Ms Sandra Osborne: I welcome the opportunity to represent my constituent, Mr. Lawrence Ramadas. I also believe that the issues that I am about to raise have wider significance in relation to the race relations policy of Strathclyde police and the message that the general public can take from the case.
Thirteen years ago, Lawrence Ramadas joined Strathclyde police and was proud to be a police officer. He believed that he had a great future with the police. His ambition was to join the traffic department, but, despite passing sergeant and inspector promotion exams within four years of becoming a police constable, producing consistently good results in his annual appraisals and continually applying for positions, the extremely promising young officer was never transferred off the beat despite applying six times to the traffic department.
Lawrence Ramadas is a personable, intelligent and articulate young man who would be a credit to any force, but instead, 13 years after joining the police, he is homeless, jobless, virtually broke and his health has suffered. At one point, Mr. Ramadas lost his self-respect, but he has certainly gained my respect and that of many others in his tireless quest for justice.
On 11 February 1997, an industrial tribunal found that Lawrence Ramadas had been subjected to one of the worst forms of discrimination. He was discriminated against by Strathclyde police—and by Superintendent Gordon Macpherson in particular—because of the colour of his skin.
Many people may believe that if Strathclyde police were serious about their much-vaunted race relations policy and determined not to tolerate racism in the ranks, they would have apologised to Mr. Ramadas immediately and compensated him for his trauma and for the destruction of every facet of his life. Instead, Strathclyde police appealed and lost. Their lawyers applied almost immediately to overturn the ruling on the technicality that the claim was brought after the legal deadline.
Racism cannot be confined to individual acts. It is a process whioh leaves victims disabled, disempowered and vulnerable. That is not well understood in the tribunal or police procedures. I ask the Minister to consider the time bar. It is not easy to determine when an episode of racism began or ended.
A few weeks ago, the tribunal ruled
"with a considerable amount of regret"
that the time bar ruling applied and that no compensation could be awarded to Lawrence Ramadas. It added that the treatment meted out to Lawrence Ramadas was
"extremely serious with devastating effects"
and "an abuse of power". It concluded:
"It is frustrating for the tribunal to be unable to compensate him adequately."
Those on the tribunal could hardly have been more damning in their condemnation or have expressed their views more clearly. That there had been racism was established without doubt.
146
Alas, the almost gloating reaction of the chief constable of Strathclyde, as reported in The Scotsman on 10 April, was:
"By virtue of the tribunal's adjudication upholding the time bar argument, the force has averted any award of damages from the police budget impacting on front-line service to the public."
That statement constitutes blatant and institutional racism. It is an insulting response which almost beggars belief. Strathclyde police remain guilty of racism, but managed to avoid recompensing a man whose life they have ruined because of a technicality—and they believe that they should be congratulated for so doing.
The chief constable pontificates that he will not tolerate racism, while in the same breath condoning proven racism, the tackling of which figures low in his priorities given his comments about saving public money. I wonder how much public money the police have spent to date on defending the indefensible.
After the findings of the first tribunal, the deputy chief constable, Mr. Richardson, announced that he had commissioned an independent inquiry into a breach of police discipline regulations. On Wednesday 26 February, Mr. Ramadas was interviewed by the investigating officer of the inquiry—Assistant Chief Constable MacKay—in the presence of his solicitor. At the outset, he was informed by Assistant Chief Constable MacKay that his sole remit was to investigate breaches of the police discipline regulations and that it had nothing to do with the industrial tribunal. I concur with that view.
However, Mr. Richardson deferred making a decision on possible disciplinary proceedings until the outcome of the employment tribunal was known, in spite of the police inquiry's recommendation that there was a case to answer. Mr. Richardson seems to want to have it both ways.
Surely the police discipline code and industrial tribunal legislation are quite separate entities under the law. The fact that Lawrence Ramadas has sought recourse to justice from an industrial tribunal surely does not absolve Strathclyde police of their responsibility as employers. In this case, however, Strathclyde police appear to have shirked their responsibility to make a decision on the independent report that they commissioned, and it appears that the decision whether to proceed with a discipline case is dependent on the outcome of an employment appeals tribunal.
Such a course of action cannot be correct or justified, and, in practice, means that the progress or otherwise of a discipline case is, de facto, being decided by an employment appeals tribunal. What if the employment appeals tribunal had decided that racist discrimination had not occurred? After some considerable time, would Strathclyde police have also decided that there was no case to answer? It is not surprising that Lawrence Ramadas believes that, by continually deferring a decision on the independent report, Strathclyde police were hoping that the whole sad episode would simply go away or be quietly forgotten, and that the perpetrator of the abuse would remain in a highly paid job and retire on a substantial pension, while the victim of his abuse is jobless, homeless and almost penniless, and cannot get another job the moment that he explains why he left the police service.
After various false starts, a date has been set for a disciplinary hearing. Apparently, the hearing was set for 4 February 1998, but was delayed until April at the

147
request of the perpetrator's solicitor, who has sought a judicial review, challenging the competence of the chief constable to raise disciplinary proceedings. That has meant, of course, that the whole process has again ground to a halt, and it may be September before a disciplinary hearing is heard—depending on the result of the judicial review. The Tayside report recommending action was published in May 1997.
I have here a copy of Strathclyde police race relations policy. According to the chief constable, it is written with a view to dealing with racially motivated incidents that breach the criminal, not the civil, law. In other words, if the racially motivated incident is in-house, it will not be brought to public attention. If that is so, can any officer subject a colleague to racism with impunity because it is a civil and not a criminal offence?
The Lawrence Ramadas case is a clear example that the system is not working. It neither reflects an understanding of the structural causes of racism nor demonstrates a coherent practice based on sound equal opportunities policies for dealing with it. Nor is it equitable in giving access to witnesses and documentation—both of which were denied my constituent's solicitor. I therefore call on the Minister to initiate an investigation, outwith the police authorities, on the handling of the case, to consider where procedures can be improved and to ensure that justice prevails for Lawrence Ramadas. He seeks an acknowledgement of guilt, an apology and compensation for loss of earnings after 12 years' service in the police, damage to health, homelessness and the hurt, distress and trauma caused by the horrendous process.
I am not alone in my belief that the outcome to date has been unsatisfactory. I shall quote Mr. James Wylie, who was until recently office manager of the Scottish Police Federation in Glasgow and formerly a police officer for 30 years:
"I have worked for the Police for the last 39 years and generally thought highly of the service and the way in which it was run. This case has almost completely destroyed my faith in the service (at least at a senior level) and I would earnestly reiterate that some form of independent inquiry should be set up to examine the actions of Strathclyde Police senior management in this case. Surely someone, somewhere must be able to make Mr. Orr and his force accountable and responsible for the racism perpetrated against Lawrence Ramadas or does justice grind to a halt at the entry doors of Police Headquarters in Pitt Street?"
A petition is circulating in Scotland calling for compensation and a resolution to this case.
Lawrence Ramadas was a model police officer and an example to others. It may interest the House to know that there is still an appalling lack of representation from the ethnic minority community as far as police recruitment is concerned. In 1996, Scotland's eight forces had 40 ethnic minority recruits, only two of whom have been promoted to sergeant. Of 9,187 workers in the Strathclyde force, 33 officers and 17 support staff come from ethnic minority communities.
The race relations policy of the force states:
"Recruitment of police and force support personnel from black and ethnic minority communities will continue to be a priority of Strathclyde Police, which, as an employer, seeks to create a harmonious and productive working environment by adhering to a well-established and continuously reviewed equal opportunities policy."
148
This did not work for Mr. Ramadas.
Mr. Ramadas was a model police officer and an example to others. On numerous occasions, he was paraded for the cameras and the press as an example of the positive measures Strathclyde police were taking to tackle racism and to recruit more officers from ethnic minority communities. However, Lawrence Ramadas now has no job. He had no equity and he had no justice. Strathclyde police have won an Investors in People award. Mr. Ramadas is not impressed by that award.
Strathclyde police, as a public service, represent the state and, in particular, the upholding of the law as part of the criminal justice process. They also have a duty to uphold a moral and civil message that racism is not acceptable. I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's comments, and I urge him to look at the situation as a matter of urgency.
12.6 am
The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) on her success in securing this debate and on the manner in which she has outlined her case. The House will, I am sure, agree that racism should have no place in the Scotland of today, least of all in the police. We must value the unique contribution made to our society by each individual, regardless of background, race or creed. Any incident with a racist element—wherever or whenever it happens—is a matter for deep regret, and we must do everything in our power to prevent such incidents from occurring. When they do occur, any alleged wrong must be confronted and firm action taken.
The incident concerning my hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Lawrence Ramadas, took place almost six years ago. The industrial tribunal that considered his case did not suggest that the force as a whole was racist; its conclusion related to the actions of one officer, Superintendent Gordon Macpherson, for whom the force was held responsible.
As soon as the tribunal announced its decision in February 1997, the deputy chief constable commissioned an independent inquiry by Mr. James MacKay, assistant chief constable of Tayside police. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that such prompt action does not suggest any complacency on behalf of the force.
Strathclyde police also decided to appeal against the tribunal's decision, on legal advice, on the basis that given the complexity and length of the evidence presented over 12 days, the industrial tribunal's reasoning did not, in the force's view, support its conclusions. Mr. MacKay's report was completed in May 1997, but no action was taken pending the appeal.
The appeal was rejected in December 1997. Following the outcome of the appeal—and in the light of the recommendations in Mr. MacKay's report—Strathclyde police initiated disciplinary proceedings against Superintendent Macpherson in December 1997, with a hearing being scheduled for February 1998. At that point, however, Superintendent Macpherson began legal proceedings in the Court of Session to prevent the hearing. A judicial review of the deputy chief constable's decision to pursue disciplinary proceedings against Superintendent Macpherson is to be heard in July.

149
Subject to the outcome of the judicial review, Strathclyde police have made a provisional arrangement for the disciplinary hearing to take place in September. The deputy chief constable of Strathclyde police has arranged for Queen's Counsel to present the case against Superintendent Macpherson, and the chairman of the disciplinary hearing will be the chief constable of Lothian and Borders police, Mr. Roy Cameron.
As the incident took place several years ago, the discipline case will be taken under the Police (Discipline) (Scotland) Regulations 1967, as amended—the procedure which was current at the time. It will be for the disciplinary hearing under Mr. Cameron to determine whether Superintendent Macpherson was guilty of an offence under the 1967 Regulations. A variety of punishments, ranging from caution to dismissal from the force, may be imposed. The procedure includes a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against the finding and against any punishment imposed as a result of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing. I regret that, in the circumstances, I cannot comment further on the case—to do so could prejudice the role of the Secretary of State in any appeal.
Although I understand my hon. Friend's frustration, I do not think that it would be fair to blame Strathclyde police for the fact that the case has been so protracted. It is important that the proper procedures are followed. I am satisfied that current police disciplinary and conduct arrangements in Scotland are working. A major review of the complaints and discipline system in Scotland was conducted in 1996, resulting in new conduct regulations. The new regulations provide more flexibility in the way in which misconduct by officers can be dealt with and increase the range of disposals available. I am, of course, aware of the recent Home Affairs Committee report on police disciplinary and complaints procedures in England and Wales. I shall consider, in consultation with the police, whether any of its recommendations that we have not already covered need to be introduced in Scotland. My hon. Friend makes a valid point in saying that we should carefully consider any ways in which we can improve procedures.
Having referred to the case of Mr. Ramadas and explained why I cannot comment more fully in the light of the proposed disciplinary hearing, I shall set out in more general terms the approach of the Scottish police service to ensure fair treatment and opportunities for all its officers. I hope that I shall be able to demonstrate to my hon. Friend's satisfaction that significant strides have been taken in the past five years.
I assure my hon. Friend that the police in Scotland are very conscious of their responsibility to avoid racism within the service and to promote equal opportunities. In 1993, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary carried out an inspection of equal opportunities in the Scottish police. The report of the inspection concluded that all forces were taking the issue of equal opportunities very seriously. The inspectorate continues to examine equal opportunities during its regular inspections of police forces. The most recent report on Strathclyde police, which was published only last year, found that the force upheld its commitment to promote equal opportunities throughout its internal procedures.
In 1987, Strathclyde police launched their race relations policy, which was aimed at enhancing the already good relations between black and ethnic communities and the
150
force. In July of last year, the chief constable of Strathclyde police published an updated race relations policy. Work on the revised policy took nearly a year to complete; it took account of a number of points of good practice that had been raised by local black and ethnic community representatives, and included consultation with police forces south of the border.
The policy mainly concerned the force's relations with the public. However, it also confirmed the force's commitment to equal opportunities for all its staff. That makes it clear that Strathclyde police are committed to equality in employment and service. Freedom from harassment or victimisation on racial grounds is an important part of the policy. All officers in Strathclyde police are expected to demonstrate their commitment to those equal opportunity principles in their relations with their colleagues at every level. In addition to that strengthened commitment, the force re-emphasised the importance of its programme of racial awareness training for its officers.
Strathclyde police's race relations policy states clearly that the force is opposed to racism. As my hon. Friend said, that is right, and I reinforce her comments. It goes on to say that the force will prepare its officers to provide a quality service to ethnic minority communities. The force records and monitors reports of racially motivated attacks to ensure that they are investigated thoroughly. Strathclyde police are committed to working with ethnic minorities to develop a mutual understanding of concerns. The force seeks to inform minority communities of its commitment to equality of service and encourages them to seek the assistance of the police with confidence. The police also undertake to enhance community safety. Progress in ensuring equality of service is monitored at the highest level in the force, and action will be taken to resolve any difficulties that emerge.
In 1996–97, 206 racial incidents were reported to Strathclyde police; in 1997–98, the number rose alarmingly to 481, an increase of 233 per cent. I believe that, in large part, that reflects the public's increased confidence in the reinforced procedures that the force has adopted.
I do not think that those figures reflect a force that is prepared to tolerate racism in its ranks. To do so would hardly be consistent with the force's overall aim of delivering the highest possible standards of service to the people of Strathclyde. More generally, the force places great emphasis on the quality of its personnel policies. As my hon. Friend said, Strathclyde police force received the prestigious Investors in People award, and was the first police force in Britain to do so.
Strathclyde, like all Scottish forces, is keen for its officers to be drawn from all sections of society and has taken steps to encourage applications to join the force from members of ethnic minorities. In 1994, it was one of the first forces in Britain to develop and implement a strategic framework for action aimed at increasing the number of black and ethnic minority recruits. Specifically, the framework for action provided a target to increase the number of officers from black and ethnic backgrounds from 0.2 to 0.5 per cent. of its strength over a five-year period. By the end of 1996–97, the number of ethnic minority officers in Strathclyde stood at just under 0.5 per cent., with another two years to achieve its five-year target.

151
All applicants from ethnic minorities are allowed to sit the entrance test for appointment to the force. Access courses are provided at further education colleges to help ethnic minority candidates to prepare for their application to sit the standard entrance test. The innovative policy implemented by Strathclyde police was recognised by the Commission for Racial Equality and was commented on in the 1996 report on race and equal opportunities in the police service.
Overall, the Scottish police service has a good record in policy and practice on equal opportunities, although, as my hon. Friend says, that is never a matter for complacency. If there can be an improvement in the quality of service given to the community—and, indeed, in internal procedures in the service—that must always be a high priority for the chief constable.
In the Scottish police service, training in racial awareness is provided for all new recruits at the Scottish police college at Tulliallan. It continues both at the college and in forces as officers progress to the senior ranks. Race relations policies are increasingly being developed in consultation with local racial equality councils. Forces also cover race relations policy in their community safety strategies, and throughout Scotland there are various examples of good practice.
I reiterate my and the Government's view that racism cannot be tolerated in the police or elsewhere in society. Strathclyde's chief constable and his seven colleagues in Scotland share that view. While it is impossible to be sure that isolated incidents will never take place, I believe that the Scottish police have made substantial efforts to develop a culture that minimises racial discrimination.
The Government believe that Scotland benefits from being a multicultural society and that we should cherish our ethnic diversity. The Government have a clear commitment to racial equality and to taking steps to ensure that it is at the heart of Government policy.
152
We do not underestimate for one minute the problems that racism poses for society, and we are taking steps to address it. One of those steps is the action that we are taking to combat racist crime. The Crime and Disorder Bill, which is in Committee in this House, will introduce a new offence of racially aggravated harassment. It will also require the courts, when sentencing an offender who has committed a racially aggravated crime, to treat that racial aggravation as an aggravating factor when deciding on sentence.
Those measures were decided on following consultation involving many organisations representing victims and possible victims of racist crimes. The measures will improve the protection of the public and reinforce the right of all people in Scotland to live a life free from crime. They will address all levels of racist crimes. In every case where a racist element is proved, the courts must take that into consideration when sentencing. It is important that everyone—victim, police, public and offender—is left in no doubt that racist crimes are wholly unacceptable in Scotland and that perpetrators will be dealt with accordingly.
The Government have given their finn commitment to a fair and just society in which all individuals, whatever their race or ethnic origin, have equal rights. Racial discrimination is manifestly harmful and unjust to its victims and to Britain as a whole. The Government are fully committed to eliminating racial discrimination, whether in the police service or anywhere else.
My hon. Friend will understand my inability to go into further detail about the personal case she has raised, but I wanted to extend my discourse to show that we deplore racism, which is an abhorrence in our society and I repeat that, whether it be in the police or in society, this Government want to stamp it out.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Twelve midnight.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants work in the Better Regulation Department; and how many of them previously worked in the Deregulation Unit. [43732]

  Dr. David Clark
  Currently, 40 civil servants work in the Better Regulation Unit. This number includes 17 civil servants who previously worked in the Deregulation Unit.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many members of the Better Regulation Task Force are representatives of(a) business, (b) enforcement agencies and (c) consumer and other non-Government organisations; and if he will publish a comparable breakdown for the composition of the Deregulation Task Force in April 1997. [43625]

  Dr. David Clark
  I appointed 15 members of the Better Regulation Task Force in September 1997 and one further member in February 1998.

  Members of the Task Force are appointed for their experience in different areas of regulation. They should not be categorised as business, enforcement or consumer representatives. A number of those with business backgrounds are active in the voluntary sector or with non-government organisations. Ten members come from

  Consultation paper title

  Publication date

  Closing date for submissions

  Number of respondents

  The Citizen's Charter—A Consultation Exercise

  16 September 1997

  21 November 1997

  274

  Local Charter Guide: A Consultation Exercise

  20 October 1997

  30 January 1998

  116

  Opening Up Quangos—A Consultation Paper

  11 November 1997

  31 December 1997

  405

  Your Right to Know—Freedom of Information (White Paper—Cm 3818)

  11 December 1997

  28 February 1998

  557

  Crown Copyright in the Information Age: A Consultation Paper on Access to Public Sector Information (Cm 3819)

  19 January 1998

  31 March 1998

  70

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Marine Conservation
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements are being made to ensure that the management groups for candidate marine special areas of conservation incorporate the views of the advisory groups in developing their conservation objectives and management schemes. [42617]

  Angela Eagle
  The nature conservation agencies are responsible for advising relevant authorities as to the conservation objectives of such sites. Relevant authorities have the statutory responsibility for establishing management schemes. The Government consider that it 2
  a business background, and in line with our manifesto commitment, eight of these are drawn from the small business community. Two members come from the enforcement community and four have a consumer or a non-governmental organisation background.

  The Deregulation Task Force had 11 members in April 1997. Of those all came from a business background except one from the voluntary sector.

  Standards in Public Life
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the fourth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. [44072]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Government welcomed the Committee on Standards' Fourth Report, which reviewed progress on the implementation of the Committee's First and Second Reports. Government have prepared an Action Plan setting out the work to take forward the observations made by the Committee. My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, has sent this to Lord Neill, and copies have been placed in the libraries of the House. The Action Plan is also available on the Cabinet Office website, on www.open.gov.uk/co/cohome.htm.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the consultation papers published since 1 May 1997 giving the date of publication, closing date for submissions and the number of respondents. [42247]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The table gives the details for all consultation papers published to the private sector or members of the public since 1 May 1997 by the Office of Public Service and its agencies, and the Central Office for Information.

  is essential that owners and occupiers, rightholders, local interests, user groups and conservation groups, in the form of an advisory group, should all be encouraged to participate in the process of implementing the objectives and developing the scheme at the earliest opportunity. Relevant authorities should consult widely and regular cycles of meetings should be established, the frequency of which would be dependent on the particular needs of each site. This advice will be contained in a guidance document to be published very shortly. The formation of advisory groups is at various stages among the marine sites.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and which of the United Kingdom's candidate marine special areas of conservation have begun to draft (i) conservation objectives and (ii) management schemes. [42618]
  3
  Angela Eagle
  The Government's nature conservation bodies, whose duty is to advise relevant authorities of an SAC's nature conservation objectives, have undertaken a considerable amount of work in preparing the way for drafting objectives, and some sites have a draft in preparation. The statutory requirement for a management scheme does not arise until sites are agreed as Sites of Community Interest. However, we are encouraging relevant authorities to establish shadow schemes in anticipation of the formal requirement. I will write to my hon. Friend shortly explaining more fully the position on each of the sites in the UK.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many and which of the United Kingdom's candidate marine special areas of conservation have established management and advisory groups. [42622]

  Angela Eagle
  Establishing advisory groups is dependent on having a management group in place so, while many of the sites now have a management group established, the advisory groups are at different stages of formation. I will write to my hon. Friend shortly, setting out the position on each of the marine sites.

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department's action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments will be published; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [42837]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department's action plan will be published as soon as possible. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House at that time.

  Public Bodies
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the average attendance fee of(a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department; [42836]

  (2) what is the average salary of (a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department. [42835]

  Angela Eagle
  Some board members of non-departmental public bodies give their time and services voluntarily and receive no payment other than normal travel and subsistence expenses. Where members do receive remuneration, this can be an annual salary or an attendance fee. Individuals' remuneration therefore is not directly comparable. Full details of all payments to board members of non-departmental bodies, by gender, are given in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies 1997" are available in the Library of the House.

  Deaf and Blind Pedestrians
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will support proposals to inform each person who passes the driving test that pedestrians carrying red and white striped canes are both deaf and blind; [42802]
  4
  (2) if he will take steps to promote awareness amongst drivers of motor vehicles that a pedestrian carrying a red and white striped cane is both deaf and blind. [42801]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  General guidance on consideration for vulnerable road users is published in the Highway Code and driving test manuals. Rule 64 of the Highway Code advises drivers to be aware of blind and partially sighted people. Particular attention is drawn to deafblind people who may be using red and white striped canes.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the scope and nature of his responsibilities in relation to the review of European structural funds in respect of Wales, indicating the timetable for action by his Department. [42472]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 21 May 1998,Official Report, columns 543–44.

  Accident Inquiries
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what percentage of public money disbursed to assist families and relatives of victims was provided(a) to individual victims and families, (b) to family support groups and (c) collectively in respect of the (i) Piper Alpha disaster, (ii) King's Cross fire, (iii) Marchioness disaster, (iv) Clapham rail crash and (v) MV Derbyshire, (first public inquiry); and by what method the allocations were determined; [42982]

  (2) what provisions were made out of public funds in respect of costs to (a) commission expert evidence and (b) challenge expert evidence put by another party at the public inquiries into the (i) Piper Alpha disaster, (ii) King's Cross fire, (iii) 'Marchioness' disaster, (iv) Clapham rail crash and (v) loss of the MV 'Derbyshire' (first inquiry); what was the outturn cost to public funds of such assistance for each inquiry; and how were costs agreed, verified and disbursed. [42980]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I regret that the information requested is not obtainable except at disproportionate cost.

  Millennium Compliance
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to what extent the additional costs to local authorities of millennium compliance were built into the 1998–99 local government finance system. [43084]

  Angela Eagle
  The 1998–99 local government finance settlement took into account the Local Government Association's estimate of a spending pressure on English local authorities in the current financial year of £100 million for the costs of preparing for millennium computer compliance. The preliminary indication of the amount councils have budgeted in 1998–99 on
  5
  millennium compliance, based on budget returns submitted to the Department by local authorities, is between £60 million and £70 million.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the additional costs to local authorities of ensuring that IT and embedded systems are millennium compliant. [43085]

  Angela Eagle
  The Local Government Association estimated the total additional costs to local authorities in preparing for millennium compliance in its paper for the Department on cost pressures facing local authorities in England in 1998–99. Their estimate of £100 million for the current financial year was taken into account in the 1998–99 local government finance settlement. The Association has again highlighted the cost pressures faced by councils during preliminary discussions between officials on pressures in 1999–2000, and we will again be taking its estimate into account in the settlement for the coming financial year.

  Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the(a) membership, (b) remit, (c) scope and (d) operation of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. [42988]

  Angela Eagle
  A five-yearly Finance, Management and Policy Review of ACRE is currently under way and will be reporting shortly. The term of office of current ACRE members expires in June 1999. The process for reviewing membership, remit, scope and operation of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment is set out in the DETR Non-Departmental Public Bodies Sponsorship Handbook, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the procedure for appointing members to the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. [42987]

  Angela Eagle
  The procedures for appointing ACRE or any other Non-Departmental Public Body are set out in the DETR Non-Departmental Public Bodies Sponsorship Handbook, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. Members of ACRE are appointed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions following agreement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer of 30 April 1998,Official Report, column 179, how many of the consents for the release of the GMOs were under (a) standard, (b) stream-lined, (c) fast-track and (d) any other procedures. [42990]

  Angela Eagle
  The 147 consents issued to date comprised of 56 Standard, 36 Stream-lined and 55 Fast-track applications. The terms 'Standard',6
  'Stream-lined' and 'Fast track' refer to different administrative procedures used to process consent applications under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 (amended 1995 and 1997). The amount of information required to consider an application is the same in each case. The stream-lined procedure has not been used since 1995, but when operational it allowed the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment to provide expert advice by post rather than at a meeting.

  Of the Standard and Fast-track applications, since 8 March 1995, 41 were dealt with under the First-Simplified Procedure. The First Simplified Procedure takes account of European Commission Decision 94/730/EC which enables a single release consent to cover a programme of work over a number of years. The provisions of the First Simplified Procedure, the criteria for qualification and the duty of the consent holder are published in DOE/ACRE Guidance Note 7 Guidance to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1995. A copy of this has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under which procedure GMO release consent 95/R13/6 was granted. [42991]

  Angela Eagle
  The application was processed as a standard application and granted a consent under the procedure laid down in Commission Decision 94/730/EC (the First Simplified Procedure).

  The provisions of the First Simplified Procedure, the criteria for qualification and the duty of the consent holder are published in DOE/ACRE Guidance Note 7 "Guidance to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1995". This has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons his Department does not require the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its contractors to apply for release consents under Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in respect of national list trials of genetically-modified seeds. [42992]

  Angela Eagle
  The holder of a consent to conduct experimental trials under our deliberate release regulations may delegate third parties to conduct releases on their behalf. In all cases, the consent holder is legally responsible for ensuring that the trial is carried out in accordance with the conditions and limitations of their consent.

  MAFF-PVRO (Plant Variety Rights Office) undertake statutory tests and trials on plant varieties in respect of applications for plant breeder's rights or addition to the National List. MAFF-PVRO will not allow genetically modified plant material to enter trials unless the material is covered by a consent issued to the plant breeder by the Secretary of State under the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 (as amended in 1995 and 1997) and the trials can comply with any conditions attached to the consent.

  When an application for release is made, the applicant is required to supply information on the name, qualifications and experience of the scientist and every

  7
  other person who will be responsible for planning and carrying out the release of the genetically modified organism and for supervision and safety of the release. This includes applications for consent to release material into National List trials.

  Energy Efficiency (Domestic Appliances)
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage the purchase of energy-efficient domestic appliances; and what contribution he estimates this encouragement will make to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. [43038]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department supports and is developing a range of measures at European and national levels, including mandatory energy labelling, promotional initiatives, negotiated agreements with manufacturers to encourage the increased availability and purchase of energy efficient domestic appliances and lighting. Estimating the impact of such measures is complicated but some experts put the potential UK savings from an integrated programme of measures to be as high as 2 million tonnes of carbon emissions. In April my Department launched a series of published discussion papers and formal consultation rounds, starting with the lighting sector, as part of a market transformation strategy to build a consensus on what practical and acceptable measures could deliver those savings.

  My Department also promotes the installation of energy saving measures by means of grants provided under the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme and "cashbacks" under the range of schemes developed and managed by the Energy Saving Trust.

  My Department has also contributed to and supported promotional campaigns aimed at encouraging consumers to purchase energy efficient appliances, including, most recently, the Energy Saving Trust's "Energy Efficiency" programme.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to require minimum standards of energy efficiency for domestic appliances. [43037]

  Angela Eagle
  Legislation has already been introduced to set minimum standards of energy efficiency for central heating boilers, which came fully into effect on 1 January 1998, and for domestic refrigeration appliances, which will come into force on 3 September 1999, to enforce European Directives applying to these products. There are no immediate plans for further legislation. However, my Department is pressing the Commission to develop an action plan of common and co-ordinated measures, as part of its response to the legally binding Kyoto climate change targets, which could include measures to require manufacturers of domestic appliances to improve the energy efficiency of their products.

  Heathrow Airport
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on plans for a sixth terminal at Heathrow Airport. [43144]
  8
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are not aware of any plans for a sixth terminal at Heathrow Airport. Nor have we received any representations on plans for a sixth terminal.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the costs of the Terminal 5 inquiry incurred by BAA are being treated(a) for tax purposes and (b) under the Civil Aviation Authority's regulatory regime. [43145]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The treatment for tax purposes of the costs of the Heathrow Terminal 5 Inquiry is a matter for BAA plc. Under the CAA's regulatory regime, the costs estimated as being incurred during the current quinquennium (1997–98 to 2001–02) are included in the total allowable investment costs which are taken into account in calculating the cap imposed by the CAA on the charges to airlines levied by BAA. The cap will however be reviewed by the CAA before the end of the quinquennium if Terminal 5 does not go ahead, or if, for reasons connected to the planning permission granted, it proceeds on a significantly different scale.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the Monopolies and Mergers Commission decision to accept BAA's figures on expenditure on Terminal 5 at Heathrow, allowing BAA to keep profits to pay for Terminal 5; and if he will make a statement. [43442]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority determined, on the basis of recommendations from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, that the calculation of the price cap to be applied to BAA plc's London Airports for the period 1997–98 to 2001–02 should take into account the costs estimated as being incurred in the planning of Terminal 5 at Heathrow. The Government have no power to instruct the CAA to reopen its decision, nor has the CAA the power to do so unilaterally. However, with BAA's agreement, the price cap is to be reviewed by the CAA before the end of the five-year period if Terminal 5 does not go ahead, or if, for reasons connected to the planning permission granted, it proceeds on a significantly different scale.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that the consortium of local authorities opposing Terminal 5 at Heathrow are able to make closing submissions to the inquiry. [43455]

  Mr. Caborn
  It has been a long established feature of planning inquiries that the main parties make closing submissions and meet their own costs. It is for the Local Authorities Against Heathrow Terminal 5 (LAHT5) Group to decide how much they wish to allocate for this purpose.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which employees of his Department appeared as expert witnesses for BAA at the public inquiry into Terminal 5 at Heathrow. [43452]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. However, I understand that a number of independent consultants and National Air Traffic Service (NATS) Ltd. employees have appeared as expert witnesses for both the Department and BAA on various matters.
  9

  Housebuilding (West Sussex)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Worthing, East and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) of 5 May 1998,Official Report, column 311, if he will list the petitions he has received objecting to new house building in West Sussex, indicating the number of signatures on each petition. [43147]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Two petitions have been received. One from residents of Mid Sussex district with about 9,700 signatures and the other from residents of the Horsham district area with some 14,000 signatures.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1998,Official Report, column 311, if the number of 3,000 objections includes (a) petitions and (b) multiple signature letters; and if he will publish the number of individuals who have raised objections with him. [43616]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The number of 3,000 objections includes:(a) 718 postcards in response to a campaign sponsored by the CPRE Sussex Branch and about 1,100 responses to a campaign organised by a local newspaper; and (b) about 1,100 letters some of which are signed by more than one member of a household.

  Microbiological Contamination
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to issue guidelines to those authorities seeking to remove microbiological contamination from brownfield sites on which micro-organisms have been identified as contaminated. [43139]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department has no plans to issue guidelines on microbiological contamination.

  Chemical Pollution
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has commissioned to determine the effects of low levels of(a) PCBs, (b) organic chemicals, (c) dioxins and (d) radon on the health of communities. [43136]

  Angela Eagle:
  (a) PCBs and (c) Dioxins
  The toxicity of both dioxins and PCBs has been reviewed by the Department of Health's advisory Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). COT has recommended that a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 10 picograms per kilogram of body weight should be employed to assess the health risks of combinations of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs. A recent MAFF survey showed that for UK adults dietary intakes of dioxins and PCBs are declining and are below the TDI recommended by COT. My Department, together with MAFF, Department of Health and HSE are supporting further research on infant exposure to dioxins, PCBs and other organic chemicals via human milk.
  Research on potential health effects of exposure to a wider range of environmental chemicals is funded through several joint programmes by Government Departments, Agencies and industry. Plans are already underway to look at the health effects of chemicals in the environment and to investigate the effects of potential endocrine disrupting chemicals on male reproductive health. The Government also support the work of the Small Area Health Statistics Unit, based at Imperial College of Science and Technology in London, which examines the possible relationship between human health and environmental contamination from point and small area sources.
  (d) Radon
  A study of lung cancer and radon gas in the home has been carried out by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF). The study was partly funded by my Department, the Department of Health, the National Radiological Protection Board and ICRF. The results of the study were announced on 19 May 1998, and will be published in the July edition of the British Journal of Cancer.
  (b) Organic Chemicals
  The Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards (EPAQs) has recommended air quality standards for benzene and 1,3 butadiene. These standards, of 5 parts per billion for benzene and 1 part per billion for 1,3 butadiene, both as a running annual averages, have been adopted in the Government's National Air Quality Strategy. Last year the Government prescribed a national objective for these standards to be achieved by the end of 2005.
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce universal standards for the assessment of organic chemical and gas pollution levels before building permission is granted on brownfield sites. [43135]

  Angela Eagle
  The potential risks arising from contamination of land can be fully assessed only on a site-specific basis. The risks which might be caused by any given level of contamination will vary greatly from site to site, depending on the proposed land use, the details of design and construction of any proposed buildings, and variability in the underlying soil and geology of the site. This means that it is not practical to create universal standards, expressed in terms of mandatory limit values for different contaminants.

  However, my Department is developing a new framework for indicative soil guideline values to assist in the site-specific assessment of potential risks to human health. I expect to be able to publish the first output from this programme in the Autumn.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to inform potential home buyers of local levels of(a) radon, (b) PCBs, (c) organic chemicals and (d) dioxin levels. [43134]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is as follows.

  (a) Radon

  The maps published by the National Radiological Protection Board in 1996, based on 5 km ordnance survey grid squares, showing the percentage probability of homes

  11
  being above the radon "Action Level" (the level above which we recommend that remedial action should be taken) allow householders and their advisers to identify the areas where radon is most likely to be found.

  (b) PCBs and (d) Dioxins

  There are no plans to specifically inform home buyers of local levels of dioxins and PCBs since all monitoring data is in the public domain. Most of the processes with the potential to produce dioxins are controlled under the Environmental Protection Act (1990) and are regulated by the Environment Agency and Local Authorities. Information on authorisations and the associated monitoring data are maintained on public registers and are available for public scrutiny. Information on airborne concentrations of PCBs measured in the national network is published in periodic reports and is on the Department's Internet site.

  (c) Organic Chemicals

  Real time information on airborne concentrations of benzene and 1,3 butadiene are available on television text services, the Internet and a freephone. Information on other organic chemicals monitored in the national network are published annually and are available on the Department's Internet site: http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/airq/aqinfo.htm

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has made to identify the location of areas with high levels of(a) dioxins, (b) PCBs, (c) radon and (d) organic chemicals. [43133]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is as follows.

  (a) Dioxins and (b) PCBs

  Dioxins and PCBs are ubiquitous pollutants which are found at low levels in the environment across the country. Small areas of elevated dioxin levels may be detected in the vicinity of processes which produce these chemicals as unwanted by-products. The Environment Agency (and formerly Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Pollution) have identified those processes with the potential to produce dioxins in order to regulate their emissions. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) has, since 1993, analysed for dioxins in samples of cows' milk collected from individual farms in the vicinity of potential industrial sources of these chemicals. Samples collected since 1994 have also been analysed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); all results have been published.

  Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have not been manufactured in the UK since the late 1970s and their sole remaining use is sealed inside some electrical equipment. Their presence in the environment is likely to be due to historical uses. However, my Department and the Environment Agency are supporting research to identify the main sources of PCBs for human exposure.

  (c) Radon

  Since 1987 my Department has funded a programme to identify the areas of England affected by radon, and to offer free radon measurements to householders in the most affected areas. Similar programmes are undertaken in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and are the
  12
  responsibilities of the respective Secretaries of State. In 1996, as a result of this programme, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) published maps of England, based on 5 km ordnance survey grid squares, showing the percentage probability of homes being above the radon "Action Level" (the level above which we recommend that remedial action should be taken). In January of this year, invitations for free measurement were issued in order to complete a two-year programme to offer such measurements to every home in England with a greater than 5 per cent. probability of being above the Action Level.

  (d) Organic Chemicals

  My Department has funded the continuous real time measurement of 25 organic chemicals in the air since 1993. The compounds measured have been selected because of their photochemical oxidant formation potential and possible health impacts. There are 13 sites in the network, including roadside, urban background and rural locations. Results of the monitoring are published annually in the Department's Digest of Environmental Statistics, and are available on the Department's Internet site. In addition my Department has recently begun work to investigate the levels of benzene in the vicinity of petrol stations.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to detect background levels of(a) PCBs, (b) radon, (c) organic chemicals and (d) dioxins; and if he will publish them. [43138]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is as follows.

  (a) PCBs and (d) Dioxins

  Work is already underway to establish background levels of dioxins and PCBs in air, soil and foods. The Environment Agency is continually reviewing levels of these chemicals in the environment and reports findings to the public. The last comprehensive survey of dioxins in UK soils was published by HM Inspectorate of Pollution in 1989. PCBs were not included in this survey. The Environment Agency is planning to carry out further background work on soils. Monitoring for dioxins and PCBs in UK air is carried out through the Toxic Organic MicroPollutants (TOMPs) network. The network has been in operation since 1991 and currently collects samples from 3 urban and 3 rural sites. Results of these monitoring programmes are published annually in the Department's Digest of Environmental Statistics, and are available on the Department's Internet site. MAFF also monitors the levels of dioxins, PCBs and other organic chemicals in foodstuffs; all results are published.

  (b) Radon

  Since 1987 my Department has funded a programme to identify the areas of England affected by radon, and to offer free radon measurements to householders in the most affected areas. Similar programmes are undertaken in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and are the responsibilities of the respective Secretaries of State. In 1996, as a result of this programme, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) published maps of England, based on 5 km ordnance survey grid squares, showing the percentage probability of homes being above

  13
  the radon "Action Level" (the level above which we recommend that remedial action should be taken). In January of this year, invitations for free measurement were issued in order to complete a two-year programme to offer such measurements to every home in England with a greater than 5 per cent. probability of being above the Action Level.

  (c) Organic Chemicals

  My Department has funded the continuous real time measurement of 25 organic chemicals in the air since 1993. The compounds measured have been selected because of their photochemical oxidant formation potential and possible health impacts. There are 13 sites in the network, including roadside, urban background and rural locations. Results of the monitoring are published annually in the Department's Digest of Environmental Statistics, and are available on the Department's Internet site. In addition my Department has recently begun work to investigate the levels of benzene in the vicinity of petrol stations.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to inform local authorities of various procedures and techniques available for brownfield site clean-up. [43137]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department has carried out research on remedial treatment for contaminated land in collaboration with various bodies and organisations and the results have been published for the use not only of local authorities but also developers and others interested in the subject. Partners in producing work have included the Construction Industry Research and Information Association, AEA Technology plc and BRE.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals his Department is evaluating for a high-speed direct rail link from the North West of England to Europe. [43146]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  On 21 May my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that he had received revised proposals from London and Continental Railways on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link which are being discussed with the company. He will make a statement in due course.

  Mediation UK
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons his Department has decided to terminate its financial support for Mediation UK. [43195]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department made grants to Mediation UK amounting to £99,900 from the Environmental Action Fund (EAF) between April 1994 and March 1998. These grants helped Mediation UK establish, accredit and develop local mediation centres. In 1997 Mediation UK made an application for three more years of core support from the EAF. My Ministerial colleagues and I carefully considered this, along with all other applications. However there were vastly more high quality applications than we could possibly support, given the resources available for the Fund. Regretfully 14
  Mediation UK was one organisation to which we were not able to offer further assistance through the EAF in 1998–99.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the investment needs of social housing providers over the next three years for(a) repair and refurbishment and (b) new build. [43197]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department makes annual assessments of local authorities' relative needs for investment through the Housing Investment Programme and the Housing Revenue Account Subsidy system. The need for investment in repair and refurbishment by Registered Social Landlords is a matter for the individual landlords who are largely responsible for meeting these costs from internal resources.

  Future investment levels for social housing and the need for new build for social housing providers are being considered as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR). The Government's spending plans arising from the CSR will be announced later in the summer.

  South Downs
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to receive the Countryside Commission's recommendations on the future management of the South Downs; and when he expects to make a decision on those recommendations. [42900]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]: The Countryside Commission intends to present its formal advice to Ministers on its work on the designated landscape areas, including the South Downs, by mid June. We will need to look at the Commission's recommendations very carefully, together with all the information available, before taking any final decisions. We hope to be able to announce our conclusions in the autumn.

  Bicycles
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it a legal requirement for the manufacturers and retailers of bicycles to provide machines with(a) fitted rear and front lights and (b) a bell or other audible warning device. [43312]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Issues concerning the fitment of bells and lights to pedal cycles were the subject of a recent public consultation exercise carried out by the Department. Various proposals were presented, including the mandatory fitment of bells and lights to new bicycles at the point of sale.

  The views received are currently being analysed. When this process is complete, the Government will be in a better position to consider whether any change to the legislation in this area is necessary.

  Refrigerants
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what
  15
  research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the environmental benefits of adopting HCs as the standard refrigerants; [43173]

  (2) what alternative refrigerants to HFCs which produce lower greenhouse gas emissions and do not deplete the ozone layer his Department is currently evaluating. [43168]

  Angela Eagle
  Hydrocarbons (Hcs) are one of a number of refrigerants which can be used in some refrigeration systems as an alternative to ozone depleting substances and HFCs. The Government do not promote one refrigerant over another but encourage users to choose the safest, most environmentally acceptable and energy efficient system for each particular refrigerant application.

  The DETR through its Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme has carried out a small project investigating the energy efficiency benefits of HC refrigerants compared to HFCs and is also producing a guide on absorption refrigeration (refrigeration that is powered by waste heat). The programme also keeps abreast of developments in international collaborative research.

  In addition there are a number of projects being looked at under DETR's Partners in Technology scheme and at the Buildings Research Establishment aimed at encouraging the use of natural ventilation, as opposed to use of refrigerant based air-conditioning systems. The main thrust of this work is improved energy efficiency, but the spin-off benefit is less use of refrigerants.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates he has made of the amount of CFCs released into the atmosphere annually as a result of the dumping of refrigerators in the United Kingdom. [43172]

  Angela Eagle
  Based on a study being carried out for my Department, the Government estimate that domestic refrigerators containing about 450 tonnes of CFC refrigerant are taken out of use each year. Around 300 tonnes of this may be emitted to the atmosphere, either from refrigerators that are not returned for recycling or from the residue of CFCs that remain in the refrigerator after the refrigerant has been recovered.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the environmental impact of the use of HFC as substitutes for ozone-depleting gases in refrigeration equipment. [43171]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are currently planning to fund some research this year to update our estimates of current and likely future emissions of HFCs from the UK. This work will include consideration of the use of HFCs in all sectors including the refrigeration sector.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of the United Kingdom' s greenhouse gas emissions he estimates HFCs will contribute in the year 2010. [43167]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government estimate that HFCs will contribute approximately 1% of total UK greenhouse gas emissions calculated in terms of the global warming contribution in 2010.
  16

  Unleaded Petrol
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his estimate of the number of motor vehicles running on(a) leaded and (b) unleaded petrol in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99. [43190]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The estimated number of vehicles (millions) is as follows:

  1997

  1998

  Year ending 1999

  Total using leaded petrol

  7.7

  6.5

  5.3

  Requiring leaded petrol1

  3.8

  3.0

  2.6

  Total using unleaded petrol

  14.2

  15.4

  16.5

  1 Number of vehicles included in the total using leaded petrol which require it for valve seat protection

  Cleaner Vehicles Task Force
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the terms of reference for the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force. [43191]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The aims of the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force were announced on 14 November 1997 in DETR Press Notice 274/Transport. Its overall aim is to create a new partnership between Government and the private sector to promote environmentally friendly vehicles people actually want to drive and buy. It specifically aims to:promote research and development that will keep Britain at the leading edge of cleaner vehicle technology;
  encourage people and business to buy greener vehicles and use them efficiently;
  consider the contribution that cleaner vehicle technology can make to meeting local air quality objectives, reducing noise and cutting carbon dioxide emissions to avoid global warming;
  increase the proportion of components that are reused or recycled; and
  focus on European action during Britain's Presidency of the Council of the EU.

  Motor Vehicle Fraud
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to give the DVLA responsibilities in respect of combating motor vehicle fraud. [43192]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  DVLA works closely with the police and the insurance and salvage industries to help combat motor vehicle theft and fraud. The Agency is currently investigating a range of further measures to improve its contribution to consumer protection.

  Land Spreading
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the results of the Environment Agency' s review of land spreading to be published. [43467]

  Angela Eagle
  The research project on "Investigation Of The Criteria For, And Guidance On, The Landspreading Of Industrial Waste" was completed on 30 April and copies of the report have been placed in the
  17
  Library of the House. The report's findings are now under consideration by my Department and the Environment Agency and our conclusions will be announced in due course.

  Sewage Treatment
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Government policy on sewage treatment of water released into inland waters. [43547]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government require sewage discharges to inland waters to meet the requirements of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. This means that all relevant discharges to inland waters serving a population equivalent of 15,000 or more must receive at least secondary treatment by 2000. Those serving between 2000 and 15,000 population equivalent must reach this standard by 2005. Discharges below 2000 population equivalent must receive "appropriate treatment" by 2005. In fact the vast majority of discharges of all sizes to inland waters already receive at least secondary treatment.

  Discharges to sensitive areas designated under the Directive must receive more stringent treatment, typically tertiary treatment to remove nutrients, by the end of 1998. The Government intend to set out more fully its policy on this and related matters, first in its response to the second report of the Environment sub-committee of the House of Commons Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, due shortly and, later in the summer, in guidance to the Director General of OFWAT on priorities for investment in environmental improvement within the current Periodic Review of water company price limits.

  Domestic Water
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of recycled domestic waste water from baths and sinks in reducing water consumption. [43549]

  Angela Eagle
  A number of commercial systems are available which allow the re-use of rainwater and waste water from baths and sinks for WC flushing and external use. The Government continue to monitor the development of such systems and customer acceptability, but are supportive of the more widespread use of recycled water where it poses no threat to public health.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response he has made to the recommendations of Age Concern's report, "Disability Facilities, Grants and Older People". [43162]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have assured Age Concern that the points raised in their report will be fully taken into account as we develop our policies on disabled facilities grants.

  International Programme of Chemical Safety
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reasons the report of July 1996 produced by international experts within the framework of the International Programme of 18
  Chemical Safety has remained confidential; if he will (a) publish it and (b) place it in the Library; and if he will make a statement on its conclusions in respect of the impact on public health of chrysolite. [43606]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government do not control, or have responsibility for, the publications of the International Programme for Chemical Safety (IPCS). IPCS is a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Programme, the International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organisation. It produced a draft Environmental Health Criteria document on chrysotile following a meeting of its Task Group held in July 1996. The final report is due to be published in Autumn 1998, following revisions and translations. It is not confidential, and details of the Health Evaluation, the Conclusions and the Recommendations are available either from the IPCS in Geneva or on the Internet. I shall arrange for the Library to obtain details of the draft report and to obtain a copy of the final report once it is published.

  The draft report contains a number of conclusions which are consistent with current Government policy on asbestos.

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he plans to take to support the British merchant shipping industry, with particular reference to(a) encouraging investment and (b) increasing training. [43975]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister established a Shipping Working Group late last year to examine ways to promote the interests of British shipping and British seafarers. The Deputy Prime Minister is currently considering the recommendations of the Shipping Working Group. We have also introduced a new seafarer training support scheme—SMarT—which consolidates and expands on the previous training support schemes.

  Trunk Roads (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what trunk road construction is scheduled to commence in the Greater London area during 1998; and what is the total cost of the work. [43654]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Three construction schemes are planned to commence in 1998 in the Greater London area. These are as follows: the first two phases of the London Primary Route Signing scheme to replace some 4,800 primary route direction signs; the Greenwich Peninsula A102 (M) Access Improvements to the Millennium site; the M41 White City new access road for the shopping centre. The total cost of these works is £42 million, of which £19 million will be funded by developers.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many miles of red route there are in the Greater London area. [43655]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 4 December 1997,Official Report, column 286.
  19

  Disused Railway Land
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve the consultative process conducted by British Railways Board prior to the selling off of disused railway land, including track bed and goods yards. [43614]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is primarily a matter for the British Railways Board (BRB), which has held discussions with Railtrack, EWS and others about general sales and individual sites. BRB also routinely sends out auction brochures in advance to Railtrack, EWS, Freightliner, local authorities and a wide range of other interested parties.

  BRB has held discussions with Railtrack about the disposal of former railway lines, as a result of which negotiations to transfer another six lengths have begun. Other closed lines are the subject of discussions about transfer to local authorities or railway preservation societies, or have been leased to Sustrans, the cycling charity, for the National Cycle Network (with the potential for future rail use preserved). That leaves BRB with about 70 miles of trackbed in more than 100 separate sites.

  BRB welcomes approaches from railway businesses or other interested parties who wish to discuss general sales or individual sites.

  National Cycle Network
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made with regard to the proposed national cycle network; and what proposals he has for 1998–99 for the extension of cycle routes in the West Midlands Region. [43016]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department welcomes the initiative to develop the National Cycle Network being promoted by Sustrans. The Network is making good progress and now embraces about 600 miles. The first 3,000 miles are 0due for completion by the year 2000, well ahead of the original target of 2,500 miles.

  In the West Midlands, the Millennium route runs from Stratford-on-Avon through Redditch, Bromsgrove, Birmingham, Sandwell, Walsall and on to Lichfield. This is due to be completed by Easter 2000.

  Coventry City Council has been actively involved with the provision of routes for cyclists, in particular a north-south route which links the University of Warwick to the city centre. A number of transport packages in the region, including those for the metropolitan area, North Staffordshire, Worcester, Stafford and Warwick/Leamington/Kenilworth also incorporate a range of measures to encourage cycle use, including cycle routes.

  Rough Sleepers Initiative
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much has been allocated to tackling homelessness in the West Midlands under the Rough Sleepers Initiative since 1990. [43014]
  20
  Mr. Raynsford
  Since 1996 the Rough Sleepers Initiative has been extended to 27 areas outside London. Following guidance issued by my Department three local authorities in the West Midlands carried out single night street counts of rough sleepers and found a significant problem. As a result, strategies to tackle rough sleeping were drawn up by the authorities in consultation with the voluntary sector and bids for funding were made to my Department. We have offered almost £200,000 in pump-priming funding in 1998–99 for outreach and resettlement services to four voluntary sector organisations working in Birmingham, Stoke on Trent, and Newcastle-under-Lyme.

  Drink-driving
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many drink-driving accidents occurred in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997. [43483]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The estimated number of accidents resulting in injury which involved illegal alcohol levels was:

  1994: 9,900

  1995: 10,180

  1996: 10,8501

  1 Provisional data. 1997 figures are not yet available. All estimates are shown rounded to the nearest 10.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many drink-driving related deaths occurred in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997. [43484]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The estimated number of fatalities in accidents which involved illegal alcohol levels was:

  1994: 540

  1995: 540

  1996: 5401

  1 Provisional data. 1997 figures are not yet available. All estimates are shown rounded to the nearest 10.

  Drug-related Road Accidents
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many non-alcohol-related road accidents involving drugs occurred in(a) 1994, (b) 1995, (c) 1996 and (d) 1997. [43479]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Data on non-alcohol-related accidents involving drugs are not routinely collected and the information requested is not available.

  Town Centre Management
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will initiate a consultation exercise on town centre management. [43731]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Town Centre Management is essentially about creating local partnerships which involve all the key stakeholders. The Government support and encourage town centre management through advice in planning policy guidance, a guide on vital and viable town
  21
  centres and by publishing and distributing good practice guidance. We also support initiatives by the Association of Town Centre Management and the Civic Trust.

  We have no proposal to initiate a consultation exercise.

  Car Rear Lamps
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will amend the road vehicle lighting regulations to allow the use of red, rear LED lamps emitting a flashing light. [43679]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 as amended, prohibit vehicle lamps (apart from certain specified lamps) from automatically emitting a flashing light. LED lamps may be fitted to vehicles provided they show a steady light.

  Research is being carried out to try to identify potential safety benefits associated with the use of flashing rear lamps, solely with regard to pedal cycles. This work is due to be completed in the first half of next year. In the light of the findings of this research programme the Department will consider whether any change to the Regulations is appropriate.

  School Crossing Patrols
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on amending the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, with particular reference to school crossing patrols. [43678]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The then Department of Transport issued a consultation document on review of road traffic regulation law in 1996. This contained a wide range of proposals for amending the 1984 Act. Over 400 responses were received. The Government are considering how to take matters forward in the various areas covered.

  One of the subjects discussed in the consultation was school crossing patrols. In the light of the responses received, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport announced on 21 May that the Government propose, when a suitable legislative opportunity arises, to remove the current restrictions on the hours during which these can operate, and to ensure that school crossing patrols can escort any person across the road. They also propose to consult on a further amendment, that would enable crossing patrols to be provided at any location where the local traffic authority considered it desirable to do so in order to help any pedestrians to cross the road.

  Duty Free
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the effect on air fares of the abolition of duty free in the first year after abolition; [43363]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect on the viability of regional airports of the abolition of duty free in the first year after abolition. [43364]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 13 May 1998,Official Report, columns 117–18.
  22

  Bear Hide Imports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations govern the import of the(a) hides and (b) trophies of (i) polar, (ii) brown, (iii) black and (iv) grizzly bears into the United Kingdom. [43211]

  Angela Eagle
  Import of these species into the United Kingdom is controlled under European Council Regulation No. 338/97, which implements the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora within the Community. The Regulation prohibits commercial imports of all products of the Brown bear, the Grizzly bear and the Asiatic Black bear. Import of personal effects and the commercial import of other bear species is regulated by a system of import and export permits which are subject to strict conservation criteria and may only be issued where certain conditions are met.

  Circus Animals
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what regulations govern the use of endangered species in travelling circuses. [43212]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the terms of Council Regulation EC No. 338/97, which implements the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) within the Community, it is an offence to use for commercial gain, or display for commercial purposes, any of the species listed as endangered in Annex A of the Regulation unless this Department has issued a certificate for that purpose. This list includes many animals commonly found in travelling circuses, including tigers and elephants.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many motorists in England and Wales were involved in incidents involving fatal, serious and slight injury; and of these how many were found to have been disqualified from driving at the time of the incident, in the last year for which data are available. [43988]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested regarding driver involvement is shown in the table. Data relating to the involvement of disqualified drivers in reported road accidents are not recorded on the national road accident database.

  Number of motorists involved in road accidents, by severity in England and Wales: 1996

  Drivers

  Road user type

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Car drivers

  3,411

  41,309

  265,128

  Other motorists1

  1,466

  12,600

  52,441

  1 Includes motorcyclists, goods vehicle and other motor vehicle drivers

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many traffic accidents were recorded and in how many cases the driver
  23
  at fault was found to have blood alcohol levels (a) over 80 mg per 100 ml, (b) between 50 and 80 mg per 100 ml and (c) between 0 and 50 mg per 100 ml, in the last year for which figures are available. [43839]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The present accident reporting system does not identify whether a driver was at fault. However, some information on blood levels of drivers and motor cycle riders killed in road accidents is available from data supplied to the Department by Coroners in England and Wales and the Procurators Fiscal in Scotland. The table shows the percentage of drivers and motor cycle fatalities above given blood alcohol levels for a sample of 963 of the 1,612 riders and drivers who died in road accidents in 1995.

  Blood alcohol levels

  Percentage of motor vehicle driver or rider fatalities

  Over 80 mg per 100 ml

  19

  Between 50 and 80 mg per 100 ml

  2

  Below 50 mg1 per 100 ml

  79

  1 Includes none.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce measures to simplify the existing procedure for the diverting of rights of way. [43420]

  Angela Eagle
  We have no immediate plans to do so. The Countryside Commission is considering the operation and effectiveness of rights of way legislation and management, and intends to put recommendations to us in the near future.

  Railways
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assistance his Department gives to(a) railway companies. (b) passenger transport executives and (c) local authorities for opening new railway lines and stations. [43419]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department offers no assistance to train operating companies towards the cost of new railway lines or stations but train operators are free to contribute towards the cost if they wish to do so on a commercial basis. Last November, my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Transport announced new Objectives, Instructions and Guidance for the Franchising Director. These require him to offer local authorities (including Passenger Transport Authorities) and other potential promoters of railway investment, clear and well publicised guidance on securing finance for new projects and on how the benefits of these can be maximised. He also announced the interim criteria that the Franchising Director will use to appraise proposals to support new services which would not be commercially viable. Copies are available in the Library of the House. Capital resources are available to local authorities, including Passenger Transport Authorities, for local rail infrastructure proposals from the Department's local transport budget.
  24

  Housing Development
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the local planning authorities which have more than 10 years supply of land for new housing development; [43856]

  (2) if he will list the local planning authorities which do not have a five-year supply of land for new housing development. [43855]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Department.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the impact of planned new housing development on the demand for construction aggregate during the period for which total numbers of new houses have been specified. [43826]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Aggregates demand forecasts undertaken to inform aggregates planning guidance issued by this Department cover all areas of demand, including housing. A forecast of demand will be undertaken during the review of this planning guidance which we intend to start later this year.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many dwellings could be accommodated on land already identified for new housing development in each English region. [43854]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not held centrally by the Department, and could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued to local authorities on how to move away from a predict and provide approach to the planning of new housing development at a regional level. [43853]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Two pieces of guidance have been published by the Government so far. The first is the policy document, "Planning for the Communities of the Future", which was published in February. The second is an explanatory note, "Transitional Arrangements for Regional Planning Guidance and Development Plans", which was published in March.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the guidance in Planning Policy Guidance note 3 Housing permits local planning authorities to make an allowance for windfall sites over one hectare when preparing(a) housing land availability studies and (b) development plans. [43825]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since "windfall" sites are unexpected, it is, by definition, difficult to predict future supply levels. The current guidance in PPG3 advises local authorities to assess the future supply of windfall sites of less than 1 hectare on the basis of past trends. The guidance advises that authorities should not make assumptions about sites over 1 hectare. Authorities should strive to identify these sites individually in consultation with developers, who will have a reasonable idea of sites likely to come forward over the plan period. To attempt to make a generalised
  25
  allowance for larger windfall sites in the forward assessment of land supply is likely to introduce too great an element of uncertainty in the planning process.

  As was made clear in the recently published policy document, "Planning for the Communities of the Future", the Government are aware that local planning authorities differ in their approach to the assessment of the potential contribution of windfall sites. They are also aware that in some areas windfall sites can make up a large proportion of the overall land used for housing. The Government will therefore look again at the guidance in PPG3 with a view to reassessing the potential contribution of this source of housing land.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many houses have been completed on windfall sites of over one hectare in each region since 1991. [43824]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is not currently collected centrally by the Department and would involve disproportionate cost to compile. However, the Department's recently announced National Land-Use Database should provide the basis for compiling this sort of information in the future.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of new housing completed between 1991 and 1996 in each region has three or more bedrooms. [43823]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The available figures are shown in the table.

  Proportion of new houses and flats completed with three or more bedrooms

  Percentage of total completions

  Government Office Region

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  North East

  63

  60

  59

  64

  67

  66

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  60

  59

  57

  61

  63

  69

  East Midlands

  57

  61

  61

  63

  64

  70

  Eastern

  48

  47

  51

  54

  58

  61

  London

  26

  24

  23

  29

  28

  36

  South East

  44

  47

  47

  54

  59

  62

  South West

  45

  51

  53

  58

  59

  64

  West Midlands

  53

  51

  49

  54

  57

  60

  North West

  62

  63

  58

  65

  63

  64

  Merseyside

  60

  64

  66

  68

  72

  67

  England

  49

  51

  51

  56

  57

  61

  Source:

  "Housing and Construction Statistics 1986–1996"

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local planning authorities where the number of new houses constructed has exceeded that in adopted development plans in the last 10 years. [43857]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Such information is not held centrally and would involve disproportionate cost to compile.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the organisations which have been sent a copy of the statement, "Planning for the Communities of the Future: Transitional Arrangements for Regional Planning Guidance and Development Plans", issued on 1 April. [43827]
  26
  Mr. Raynsford
  A new system to assess and cascade housing provision figures was set out in "Planning for the Communities of the Future" (Command 3885). The transitional arrangements which will apply where RPG is already being revised or where development plans are being replaced or altered before Regional Planning Guidance is revised are set out in paragraphs 33 and 34 of that document. The more detailed note, issued on 1 April, was sent to the following organisations:

  The Local Government Association

  The Planning Officers Society

  Secretaries of the English Regional Associations

  The Panel of Chairmen of Examinations in Public

  Government Offices for the Regions

  Copies were placed in the Library of the House of Commons. It has also been sent to individuals, local authorities and other organisations on request.

  Structure Plans
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the criteria used to select the chairmen of structure plan examinations-in-public; [43851]

  (2) what plans he has for changes in the way in which chairmen for structure plan examinations-in-public are selected. [43852]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Chairs of individual Structure Plan Examinations in Public (EIPs) are appointed, subject to availability, from a central list held by the Department. Chairs will not be appointed for an EIP where they either live or work in the area for which an EIP is being held, nor if they have worked in the past for the County Council holding the EIP.

  This Department is currently recruiting a new panel of chairs through a process of open competition. The criteria for selection include an excellent knowledge of the planning system and current planning issues, and recent experience of strategic planning at a senior level, either in local or central Government or in a consultancy context. Successful applicants will also be required to demonstrate good analytical, communication and inter-personal skills.

  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide the names, ages, career background and qualifications of the chairmen of structure plan examinations-in-public and of other panel members whom he and his predecessors have appointed in the last five years. [43850]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Secretary of State has a general duty of confidentiality in relation to his appointees and is not able to disclose personal information in respect of EIP Chairmen. However, the following information is that normally made public by the chairmen themselves at the commencement of individual EIPs:

  Name

  Position prior to EIP chair appointment

  EIPs chaired in last five years

  W. E. Barnett

  Former County Planning Officer, Somerset County Council

  North Yorkshire Structure Plan

  27

  Name

  Position prior to EIP chair appointment

  EIPs chaired in last five years

  Deputy County Planning Officer Suffolk County Council

  Cleveland Structure Plan

  Deputy County Planning Officer, East Sussex County Council

  West Sussex Structure Plan

  W. J. S. Batho

  Former Grade 3, Regional Director for DOE Eastern Region Office

  Kent Structure Plan

  A. G. Booth

  Consultant in private practice

  Northumberland Structure Plan

  Former Chief Planning Officer Essex County Council and President of RTPI

  Wiltshire Structure Plan

  G. Bowden

  Barrister and former MP for Dulwich

  Suffolk Structure Plan

  Philip Critchley CB

  Former Grade 3, Department of the Environment/Transport

  Lancashire Structure Plan

  Hertfordshire Structure Plan

  D. R. G. Hands QC

  Queens Counsel

  Somerset Structure Plan 1998

  T. Hardy

  Former Chief Executive Cambridge District Council

  Bedfordshire Structure Plan

  Cheshire Structure Plan

  T. L. Jones

  Former Grade 3, Department of the Environment/Transport

  Dorset Structure Plan

  H. W. Marshall

  Former Grade 3, Department of the Environment/Transport

  Peak National Park Replacement Structure Plan

  Nottingham Replacement Structure Plan

  Cornwall Structure Plan

  Oxfordshire Structure Plan

  East Sussex Structure Plan

  R. W. Phelps

  Former General Manager Central Lancashire New Town Development Corporation

  Cambridgeshire Structure Plan

  Hampshire Structure Plan

  Berkshire Structure Plan

  Professor G. Shaylor

  Visiting Professor of Town Planning UCE

  Durham County Structure Plan

  Former Director of Development and Deputy Chief Executive Birmingham City Council, former City Planning Officer Birmingham City Council Former Director of Planning Hillingdon London Borough

  Devon County Structure Plan

  Other Panel members are all members of the Planning Inspectorate.
  28

  Local Government Act 1988
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on a timetable for repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. [43742]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is the Government's intention to repeal Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 as soon as a suitable legislative opportunity arises.

  Paper Pulp Disposal
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the disposal of paper pulp on agricultural land; [43638]

  (2) how many breaches of regulations in respect of the disposal of paper pulp on agricultural land there have been in the last three years; and what action was taken against those responsible; [43640]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the environmental risks associated with the disposal of paper pulp on agricultural land. [43639]

  Angela Eagle
  A statement of our views on the landspreading of waste paper pulp was made during an Adjournment Debate on 13 March 1998.Official Report, columns 926–930.

  Most landspreading of waste is carried out under the terms of the exemption from waste management licensing in paragraph 7 of schedule 3 to the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994. We have given a commitment to review this exemption in the light of the findings of the research project to which I referred on 13 March. That research project was completed on 30 April and copies of the report on the "Investigation Of The Criteria For, And Guidance On, The Landspreading Of Industrial Waste" have been placed in the Library of the House. The report's findings are now under consideration by my Department and the Environment Agency. On conclusion of this consideration, our proposals to revise the current exemption will be the subject of a public consultation exercise.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what measures he plans to use to ensure that within the Integrated Transport Strategy a proportion of journeys undertaken currently by motor cars will be undertaken by powered two-wheelers in future; [42332]

  (2) if he will take steps to encourage young people to learn to use small-powered two-wheel vehicles, including power-assisted cycles, rather than motor cars; and if he will incorporate in the Integrated Policy for Transport mechanisms to enable young people to gain access to personal transport in this way. [42333]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 20 May 1998,Official Report, column 365.
  29

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will change the formulae for local government financial settlements for 1999–2000 to incorporate a sparsity factor for rural county councils. [43384]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The existing standard spending assessment (SSA) formulae include a sparsity factor in the Education, Police and 'All Other Services' blocks for all relevant local authorities.

  As part of our regular discussions of the SSA formulae with local government, we understand that the County Councils Network will present a paper proposing changes to the Personal Social Services block of the SSAs to include an indicator of sparsity of population. We shall consider with local government the arguments put forward.

  Motorway Service Area (M4)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the result of the recent public inquiry into the planning application to develop a motorway service area at junction 8/9 on the M4. [43214]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Inspector's Report has not yet been received in my Department. At this stage, therefore, I am not in a position to anticipate when the decision will be issued.

  Rail Vehicle Accessibility
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the timetable for publication of the consultation document containing draft Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations; and when he will publish the regulations. [43554]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The consultation document was published on 15 May. Copies have been placed in the Library. We hope to lay the final regulations this summer.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the regulations that have been removed or amended to help small businesses since 1 May 1997. [42776]

  Angela Eagle
  Regulations to modernise the regulatory regime for business are not necessarily targeted on businesses of a particular size. The regulations set out in the table will apply to business irrespective of size.

  Regulations

  Date

  The Oil Pollution (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1997

  July 1997

  The Motor Cycle (EC Type Approval) (Amendment) Regulations 1997

  September 1997

  30

  Central Railway
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of plans by Central Railway to increase the amount of freight carried through Ealing, North and adjoining constituencies. [43595]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  An application by Central Railway plc for an Order under the Transport and Works Act 1972 was rejected by this House in 1996. We have not received any subsequent proposals from the company.

  Endangered Birds
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to extend the current bird registration scheme operated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to include critically endangered species listed under CITES. [43354]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no plans to extend the bird registration scheme at present, although we are considering whether to undertake a wider review of the registration process to see if it can be made more cost effective.

  Tewkesbury Borough Council
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will upgrade Tewkesbury Borough Council to total cost indicator band C from band D. [43796]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Total Cost Indicators are the responsibility of the Housing Corporation. The Corporation groups local authority areas into broad cost bands based on independent evidence of the relative costs of land, construction and house prices in the area. The Corporation reviews Total Cost Indicators annually.

  Parish and Town Councils
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if parish and town councils have an automatic right of representation as part of the elected member element of the regional chambers. [43797]

  Mr. Caborn
  We value the work of parish and town councils in representing and serving local communities, particularly in rural areas. However, regional chambers are not statutory bodies and how their members are selected is a matter for the chambers themselves to decide.

  Greenwich Peninsula (Toxic Waste)
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the disposal of toxic waste from the Greenwich peninsula. [42022]

  Angela Eagle
  The statutory remediation of the Greenwich Peninsula has been undertaken by British Gas as the original polluter. Following the completion of the statutory work English Partnerships, which acquired the site in February 1997, has undertaken the development remediation to restore the site to a condition fit for its intended end use.
  31
  The remediation includes the removal or treatment on-site of contaminated soils, to depths of up to 14m in selected areas. Contaminated soil which cannot be reused on site is disposed of at licensed landfill sites. The contractors employed by English Partnerships are responsible for selecting the location of the landfill sites and a number of different sites have been used. All the sites used have been licensed by the relevant authority and are suitable for the material being disposed there.

  The procedure for the disposal of soils which cannot be used on-site is part of the overall remediation strategy discussed and approved by both the Environment Agency and the London Borough of Greenwich and is consistent with Government policy.

  Prison Site, Middleton Sands
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of the proposal to site a prison at Middleton Sands, Morecambe on the(a) Morecambe and Heysham Local Plan and (b) draft Lancaster District Local Plan. [43662]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Secretary of State announced his decision to agree to the proposed change of use of the disused Pontins Holiday Camp on 14 May. A copy of the decision letter, which summarises the Secretary of State's assessment of the proposal, is in the House Library.

  Air Traffic Control
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about problems encountered with the new air traffic control information technology system. [43457]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee recently published the report of its inquiry into air traffic control. The Government hope to make their response to the report within the next few weeks—part of the response will be on the subject of the problems encountered by National Air Traffic Services Ltd. (NATS) with the computer system at its new air traffic control centre at Swanwick in Hampshire.

  I can inform the hon. Member that since the Committee's report was published, the system at the Swanwick centre has passed its site acceptance tests, and has been handed over to NATS by the contractor, Lockheed Martin.

  Water Quality
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what groundwater resources in England are known to be contaminated with enteric bacteria and viruses; and what steps have been taken to identify the sources of that contamination. [43965]

  Angela Eagle
  Groundwater resources used for potable supply are monitored for microbiological parameters by the water service companies. These data are not held centrally. In general, groundwater is free of microbiological contaminants. Enteric bacteria and viruses are generally filtered out by the passage of water 32
  through strata before it reaches an aquifer, and therefore before such groundwater is abstracted. All drinking water is disinfected before being put into supply.

  Sewerage
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to provide advice to local authorities on the problems associated with inadequate drains and private sewers. [43967]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department is currently consulting interested parties on a draft planning circular relating to cesspits and septic tanks. There are no plans at present to issue guidance to local authorities on private drains and sewers. The latter are subject to Building Regulation control to ensure that, when constructed, they meet certain minimum requirements in the interests of health.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department responded to the Water Research Centre draft water industry specification for thermoplastic structured wall pipe systems for sewers; and if the Department's response will be made public. [43962]

  Angela Eagle
  Such specifications are matters for the water industry, and my Department has not commented on it.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to respond to the second report of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on Sewage Treatment and Disposal (HC266); and if he will make a statement. [43964]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are considering the recommendations of this report very carefully and intend to respond shortly.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 359. what research studies he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated to establish whether or not leakage from (i) public and (ii) private sewers, is likely to cause health or pollution problems. [43963]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department has not commissioned any such studies relating to sewerage leakage. In 1996, a report produced by Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA) on behalf of various interests, including the National Rivers Authority, found no conclusive evidence that leaking sewers are a common cause of groundwater contamination.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to review the law relating to sewers and drains and the controls relating to their construction, materials and maintenance. [43966]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no plans at present to review the law relating to sewers and drains. A sewerage undertaker has a duty, to maintain sewers so as to ensure that the area for which it is responsible is and continues to be effectively drained. The specification of materials and the maintenance regime is the responsibility of the sewerage undertaker.
  33

  Polegate Bypass
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what figure has been(a) agreed and (b) paid in respect of compensation payments to tenderers for the DBFO project to build the Polegate Bypass. [43202]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The claims from the tenders for the cancelled Weald and Downland DBFO project, which included the Polegate Bypass, raise a number of detailed issues which will inevitably take some time to resolve. In the meantime, we have made interim payments on account totalling £1.3 million (excluding VAT); the final settlement will be published in due course.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the estimated cost of developing beaches round the Millennium Experience site; how many beaches are to be developed; and what will be their composition. [42984]

  Angela Eagle
  No new beaches are being developed around the Millennium Experience site.

  River flood defences are being replaced by English Partnerships on the Greenwich Peninsula where the existing flood defences have only a limited remaining life.

  The new flood defences are, in places, being rebuilt using stepped ecological tidal terraces rather than vertical steel sheet piles. The step terraces are being planted with reeds and other inter-tidal plants.

  The cost of these tidal terrace works including the flood defences within the Millennium Experience site is £2.9 million. Part of this cost will be met by the Environment Agency.

  There are a number of areas around the Greenwich Peninsula below high water which have naturally occurring sand and gravel banks forming what could be referred to as "beaches". These areas are being retained in their existing natural state but no new sands and gravels are being imported. These "beaches" will be accessible from the new river walkway.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the Millennium Experience at Greenwich on the local transport system. [42016]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Planning permission for the Millennium Experience site in north Greenwich was granted on the clear understanding that general visitors would not be permitted to park cars at the site so as not to exacerbate existing road congestion in the area. This will be reinforced by a large Controlled Parking Zone. By the Millennium there will be additional and improved local transport interchanges and services serving the Exhibition and local area, including a station on the Jubilee Line Extension close to the gates of the Exhibition, a dedicated bus link from Charlton railway station and new river services.
  34
  I chair a new co-ordination group on Millennium Access matters which will have its first meeting next week. I will also be giving oral evidence on this subject to the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee of this House on 16 June.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Charity Taxation
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what representations he has received concerning the Government review of charity taxation. [42030]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners, working with other central bodies of the Church, have made submissions to the Government's ongoing review.

  They have in turn received many representations from dioceses, parishes, individual clergy and lay members of the Church, all expressing concern about the effect of advance corporation tax changes and the importance of ensuring that the review is supportive of the charitable status and activities of the Church.

  The General Synod of the Church of England has overwhelmingly endorsed a diocesan proposal for a reduction to 5 per cent. VAT on church building repairs.

  Parishes (Assets)
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what effect the recently announced rise in the value of their assets will have on the parishes. [42031]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The value of our assets has indeed grown strongly in recent years, and follows a change in investment policy away from a high-yielding low growth mix of assets to a fund based more on Stock Exchange investments which offers higher growth prospects over the long-term. The increased value of our assets will enable us to continue to work in partnership with the parishes to ensure stable and sustainable financial support for the Church into the next Millennium.

  Millennium Dome (Christian Dimension)
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps are being taken to ensure a Christian dimension to the Millennium dome. [42032]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The New Millennium Experience Company, which is responsible for the Dome's contents and funding, is in close touch with the Churches, and indeed members of other faiths, through the Lambeth Group. The detailed design for the "Spirit Zone" is being undertaken in close consultation with the Group and the Archbishops' Officer for the Millennium, and the Minister without Portfolio has made specific assurances that the Christian story will be a central part of the Millennium Experience.
  35

  Disestablishment
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make an assessment of the financial implications of disestablishment of the Church of England. [42025]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  Disestablishment would not lie with the Commissioners to initiate and, without formal instructions and definitions, any estimates of costs are impractical.

  However, for the record, the Prime Minister has indicated to me that neither he nor the Government generally have any policy for the disestablishment of the Church.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Debt
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what initiatives her Department is taking to reduce the need for hard currency to service the international debt of countries which are major producers of illicit drugs. [43169]

  Clare Short
  Such countries are not producing illicit drugs in order to generate the hard currency needed to service international debt. In general we are ready to consider using our bilateral aid programme into finance innovative mechanisms for converting debt into local currency, for example through debt swaps, if we are so requested. But we would need to be convinced that this was the best way of contributing to the reduction of poverty.

  We remain strong supporters of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, which by writing off unpayable debt will reduce the total debt of qualifying countries to an affordable level, thus reducing the amount of hard currency needed for debt service. Bolivia should receive $450 million of HIPC debt relief this September.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will calculate the total amount(a) of aid given to developing countries by the United Kingdom and (b) received from these countries by the United Kingdon in debt service in 1997. [43091]

  Clare Short
  The latest figures available for development assistance provided from Department for International Development programmes are for 1996–97, when development assistance (excluding administration costs, but including contributions to multilateral organisations) to developing countries amounted to £1,837.8 million. Figures for 1997–98 will not be available until the end of the year, when they will be published in the 1998 edition of "British Aid Statistics".

  Debt service received by the Department for International Development in respect of outstanding bilateral aid loans amounted to £43 million in 1996–97: principal repaid is retained for use within the development assistance budget.

  Other debt service repayments in respect of other bilateral debt agreements are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  36

  Police Services
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which countries her Department is currently funding projects to help develop a responsible and accountable police service; and at what planned cost. [43124]

  Clare Short
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer provided to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 276–77, which lists the support currently provided by DFID for police services by country. We do not keep centrally a record of our planned costs for police activities for 1998–99.

  Legal Projects
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development by what criteria it is decided whether her Department or the FCO should fund projects in overseas countries to develop(a) alternatives to custodial sentences and (b) the rule of law. [43125]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development's aim is to improve access to justice, especially for poor and disadvantaged peoples. We also work to create an enabling environment for economic growth in states committed to poverty elimination. The ability to resolve disputes through the legal system with reasonable speed and without corruption has been shown to be an important factor in stimulating domestic and foreign investment. We support these activities where there is need and commitment and where we have a comparative advantage. We are also increasingly working to strengthen traditional systems and ways of settling disputes which can help provide a cheaper and more accessible justice and strengthen alternatives to custodial sentences.

  Rule of law co-operation and prison reform are also among the priorities for the FCC,' s new Human Rights Project Fund.

  Sudan
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to her EU counterparts about the need for additional assistance for Sudan; and if she will make a statement. [43121]

  Clare Short
  The crisis in Sudan was discussed during the EU Development Council meeting which I chaired on 18 May. We reaffirmed our intention to provide further assistance and to call upon the Government of Sudan and the Southern factions to agree a ceasefire and a peace settlement. It is clear that the cause of the crises is the war and without peace there will be continuing crises.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the present level of British aid to Sudan; to what sectors and categories it is apportioned; and to what jurisdictions and areas it is delivered. [42348]

  Clare Short
  Since February, we have given over £5 million to United Nations agencies and international NGOs in Sudan for the provision of food, nutrition and health support and survival kits for displaced families; the current crisis in Bahr El Ghazal region has been a key
  37
  focus for this assistance. I approved a further £5 million on 15 May which will be used over the coming months to meet urgent humanitarian needs in this region and other vulnerable areas in Sudan.

  Human Rights
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which countries her Department is currently funding human rights education teams; and at what planned cost. [43123]

  Clare Short
  We support education on human rights as part of our support for human rights generally. For example, we support measures to raise awareness through education on the rights of the child. In Russia, we are piloting civic and human rights education in secondary schools. In Guyana, we are promoting a rights-based approach to children's education among Amerindian populations. We also help to raise knowledge and awareness of democratic rights and responsibilities. In Zimbabwe, we are contributing to a four-year project of civic education, leading to the general election in 2000. As part of this, churches and leading human rights organisations are conducting a programme of education on democratic and electoral rights. We also support measures to educate and raise awareness about international humanitarian law (IHL). In the Commonwealth of Independent States, we provided funds to the ICRC to develop IHL materials, train IHL trainers and establish a lecture series in IHL at key law institutions.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many special advisers, political advisers and other political appointees are working in her Department; at what annual cost to the

  Country

  Partner agency

  Support

  Amount (£)

  Brazil

  Jubilee Action

  Street girls education, training centre and residence home

  61,200

  Ecuador

  International Childcare Trust

  Street children of Guayaquil

  81,200—1998–99

  Kenya

  International Childcare Trust

  Street children's project

  47,100—1998–99

  India

  Homeless International

  Support for street children

  21,700—1998–99

  South Africa

  Childhope

  Twilight children capacity building

  21,700—1998–99

  South Africa

  Childhope

  Capacity building at Claremont Children's Centre

  23,100—1998–99

  Brazil

  Childhope

  Projecto Ibeji for street children

  49,100—1998–99

  Brazil

  Childhope

  Judicial and institutional protection of children and adolescents

  33,500—1998–99

  Russia

  European Network on street children

  Conference in St. Petersburg on street children

  5,000—1998–99

  Bangladesh

  Shioshab

  Support for child domestic workers, including children from the streets

  100,000—1998–99 rising to £800,000 if initial indicators met

  Bangladesh

  UCEP

  Providing education for underprivileged children working in urban areas

  900,000—Phase III

  India

  Don Bosco

  Valsalya Project: Sexual health project for street children/youth of Cochin aims to integrate sexual health intervention with ongoing activities of Don Bosco

  15,850—(period—1997 April to June 1998—likely to be extended through the substantive phase of the Partnerships for Sexual Health project)

  India

  Cini-Asha

  Cini-Asha: Sexual Health Project for Street Children and working children in Central Calcutta

  39,000—(Since August 1995 to date under the West Bengal sexual Health Project—likely to continue at an average of £12,000–£15,000 per annum)

  38
  public purse including recruitment costs, salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions; and what was the position in the last full year of the last Government. [43321]

  Clare Short
  There are two special advisers working in my Department, but no other political advisers or political appointees. The combined total cost of the two posts for the twelve month period up to 5 May 1998 was approximately £67,000. There were no special advisers, political advisers or political appointees working in the Overseas Development Administration in the last full year of the last government.

  UN Agencies
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for which UN agencies her Department's financial contribution will be less in 1998–99 than in 1997–98; and in each case by how much. [43127]

  Clare Short
  Total contributions, covering both core and extra-budgetary funding, to UN agencies for 1998/99 will not be known until the end of the financial year. Overall, DFID' s core contributions to voluntary funded UN agencies have increased in 1998/99 over 1997/98.

  Street Children
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in which countries her Department is currently funding non-governmental organisation projects addressing the needs of street children; and at what planned cost. [43122]

  Clare Short
  The countries in which DFID is currently funding non governmental organisation projects addressing the needs of street children, and the costs of these projects, are as follows:
  39
  We also support a number of projects for street children with the block grant agencies (SCF, Christian Aid, OXFAM, CAFOD) but do not yet have the exact allocations for this financial year.

  Afghanistan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of(a) the effectiveness of existing aid programmes, (b) future aid opportunities and (c) the conditions under which aid workers are operating following the visit in April of a European Union delegation to Afghanistan; what response Taliban made to the delegation's outlining of the European Union's Common Position on Afghanistan; and if she will make a statement. [43175]

  Clare Short
  As a result of the EU mission to Afghanistan and the subsequent Afghan Support Group meeting in London, chaired by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), donors have concluded that the existing assistance programmes to Afghanistan are in need of revision. While valuable support has been provided to vulnerable groups, past assistance may have made it easier for other resources to be channelled towards the war effort, and certain types of relief programming may be deepening dependency and reducing local incentives for self-reliance.

  The present situation poses difficult policy, strategic and operational dilemmas and makes it vital for agencies to adopt a common programming approach with a strong focus on human rights. Participants in the Afghan Support Group meeting agreed that future assistance should be better targeted and co-ordinated, and based on clear principles, with the aim of providing balanced and impartial support for the different ethnic groups and vulnerable populations, especially women and children. The problem of opium poppy production should also be addressed through the common programming approach. The aid and political processes should be in close synergy, and contribute to the common goal of sustainable peace.

  Aid workers in Afghanistan continue to face difficult conditions. In the North they have to cope with an unstable security situation, and in some Taliban-controlled areas they have been subjected to harassment—restrictions placed on female staff are a particular problem. These difficulties forced the UN to withdraw international staff from Kandahar earlier this year, and to suspend its programmes in southern Afghanistan. Recent negotiations between the UN and the Taliban have produced an agreement which may improve matters, but some issues (notably the ban on foreign Muslim women from entering Afghanistan unless accompanied by a close male relative) have not been resolved, and it remains to see how effectively the agreement will work in practice.

  The EU delegation made clear to the Taliban and other factions that they remained willing to assist Afghanistan but only on the basis of globally accepted principles. The delegation also expressed its full support for the UN. These messages were endorsed by the Afghan Support Group. This demonstration of solidarity helped to bring about the successful conclusion of the negotiations between the UN and the Taliban referred to.
  40

  India
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the Indian Government concerning their nuclear capability. [42880]

  Clare Short
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, gave her on 20 May 1998,Official Report, column 529.

  Birmingham Summit
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if the multilateral untying of aid was on the agenda of the G8 Summit in Birmingham; and if she will make a statement. [43634]

  Clare Short
  The G8 Summit endorsed the important work on multilateral untying of aid being undertaken in the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in particular a proposal on untying aid to the least developed countries with a view to proposing a text in 1999.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress was made at the G8 Summit in Birmingham on(a) the multilateral untying of aid and (b) the phasing out of export subsidies. [43636]

  Clare Short
  The G8 Summit endorsed the important work on multilateral untying of aid being undertaken in the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, in particular a proposal on untying aid to the least developed countries with a view to proposing a text in 1999. There was no substantive discussion on export subsidies.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the meetings which she has had since 1 May at which the multilateral untying of aid was on the agenda. [43637]

  Clare Short
  On 18 May I chaired the EU Development Council which agreed that Development and Finance Ministers should meet to prepare a note on EC untying to complement the work of the Development Assistance Committee. This will be submitted before the summer break.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with representatives from other G8 countries concerning the multilateral untying of aid. [43633]

  Clare Short
  I have had a number of useful discussions on untying of aid with colleagues from G8 countries. At the Birmingham Summit G8 countries pledged to work within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on a recommendation on untying aid to the least developed countries with a view to proposing a text in 1999.
  41

  Export Subsidies
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's policy towards the use of export subsidies. [43635]

  Clare Short
  My Department does not favour export subsidies. The Aid and Trade provision has been ended. The White Paper on International Development makes it clear that we will consider within country programmes whether mixed credits would contribute to our central goal of reducing poverty by encouraging appropriate economic growth and investment in human development.

  Eastern Myanmar and Western Thailand
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the aid programmes in Eastern Myanmar and Western Thailand supported by her Department. [43864]

  Clare Short
  In the 1996–97 and 1997–98 financial years DFID has supported a number of NGO projects in Western Thailand and Eastern Myanmar:

  £

  Small Grants Scheme— 1996/97

  12,000

  Ecoles Sans Frontieres Shoklo Malaria Research Unit Neo-Humanistic Foundation for Community Development Christ Church Karen Outreach Programme

  Small Grants Scheme— 1997/98

  9,000

  Karen Refugee Committee Burmese Border Consortium Open Society Institute Mae Tao Clinic

  Humanitarian Assistance— Emergency Response 1996/97

  22,000

  CAFOD

  Humanitarian Assistance— Emergency Response 1997/98

  80,000

  World Vision

  Humanitarian Assistance— Refugees 1996/97

  150,000

  Burma Border Consortium

  Humanitarian Assistance— Refugees 1997/98

  267,000

  Burma Border Consortium

  Assistance includes food and essential items to Burmese refugees in border camps in both Thailand and Burma (Burmese Border Consortium) and reproductive health, education and medical equipment provided through the SGS.

  Kosovo
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance her Department is currently giving to Kosovo. [43148]

  Clare Short
  My Department has provided assistance to Kosovo through grants to non-governmental organisations such as the International Federation of the Red Cross, Oxfam and the Save the Children Fund. It is currently funding two Oxfam projects worth over £100,000 to promote health education amongst rural women and to provide facilities and change attitudes 42
  towards disabled children, and an SCF Childrens Rights project. Officials are working up options for further assistance, including support for civil society and reconciliation.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has made to the G8 countries, in respect of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative. [43018]

  Clare Short
  Over the last few months, I have used bilateral contacts with most of the G8 countries, including France, Germany and the United States, as well as fellow European Union countries and the IMF and World Bank, to press the case for faster and more flexible implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt Initiative. At last month's G8 Summit in Birmingham, leaders agreed to support the speedy and determined extension of debt relief to more countries, under the terms of the Initiative. They also recognised the particular difficulties of post conflict countries, and the need to consider debt relief mechanisms to release more and earlier resources for essential rehabilitation.

  Ecologically Sensitive Areas
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will publish her Department's guidelines for UK multinationals investing in ecologically-sensitive areas overseas. [42561]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  A copy of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, which call for high standards of corporate behaviour, including in the area of environmental protection, is available in the Library of the House.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sport (Young People)
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the Government are helping to develop participation in sport by young people. [41999]

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how the Government are helping to develop participation in sport by young people. [42007]

  Mr. Banks
  The English Sports Council's National Junior Sports Programme provides a framework through which schools can work with a number of organisations to provide real opportunities in sport. Also, participation rates of young people have risen by up to three times in some areas because of facilities provided by the Lottery Sports Fund.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to increase opportunities for young people in London to participate in sport. [42012]

  Mr. Banks
  The English Sports Council works closely with all London Boroughs to increase opportunities for young people to participate in sport through a number of
  43
  initiatives. The ESC is also part funding the London Youth Games, the finals of which take place on 11/12 July at Crystal Palace national Sports Centre.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many films have been made on location in the United Kingdom in the past 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [42000]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  In 1997, 112 feature films were wholly or partly filmed in the United Kingdom, with a total production cost of £560 million. The aim of our Film Policy Review "A Bigger Picture" is to sustain the current successes of our production sector and develop better links between production and distribution.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on his policy concerning taxation and the film industry. [42008]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  In its first Budget the Government showed their recognition of the special needs and potential growth of the film industry by introducing 100 per cent. write-off for films on production and acquisition expenditure for films costing up to £15 million. In March this was extended from three to five years. Further developments are of course a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  National Lottery Grants
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to ensure a more equitable distribution of heritage lottery fund grants between the different parts of the United Kingdom. [42002]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government are determined to ensure that Lottery money is allocated fairly and equitably across the whole of the United Kingdom and between different groups in society. The National Lottery Bill gives the Heritage Lottery Fund and the other Lottery distributors important new powers in this respect; and later today I will be announcing the confirmation of new directions for the Lottery distributors, designed to achieve precisely this objective.

  Press Regulation (Children)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has held with the Press Complaints Commission on press regulation in respect of children. [42004]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  On 25 September 1997 I welcomed proposals from Lord Wakeham, Chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, for strengthening the newspaper industry's code of practice. His proposals for better protection of children were accepted by the industry and published on 19 December. I have urged the PCC to consider further measures to strengthen the process of self-regulation.

  Film Task Force
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he is taking to implement proposals made to him by the film task force. [42006]
  44
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I have set up an Action Committee, made up of representatives of key sectors of the British film industry, which will oversee the implementations of the recommendations of the Film Policy Review, which met on 12 May.

  Public Buildings (Cologne)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will evaluate the preservation and display of sites of archaeological significance in the vicinity of new public buildings in Cologne. [42009]

  Mr. Fisher
  No. I am aware that German law requires city authorities to aim to preserve archaeological monuments as much as possible, that there is a lot of public debate in Cologne about the preservation of sites, and that various solutions have been found for incorporating parts of remains into new buildings. In the UK, planning guidance stresses the importance of identifying potential archaeological remains at an early stage and that there should be a presumption in favour of in situ preservation of important remains which as in Cologne, can involve their incorporation in new developments.

  Royal Parks
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has to allow the royal parks to generate more income through staging events. [42010]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I am keen that the parks should attract people who might not normally visit them, and that the Agency should benefit from any extra income. I have asked the Royal Parks Agency to draw up a comprehensive programme of events in the Royal Parks each year.

  Creative Industries Task Force
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he will take to ensure that his Department's creative industries task force works with the proposed regional development agencies to develop arts-based businesses. [42011]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am, of course, aware of the importance of the contribution made to the creative economy by artists and innovators in the regions and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, South participates in his capacity as Minister for the Regions on the Creative Industries Task Force, to help ensure that the Government's policies for the creative industries take account of the regional dimension of cultural and creative activities.

  Voluntary Sector (National Lottery Grants)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last met the National Lottery Charities Board to discuss grants to the voluntary sector; and if he will make a statement. [42013]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I have not met the National Lottery Charities Board collectively to discuss grants to the voluntary sector, but regularly meet Chairs and Chief
  45
  Executives of all Lottery distributors to discuss Lottery distribution matters. The most recent of these meetings took place on 21 April.

  Tourism
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he has taken to support the British seaside tourist industry. [43869]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  Seaside towns are an important part of the domestic tourism market. The Government's strategy for tourism will be effective, comprehensive and will benefit all areas, including seaside towns. One of the Forum Working Groups, which is helping with the development of the strategy for tourism, is looking particularly at issues relevant to resorts.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when his Department's plan for tourism will be published. [43650]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  We plan to publish our strategy for tourism later this year.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the regulations that have been removed or amended to help small businesses since 1 May 1997. [42778]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  No such Regulations have been removed or amended by this Department since 1 May 1997.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when his Department plans to publish a broadcasting consultation document. [43651]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government are carefully considering future policy towards broadcasting and telecommunications in the light of the changes in technology which have the potential to transform these sectors and to erode current distinctions between them. My Department and the Department of Trade and Industry shall consult widely on these issues later this year, and shall be publishing a document for that purpose as soon as our current initial consideration has been completed.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he estimates analogue terrestrial broadcasts will cease in the United Kingdom. [43659]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government's consultation paper "Television: the Digital Future"—published on 12 February 1998,Official Report, column 364—seeks comments on a wide range of issues relating to the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting including the timing of closure of the analogue terrestrial network. Comments are invited by 4 September.

  The Government will consider the timing and nature of an announcement on the closure of the analogue network in the light of the responses to that consultation document.
  46

  Arts Council
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to review the activities of the Arts Council. [43653]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Departmental Spending Review which is currently under way at DCMS is looking at the full range of the Department's responsibilities, including the arts funding system and the role of the Arts Council within it. I expect to announce the conclusions of this review in the summer.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the UK Sports Institute will open. [43661]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The new buildings of the UK Sports Institute are expected to be open at the end of the year 2000. However, we expect to have services on-stream before then and very much hope that there will be benefits for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.

  The UK Sports Council is already talking to individual sports about how their existing programmes can be enhanced.

  Royal Opera House
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the review of the Royal Opera House will be published. [43666]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Eyre report will be published shortly after I receive it from Sir Richard.

  Museums
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the results of the review of museum access will be made public. [43652]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The access review is continuing in the context of the Departmental Spending Review, which includes a fundamental review of the museums and galleries sector.

  This will conclude shortly and an announcement will be made in the Summer.

  Sportsmatch
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been granted to Sportsmatch projects in Chorley; and if he will list these projects. [43619]

  Mr. Banks
  Sportsmatch awarded £1,250 to Chorley Rugby Union Football Club in 1996 for a junior and mini coaching and development scheme. Bolton Wanderers Football in the Community Scheme was awarded £3,500 in March to extend its geographical coverage to benefit schools in the Chorley, Adlington, Anderton and Exuton areas.

  Listed Sporting Events
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received regarding the Gordon report on de-listing of sporting events. [43675]
  47
  Mr. Chris Smith
  Lord Gordon's advisory group proposed various revisions to the arrangements, under Part IV of the Broadcasting Act 1996, for protecting universal broadcast of certain events. I am presently considering the group's recommendations. I have received 776 representations of this subject, including 132 from hon. Members, since the announcement of the group's report on 20 March.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will publish his decision on the recommendations of the advisory body on listed sporting events. [43649]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am considering the recommendations of Lord Gordon's advisory group very carefully, taking account of the many representations made to me on the subject of the list of protected events. I shall announce my decisions in the next few weeks.

  Employee Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will estimate the cost of employee travel on office business, broken down into(a) fuel allowances, (b) unproductive time during travel, (c) other costs related to car transport and (d) costs related to public transport, for (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96, (iii) 1996–97 and (iv) 1997–98. [32446]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: Information on employee travel is not available in the level of detail requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Neither do records before 1996–97 differentiate between Ministerial and official travel and related subsistence. The available information is given in the table.

  £

  Total travel and subsistence

  Total official travel and subsistence

  1994–95 (actual)

  266,092

  n/a

  1995–96 (actual)

  280,104

  n/a

  1996–97 (actual)

  242,031

  182,142

  1997–98 (provisional outturn)

  292,328

  245,360

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is his current estimate of the expenditure of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies on hospitality since 1 May 1997. [27755]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The available information is given in the following table.

  £000

  1 May 1997 to 1 February 1998

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  13

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  23

  Royal Parks Agency

  18

  48
  It is not possible to distinguish, without incurring disproportionate cost, between NDPB's expenditure financed from grant-in-aid and that financed from other sources of income including sponsorships. However the total expenditure by the Department's NDPBs on hospitality from 1 May 1997 to 1 February is £997,000.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress the Government have made in implementing their commitment to ensure that the UK Sports Council becomes the lead strategic body for sport in the UK. [42574]

  Mr. Banks
  As part of the Departmental Spending Review we have been reviewing the role and structure of the UK Sports Council and Government support for sport at UK level. We hope soon to be able to share our thoughts more widely.

  Sport Governing Bodies
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 26 February,Official Report, column 322, what proportion of the officers serving on the sports governing bodies listed are (a) under 25 years and (b) over 65 years of age; and what proportion are women. [33542]

  Mr. Banks
  In response to my hon. Friend's question, and following a meeting with me, the Central Council of Physical Recreation has agreed to conduct a survey of their membership to establish a profile of the officers serving on the sports governing bodies. This survey will address the questions raised by my hon. Friend and I have asked the CCPR to speak to him, and with my officials, about how this survey might best be conducted. The Chairman of the CCPR shares with me a desire to see the management of sports organisations fully representing the wide range of people who are keen on sport, and taking the increasingly professional approach which is needed for the management of these organisations as we enter the new century.

  Cricket (Racism)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the extent of racism in cricket; what negotiations he has had with the England and Wales Cricket Board in respect of racism in cricket; and what steps he proposes to reduce the incidence of racism in cricket. [42614]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government are committed to stamping out racism in all areas of sport, and the English Sports Council has established a Racial Equality Advisory Group to work with national governing bodies to encourage racial equality in sport. We support fully the initiatives undertaken by the England and Wales Cricket Board to reduce racism and to promote the widest possible participation in cricket. These include:an extensive network of cricket development officers nationwide, whose brief is to promote cricket to all ages, sexes, colours and creeds;
  a proposed Racial Equality Campaign for cricket in conjunction with the English Sports Council and the Commission for Racial Equality; and

  49
  a co-ordinated national audit of recreational cricket, via the 38 county boards, in order to gain a clearer picture of the level of Asian and black involvement in cricket.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Portcullis House
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if any legal actions are in progress against the Corporate Officer of the House arising out of the construction of Portcullis House; and if he will make a statement. [43883]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  A legal action is currently in progress, involving a claim for damages by Harmon CFEM Facades (UK) Ltd. (In Liquidation) against the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons. The plaintiff seeks damages arising from the procurement procedures adopted by the Corporate Officer in relation to the fenestration package in respect of the new parliamentary building (Portcullis House). The plaintiff tendered for the package but it was awarded elsewhere. The Corporate Officer is defending the proceedings.

  The case is being heard in the High Court of Justice before an Official Referee His Honour Judge Lloyd QC.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Nationality Policy
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement of Government policy on immigration and nationality. [44078]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We made it clear in our manifesto that Britain, like every country, must have firm control over immigration. However, we are also determined that applications should be dealt with speedily and fairly. All staff applying the Government's immigration and nationality policy will observe these central principles of being fair, fast and firm; and will carry out their duties without regard to the race, colour or religion of any person seeking to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or applying for citizenship.

  The main elements of our policy are to: welcome genuine visitors and students who wish to come to the United Kingdom; support family life by admitting the spouses and minor dependent children of those already settled in the United Kingdom; ensure that asylum decisions are both swift and fair and fully meet the United Kingdom's obligations towards refugees under international law; grant entry to those who qualify for periods of work in the United Kingdom; maintain a fair, fast and effective entry clearance operation at United Kingdom posts overseas; give effect to the "free movement" provisions of European Community law while retaining controls at frontiers, operated by a civilian Immigration Service; detect and remove those entering or remaining in the United Kingdom without authority and take firm action against those profiting from abuse of the
  50
  immigration laws, including effective preventive measures; and to grant applications for citizenship to those meeting the specified criteria.

  This statement is included in the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate Annual Report 1997, which is published today. The Report covers a number of important developments which affect the work of the Directorate, such as the Casework Programme, the Treaty of Amsterdam and other major policy issues; and includes a factual account of events in each element of the immigration control. A copy is being placed in the Library.

  Prisoners (Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme)
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new initiatives are planned to increase the effectiveness of the incentives and earned privileges scheme which encourages responsible behaviour by prisoners. [44090]

  Ms Quin
  The national framework for Incentives and Earned Privileges was introduced in 1995 and has been operating in all prisons since mid 1996. These schemes seek to reward good prisoner behaviour and performance and penalise bad prisoner behaviour and performance. In a few prisons, one of the "Key Earnable Privileges" has been television in-cell and the Government now intend to extend the availability of this as an earned and forfeitable privilege more generally across the Prison Service. This will build on the previous Government's introduction of the privilege in 1991, adding slowly to the approximately 2,500 sets already in place. Prisoners will pay for the privilege themselves. The weekly charge is likely to be about £1 against average weekly prisoner earnings of £7.50.

  Prisoners' normal access to television is out of the cell in association with others. Television in cells was introduced in 1991, following a White Paper in response to Lord Justice Woolf s Report on the disturbances at Strangeways prison (Manchester). About 1,000 prisoners in four establishments initially had this privilege; under the previous Government the numbers had risen by 1997 to the current levels of about 2,500 (four per cent. of the prison population), mostly in five establishments of varying types. At present, it is largely a matter of chance whether a prisoner will find him or herself in a prison with the prospect of in-cell television.

  Experience of in-cell television in recent years suggests considerable benefits. As an earned privilege it can be a powerful incentive to good behaviour and regime participation, and can help with order and control, reducing tension on the landings. Its loss is feared. It helps prisoners keep in touch with the outside world to which all but a few must eventually return. It has potential as a means of providing information and enhancing prison regimes.

  The Government have taken into account the views on this subject expressed in a variety of contexts, including the Learmont Report on Prison Service security following the escape from Parkhurst in 1995, the Home Affairs Committee in March 1997, and in reports by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and Boards of Visitors. The Learmont Report recommended the wider

  51
  introduction of in-cell television and pointed to its potential benefits as an information, as well as a recreational, medium. The Home Affairs Committee recommended it in March 1997
  "given the potential of TV in-cell as a means of contributing to good order in a prison; so long as the availability of television in this way is clearly an earned privilege rather than a right".

  Successive Chief Inspectors have urged the previous and this Government to make wider use of in-cell television and have reported on its existing successful use, most recently at Garth prison. Boards of Visitors of establishments with in-cell television frequently report favourably on its value. There is already extensive use of in-cell television in other European prison systems and in the United States and Canada.

  In-cell television will be liable to be forfeited in a number of ways: when a prisoner is moved to the basic privilege level of the incentives and earned privileges schemes; when an adjudicating governor awards a disciplinary penalty of forfeiture of privileges; if local rules governing the use of in-cell television are broken; and if a judgment is made in a particular case that its availability appears to be damaging a prisoner's treatment or increasing the risk to the public on his or her release.

  The Prison Service will be considering further the scope to use internal channels as an additional means of communicating information to prisoners and helping with education and regimes generally. In-cell television can help deliver educational courses, for example through Open University and other relevant programmes. Garth prison—one of the first prisons to have in-cell television—uses an internal information channel to help communication with prisoners and to show videos.

  A procurement process for televisions—which will receive terrestrial channels only—is starting with a view to the extension of this privilege from later in 1998. The option of in-cell television will initially be targeted on prisoners on the enhanced privilege level or in other priority groups, such as those who are "drug free". Those on the standard privilege level will not be precluded but the extension of in-cell television will be gradual and monitored closely. This is partly to maximise its benefits as an earned privilege and partly because in-cell electricity is not available in about forty per cent. of accommodation and this is unlikely to change significantly for some time.

  Extension of in-cell television will be broadly self-financing, with the costs of Prison Service-owned televisions and their replacement, warranties and wall brackets recovered from prisoners allowed the privilege. At present, licence fees are not payable in respect of prisoners because of Crown exemption. The Government propose to consider the practicability of a licensing arrangement for prisoners later on in the context of licensing arrangements more generally.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provision has been made for meeting staff costs over the life of each of the Private Finance Initiative contracts undertaken by(a) his Department and (b) the Prison Service; and if he will make a statement. [43428]
  52
  Mr. Straw
  In respect of both(a) and (b), staffing costs which are part of the operations of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract are the responsibility of the service operator and are included in the contractual charge for each PFI service.

  Feltham Young Offenders Institution
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the(a) current and (b) target ratio of staff to 15 to 16 year old inmates in the juvenile wing, of Feltham Young Offenders' Institution. [43362]

  Ms Quin
  The target ratio of staff to inmates on the five juvenile wings at Feltham is approximately 5: 1. Current staffing levels on Swallow, Heron, Jay and Dunlin, and Eagle wings slightly exceeded this ratio as detailed in the table.

  Staffing ratios for juveniles at Feltham YOI and RC

  Unit/number of juveniles

  Current staffing

  Target staffing

  Swallow

  2 senior officers

  2 senior officers

  60–65 juveniles

  12 officers

  12 officers

  Heron and Jay (combined)

  2 senior officers

  2 senior officers

  60–68 juveniles

  17 officers

  12 officers

  Dunlin and Eagle (combined)

  2 senior officers

  2 senior officers

  60–68 juveniles

  17 officers

  16 officers

  Security Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Data Protection Registrar's proposal that the Security Services should register under the Data Protection Act 1984. [43458]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have decided not to depart from the existing policy that the Security Service should not register any of the personal data they hold under the Data Protection Act 1984. I understand similar considerations also apply to the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ.

  National Police Computer
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department over what period, and at what cost the West Midlands Probation Service and its partners are piloting the PHOENIX system to provide access to the national police computer. [43461]

  Mr. Michael
  The pilot project commenced live operation in August 1997 and will end in July 1998. The total cost of the pilot project will be approximately £33,350. The costs were shared by the Home Office unit responsible for Co-ordination of Computerisation in the Criminal Justice System (78 per cent.), the West Midlands Probation Service (19 per cent.) and the Police Information Technology Organisation (3 per cent.). The main cost items of the project were equipment, software and communications charges and staff costs associated with the management of the project and the day-to-day operation of the PHOENIX computer terminal.
  53
  A formal evaluation report will be produced following the end of the live running period in July. Emerging findings from the pilot are encouraging. Previously, requests to the police for this information often took one to two weeks, whereas probation officers now have access to information on previous convictions within one to two days.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police man hours were involved in enforcing the current speed limits in Lancashire in the years(a) 1994, (b) 1995, (c) 1996 and (d) 1997; and how many convictions resulted from this; [43477]

  (2) how many police man hours were involved in enforcing the current drink driving laws in Lancashire in the years (a) 1994, (b) 1995, (c) 1996 and (d) 1997; and how many convictions for drink-related offences resulted from this. [43478]

  Mr. Michael
  Figures for officer hours dedicated to drink drive and speed enforcement in the years requested are not available. Officers are deployed on many different duties and commonly deal with a wide range of offences on a tour of duty.

  Convictions for drink driving in the force area were:

  1994: 2,645

  1995: 2,828

  1996: 3,211.

  Convictions for speeding offences were:

  1994: 2,223

  1995: 2,945

  1996: 4,629.

  Figures for 1997 convictions are not yet available.

  Re-offenders
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many criminals convicted abroad and deported back to the United Kingdom in the years 1990 to 1997 have re-offended; [41735]

  (2) how many criminals convicted of murder or homicide abroad and deported back to the United Kingdom in the years 1990 to 1997 have re-offended. [41736]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: The information requested is not available centrally.

  Correspondence
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Richmond Park concerning entry clearance officers in Columbo of 8 December 1997. [42889]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 22 May.
  54

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the regulations that have been amended or removed to help small businesses since 1 May 1997. [42785]

  Mr. Straw
  Regulations to reduce the burdens on business are not necessarily targeted on businesses of a particular size. My Department has made seven amending or repealing regulations (listed below) in the period 1 May 1997 to 15 May 1998 which are expected to reduce burdens on business, irrespective of size:

  Date

  1997 Regulations

  1. The Gaming Act (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order 1997 (SI No. 1828)

  August

  2. The Gaming Act (Variation of Monetary Limits) (No. 2) Order 1997 (SI No. 2079)

  September

  3. The Amusement with Prizes (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order 1997 (SI No. 2080)

  September

  1998 Regulations

  4. The Deregulation (Licence Transfers) Order 1998 (SI No. 114)

  January

  5. The Video Recordings (Labelling) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 (SI No. 852)

  March

  6. The Gaming Clubs (Hours and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 1998 (SI No. 961)

  May

  7. The Gaming Act (Variation of Monetary Limits) Order 1998 (SI No. 962)

  May

  Prison Site, Middleton Sands
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the evacuation plans are in the event of a nuclear emergency at either of the nuclear power stations at Heysham for the prisoners who would be housed in the proposed prison at Middleton Sands, Morecambe; and if he will make a statement. [43861]

  Ms Quin
  Contingency plans for evacuation have been agreed between the Prison Service and the Lancashire Ambulance Service, Lancashire Constabulary and Lancashire Fire Brigade. In his recommendations following the public inquiry, the planning inspector made it a condition that the Emergency, Safety and Evacuation Plan, agreed with the County Emergency Planning Unit, should be operational before the prison opens.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been carried out by his Department regarding the likely effect on the local tourism industry at Morecambe if the proposal to site a temporary prison there is implemented. [43660]

  Ms Quin
  No specific research has been undertaken into the effects of the proposed siting of a temporary prison in the Morecambe area.

  The planning inspector concluded in his report of the recent public inquiry that the prison would have little if any harmful visual impact on the area. In considering the Prison Service's proposals, together with the views of other interested parties, the inspector thought it unlikely that the prison would materially harm the special attractions of the area or that it would likewise harm the tourist and holiday business in the Morecambe area as a whole.
  55

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals are currently outstanding against a refusal of an asylum claim by persons who have been granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. [42979]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at the end of April 1998, there were estimated to be some 23,815 asylum appeals outstanding with the Immigration Appeals Authority. Of these 21,425 were appeals to the Special Adjudicators and 2,390 to the Tribunal. I regret that it is not possible, from the available information, to differentiate those appellants who were granted exceptional leave.

  Channel Islands
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he has held with the Governments of(a) Jersey and (b) Guernsey about incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into the law; [42986]

  (2) what was the purpose of the visit to Jersey made by the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Williams of Mostyn. [42978]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Lord Williams of Mostyn met the Lieutenant Governor, the Bailiff and other representatives from Jersey on Monday 18 May to discuss with the insular authorities the progress of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] and the action being taken in the Island in response to the Government's decision to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law. He visited Guernsey for a similar discussion on 22 May.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the representations he has received on the case of Mr. Sukhvinder Singh Gill, Ref S474991; if he will meet hon. Members with an interest in the case to discuss those representations; and what action he proposes on the case. [43080]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The most recent representations about Mr. Gill's case were received from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) in September 1997. I am currently considering Mr. Gill's case and will inform his representatives of my decision in due course.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what maintenance or income level is required in the assessment of entry clearance applications for settlement. [43199]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Each case is considered on its own facts. The maintenance and accommodation criteria set out within the Rules meet the need to ensure that, where people are admitted for settlement, they will have the basic means to support and accommodate themselves and there will be no need for them to seek state assistance.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Prison Service has to enable the recognition of the Prison Officers Association in private prisons. [42919]
  56
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]: The conditions of service, including membership of trades unions, of prisoner custody officers employed at a privately managed prison are a matter for negotiation between them and their employer, the contractor managing the prison, who is of course required to comply with all appropriate legislation.

  Prisoners (Health Care)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 20 January 1998,Official Report, column 518, when he expects the joint working group on the future of prison health care to report. [43045]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]: The joint Prison Service/Department of Health Working Group on the future organisation of prisoners' health care is expecting to report its findings to Ministers in July, and to publish its conclusions and recommendations in due course.

  Deaths in Custody
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete his review of the disclosure regulations regarding deaths in custody. [43183]

  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend indicated in his statement to the House on 23 March 1998,Official Report, columns 21–37, in response to the Home Affairs Committee report into police disciplinary and complaints procedures, that he would consider the scope for greater openness in respect of investigation reports into deaths in police custody. This is expected to be completed later this year. A similar situation applies in the Prison Service.

  Prisoners (Suicide and Self-harm)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action was taken as a result of the review of suicide and self-harm in prison, conducted by Judge Tumim in 1990; and if he will make a statement. [43184]

  Ms Quin
  Judge Tumim's report on suicides and self-harm in prisons in England and Wales made wide-ranging recommendations with implications across prison regimes. The Prison Service's response was shaped through a newly created central unit which was set up to develop suicide awareness strategies. Following detailed examination of the recommendations in the report, a revised strategy on caring for the suicidal was introduced in 1994. A further review by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons is now underway and will help to refine strategies further.

  Coroners
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances a High Court judge can sit as a coroner; and on how many occasions this has happened in the last 10 years. [43182]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is open to doubt whether a High Court judge has the jurisdiction to act as a coroner, and none has done so in recent years.
  57

  Prisoners
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if the advice contained in Section Two: Board report of Form HDC (4) in the draft guidance to governors on the eligibility of prisoners for early release on home detention curfew applies in the case of prisoners required to register under Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997; [42356]

  (2) if prisoners required to register under Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 will not be eligible to apply for early release on home detention curfew; [42353]

  (3) pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) of 12 May 1998, Official Report, column 70, if he will define the exceptional circumstances in which prisoners who are required to register under Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 would be released on home detention curfew; [42372]

  (4) if prisoners who are required to register under Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and who apply for early release under home detention curfew are to be evaluated by any criteria under the enhanced assessment procedure which are not used in the case of other categories of prisoner required to go through the enhanced assessment procedure before early release under the home detention curfew. [42354]

  Ms Quin
  Any prisoner serving a sentence of four years or more will not be eligible for home detention curfew. Clause 91 of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] sets out the other categories of prisoner who will be ineligible for home detention curfew, including prisoners who are serving extended sentences for sex offences under clause 55 of the Bill. My right hon. Friend has also decided that prisoners serving between three months and four years who are required to register under Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 should not be tagged on home detention curfew, save in exceptional circumstances.

  Specific guidance on the assessment of prisoners required to register under Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 is given in paragraph 3.2 of the draft guidance on the risk assessment for home detention curfew (placed in the Library on 12 May). This states that prisoners who are convicted of an offence to which Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 applies should not be placed on home detention curfew, save where there are exceptional circumstances.

  This reflects our overall objective of protecting the public. Each case will be considered on its merits and only where there are exceptional circumstances will release be approved. Factors which will be considered include the circumstances of the offence, the prisoner's risk to the public and the potential supervision arrangements.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners(a) are currently eligible for release on home detention curfew and (b) will be released following (i) a standard assessment and (ii) an enhanced assessment. [42355]
  58
  Ms Quin
  The latest estimate indicates that, were the scheme in force, around 7,200 prisoners would currently be eligible for home detention curfew, subject to their passing a risk assessment and having a suitable address.

  All eligible prisoners will have to be considered under the standard assessment before they can be granted home detention curfew. The number of prisoners referred for further consideration under the enhanced assessment will depend on the judgment of those conducting the risk assessments in the individual cases. It is estimated that around 4,000 prisoners might be on home detention curfew at any one time.

  Police (Training)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the training consultants commissioned by the Metropolitan Police during 1997 and 1998 to date. [42806]

  Mr. Michael
  The Commissioner tells me that training in the Metropolitan Police is delivered on three levels: centrally; area; and divisional. He tells me that, because of the devolved nature of the Metropolitan Police, the majority of training activities and consultants are arranged at a local level in one of its Divisions or Branches. This is to allow local training or consultation to be bought according to need. As a result, the information requested is not readily available centrally and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, the Commissioner tells me that contracts for the value of £10,000 and above, and those contracts which may generate particular difficulties, are let in consultation with the Metropolitan Police's Department of Procurement and Commercial Services. He tells me that the formal contracts for training have been placed by the unit over the last year in regard to the following topics:

  Public Order Strategic Command Course

  Driving Techniques

  Finance and Resource Manager Training

  Policing Diversity

  Specialist Operations Workshops

  Resettlement—Outplacement Services.

  The Commissioner also tells me that a number of companies have asked that confidentiality clauses be included in their contracts so that they cannot be identified. The reasons given were generally security or commercial grounds, I am told. As the Metropolitan Police have agreed to include such clauses in their contracts, the Commissioner is unable to provide me with the information requested. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary is currently undertaking a thematic inspection of training, which will include the Metropolitan Police, and I have asked that contractual arrangements for training be included in that inspection.

  Probation Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent probation services provided through local authorities have(a) been expanded and (b) diminished between 1996–97 and 1997–98. [42400]
  59
  Ms Quin
  Home Office cash limited current grant for the years in question, service by service, is shown in the table.

  Total £ cash limit

  1996/97

  1997/98

  Avon

  5,657,097

  5,568,333

  Bedfordshire

  3,011,253

  2,997,989

  Berkshire

  4,771,088

  4,686,246

  Cambridgeshire

  3,443,008

  3,393,925

  Cheshire

  5,147,843

  5,110,514

  Cleveland

  4,204,430

  4,364,095

  Cornwall

  2,233,736

  2,208,707

  Cumbria

  3,448,005

  3,385,424

  Derbyshire

  4,388,080

  4,556,718

  Devon

  6,179,943

  6,026,040

  Dorset

  3,697,043

  3,593,716

  Durham

  3,640,662

  3,601,976

  Essex

  7,480,624

  7,413,790

  Gloucestershire

  3,248,583

  3,202,508

  Hampshire

  7,793,274

  7,803,939

  Hereford and Worcester

  3,660,065

  3,594,965

  Hertfordshire

  4,761,433

  4,734,267

  Humberside

  5,251,750

  5,258,571

  Kent

  8,351,281

  8,307,578

  Lancashire

  7,661,145

  7,933,492

  Leicestershire

  4,614,336

  4,577,699

  Lincolnshire

  3,249,156

  3,238,827

  Greater Manchester

  20,456,930

  20,422,394

  Merseyside

  12,860,645

  12,585,564

  Norfolk

  3,508,673

  3,516,190

  Northamptonshire

  2,894,369

  2,860,597

  Northumbria

  10,205,589

  10,105,172

  Nottinghamshire

  7,228,881

  7,126,463

  Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire

  6,393,411

  6,297,623

  Shropshire

  2,140,708

  2,111,436

  Somerset

  3,308,250

  3,201,367

  Staffordshire

  6,115,628

  6,046,105

  Suffolk

  3,067,983

  3,043,987

  Surrey

  4,791,070

  4,679,942

  East Sussex

  3,561,157

  3,547,240

  West Sussex

  2,766,603

  2,751,465

  Warwickshire

  2,889,135

  2,818,192

  West Midlands

  21,202,578

  20,923,624

  Wiltshire

  2,825,447

  2,812,210

  North Yorkshire

  2,860,695

  2,963,504

  South Yorkshire

  10,182,621

  9,971,749

  West Yorkshire

  16,136,171

  15,984,817

  Inner London

  32,495,559

  32,033,478

  North East London

  7,708,497

  7,616,985

  South East London

  5,122,339

  5,061,132

  South West London

  3,915,125

  3,837,747

  Middlesex

  13,936,761

  13,706,116

  England

  314,468,662

  311,584,416

  Dyfed

  1,766,225

  1,759,966

  Gwent

  2,843,130

  3,017,029

  North Wales

  3,008,587

  3,137,235

  Powys

  650,080

  648,208

  South Glamorgan

  3,306,567

  3,259,640

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,854,057

  2,794,663

  West Glamorgan

  2,741,691

  2,698,843

  Wales

  17,170,338

  17,315,584

  England and Wales

  331,639,000

  328,900,000

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the current and capital probation grant and credit approvals to local authorities were reduced between 1996–97 and 1997–98. [42401]
  60
  Ms Quin
  Probation service budgets for 1997–98 were decided by the previous Government and announced to services before that financial year began. We adhered to those budgets after the General Election in line with our commitment to maintain public spending in 1997–98 and 1998–99 in accordance with the previous Government's spending plans.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Expenditure
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how much public money will be spent on the Millennium Experience between the present time and the staging of the event. [42017]

  Mr. Mandelson
  There is no taxpayers' money allocated to the Millennium Experience project. The budget comprises a grant of £399m (net) from the Millennium Commission and forecast receipts of £359m from private sector sponsorship, visitor income and other commercial revenue. So far £93.6m of the grant from the Millennium Commission has been used.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the budget for the Millennium Experience at Greenwich. [42019]

  Mr. Mandelson
  As I previously informed the hon. Member, the budget for the Millennium Experience comprises a grant of £399m from the Millennium Commission and forecast receipts totalling £359m from the private sector sponsorship, visitor income and other commercial revenue. The project is on time and on budget.

  Regional Exhibitions
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what plans he has to enable exhibits in the Millennium Experience to be displayed elsewhere in the United Kingdom. [42018]

  Mr. Mandelson
  It is too early for final decisions to be made about the future of individual exhibits beyond the year 2000, but the Government, in confirming their determination to ensure a legacy from the Millennium Experience, hope that it might be possible for elements of the exhibits to be displayed elsewhere after 2000.

  Serious Play Zone
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will make a statement on the content of games to be included in the serious play zone. [42020]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The detailed content of the serious play zone is currently being developed by the New Millennium Experience Company and its designers, Land Design Studios Ltd., working closely with the zone sponsor, BSkyB. The zone will explore the world of sport and leisure in the 21st century.

  International Debt
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what representations he has received on linking
  61
  the Millennium Experience in the UK with the experience of debt reduction or cancellation in other countries of the world. [42021]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have received a number of representations on this important issue, as have my colleagues in the Treasury, the Department for International Development and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Representations have particularly related to the Jubilee 2000 campaign and the Bondfire project.

  The Government are committed to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, which aims to reduce the debt burden of the world's most indebted countries to sustainable levels.

  Visitors
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what estimate he has made of the number of people from Altrincham and Sale, West who will visit the Millennium Experience. [42023]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company estimates that 12 million visits will be made to the Millennium Experience. Between 8 and 10 million of those are likely to be from the UK, and I hope that many of those will come from Altrincham and Sale, West. I also hope that as many people as possible from the greater Manchester area and across the country participate in the associated Challenge and Millennium Festival programmes.

WALES

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the regulations that have been removed or amended to help small businesses since 1 May 1997. [42780]

  Mr. Hain
  There is only a limited volume of Wales-only legislation, however, the following regulations have been removed since 1 May 1997 to the advantage of small and other businesses:The Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Radioactivity in Sheep) (Wales) (Partial Revocation) Order 1998 withdrew, in relation to specified areas of land in North Wales, restrictions upon the movement and slaughter of sheep.
  The restrictions on fishing activities as a result of the Sea Empress disaster were withdrawn in June 1997, by the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish and Plants) (Revocation) Order 1997.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the cost of(a) preparing a corporate plan for the NHS in Wales and (b) managing the trust reconfiguration exercise. [42597]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  (a) Preliminary estimates of first year costs in preparing a corporate plan for the NHS in Wales are of the order of £250,000 including accommodation, staff and running costs. Budgets for subsequent years will be agreed in the light of progress in year one. (b) The Department's staff and other costs
  62
  including consultation exercises and external assessment of proposals are estimated to be £870,000 for managing the trust reconfiguration exercise.

  Details of costs which will be borne by health authorities, trusts and other bodies are not held centrally.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites of special scientific interest there were in Wales on 31 March; and what was their total area in hectares. [42442]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  At 31 March 1998 there were 942 SSSIs in Wales, with a total area of 217,807 hectares.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much new funding is available in the current year to(a) build new community hospitals and (b) upgrade existing community hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [42432]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  There is no new funding available specifically for community hospitals in 1998–99. However, almost £50 million has been made available for major capital investment in the NHS in Wales for projects ranging from the removal of asbestos at the University of Wales Dental Hospital, to the new Cancer Treatment Centre at Glan Clwyd NHS Trust. Another £47 million discretionary capital has also been made available to NHS Trusts and Health Authorities, to maintain existing facilities, including community based services.

  In February this year, we were very pleased to announce a new community hospital for Chepstow, which will be built and serviced by a private company under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). In addition, several other NHS Trusts are currently negotiating with private partners for the provision of capital services.

  Occupational Health
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken to make occupational health services available to staff working in primary care within the National Health Service. [43599]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  It is primarily for general practitioners (GPs) as independent contractors to look after their own health and that of their staff. However, the Welsh Office has been involved in discussions with the Welsh Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and the Welsh General Medical Services Committee (WGMSC) about this issue. We are also aware that some health authorities in Wales are exploring ways of setting up a service on a local basis.

  Asthma
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the net ingredient cost for preparations used in the treatment of asthma(a) in total, (b) per health authority and (c) per head of population per health authority, in each of the last five years. [43695]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information on the net ingredient cost of prescription items dispensed specifically for asthma could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  63
  However most prescription items dispensed for the treatment of asthma fall into one of three therapeutic classes (bronchodilators, corticosteroids and cromoglycate & related therapy) and figures for these are given in the following table. It should be noted, however, that some

  Net ingredient cost (£000)

  Net ingredient cost per person(£)2

  Family health services authority

  1992–931

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Clwyd

  2,854.4

  3,395.1

  3,823.8

  4,247.0

  6.71

  7.98

  8.98

  9.92

  Dyfed

  2,957.2

  3,374.8

  3,783.6

  4,097.5

  8.14

  9.19

  10.41

  11.24

  Gwent

  3,150.5

  3,692.8

  4,096.4

  4,447.6

  6.84

  8.01

  8.87

  9.64

  Gwynedd

  1,763.7

  2,114.1

  2,372.3

  2,635.9

  7.07

  8.46

  9.49

  10.55

  Mid Glamorgan

  4,832.7

  5,582.1

  6,415.9

  7,108.8

  8.54

  9.86

  11.32

  12.59

  Powys

  863.1

  981.9

  1,067.8

  1,177.6

  6.68

  7.55

  8.20

  8.99

  South Glamorgan

  3,215.2

  3,659.7

  4,006.5

  4,336.6

  7.45

  8.42

  9.16

  9.87

  West Glamorgan

  3,132.6

  3,671.1

  3,984.5

  4,291.8

  8.17

  9.50

  10.29

  11.1

  Wales

  22,770.1

  26,471.6

  29,550.7

  32,342.8

  7.57

  8.76

  9.78

  10.69

  Health Authority

  Net ingredient cost (£000) 1996–97

  Net ingredient cost per person (£) 2 1996–97

  Bro Taf

  8,724.7

  11.66

  Dyfed Powys

  5,685.8

  11.47

  Gwent

  6,369.1

  10.83

  Morgannwg

  6,526.7

  12.29

  North Wales

  7,388.4

  10.8

  Wales

  34,694.8

  11.38

  1 The figure for Wales includes net ingredient costs where the Family Health Service Authority was unidentified

  2 Persons on NHS prescribing and dispensing lists at 31 March

  Further Education
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the budget for further education in each year since incorporation and what the budget will be for 1998–99; and what percentage change has occurred since incorporation. [42646]

  Mr. Hain
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 May 1998, c. 472]: I regret the information that my hon. Friend was provided was incorrect. The correct answer is as follows:

  The annual budgets made available to the Further Education Funding Council for Wales (FEFCW) on a cash basis for the period 1993–99 are set out in the table.

  Financial year

  FEFCW Budget (£ million)

  Percentage change

  1993–94

  143.3

  —

  1994–95

  160.0

  11.7

  1995–96

  170.6

  6.6

  1996–97

  175.9

  3.1

  1997–98

  178.0

  1.2

  1998–99

  178.5

  0.3

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list in respect of each Northern Ireland Minister the(a) nights which they have spent in Northern Ireland since 1 May 1996, (b) arts events in Northern Ireland attended,
  64
  items dispensed in these classes were not for the treatment of asthma. Prior to the setting up of the five new Health Authorities in Wales on 1 April 1996 these data were collected on the basis of Family Health Service Authorities.

  (c) education and sports events in Northern Ireland attended, (d) voluntary sector events in Northern Ireland attended and (e) events relating to the tackling of unemployment in Northern Ireland attended. [29850]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 19 February 1998]: Information for the Northern Ireland Ministers is as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  1 May 1996–30 April 1997

  Sir Patrick Mayhew

  172

  4

  13

  7

  3

  Sir John Wheeler

  47

  10

  4

  0

  0

  Michael Ancram

  88

  6

  25

  4

  0

  Malcolm Moss

  69

  0

  0

  5

  0

  Baroness Denton

  109

  8

  16

  4

  32

  1 May 1997–18 February 1998

  Dr. Marjorie Mowlam

  69

  1

  4

  6

  1

  Paul Murphy

  119

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Adam Ingram

  67

  0

  3

  0

  19

  Tony Worthington

  97

  11

  42

  21

  15

  Lord Dubs

  85

  9

  6

  4

  10

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the consultation papers published since 1 May 1997 giving the date of publication, closing date for submissions and the number of respondents. [42254]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Employee Travel
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the cost of employee travel on office business, broken down into(a) fuel allowances, (b) unproductive time during travel, (c) other costs related to car transport and (d) costs related to public transport, for (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96, (iii) 1996–97 and (iv) 1997–98. [32438]
  65
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 3 March 1998]: The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:1

  £000

  Year

  Fuel allowances

  Other costs2

  Public transport2

  1994–953,4

  9,215

  152

  2,830

  1995–964

  8,786

  217

  4,206

  1996–974

  10,299

  266

  4,366

  1997–98

  9,644

  264

  2,372

  1 The information on the cost of unproductive time during travel is not available

  2 The Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Agriculture could not split cost between Other Costs and Public Transport and a total figure is included in figure work at Public Transport

  3 The Department of Finance and Personnel could provide information for 1994–95 in all categories only at disproportionate cost

  4 Prior to 1997–98 the Prisons accounting system could not split travel and subsistence payments

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the number and percentage of civil servants in her Department, at each grade including and above higher executive officer who(a) attended university and (b) attended either Oxford or Cambridge University. [33068]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 9 March 1998]: The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  Grade

  Attended university

  Percentage of grade

  Senior Civil Service

  122

  83

  Grade 6

  56

  90

  Grade 7

  221

  60

  Deputy Principal (SEO)

  254

  44

  Staff Officer (HEO)

  249

  28

  Professional and Technical Grades

  1,113

  72

  Notes:

  1. The figures for attendance at university have been completed on the basis that staff with a degree level qualification have attended university.

  2. Information on attendance at Oxford or Cambridge University is not readily available.

  3. Figures are not included for the Department of the Environment and the Northern Ireland Office (London) who could provide the information only at disproportionate cost.

  Reproductive Health Care
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimates he has made of the costs of extending reproductive health care and abortion services in Northern Ireland; and which aspects will receive priority. [42685]

  Mr. Worthington
  No estimate of costs for extending reproductive health care and abortion services in Northern Ireland has been made. The provision of infertility services is a matter for the Health and Social Services Boards which are at present engaged in reviews of the infertility services provided to their local populations. Abortions are illegal in Northern Ireland except where 66
  necessary to save the life of the mother or where continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk of serious injury to her physical or mental health.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have the same access to reproductive health care and abortion services as is available in England and Wales. [42567]

  Mr. Worthington
  As in England and Wales, where the provision of infertility services is a matter for the health authorities, the provision of infertility services in Northern Ireland is a matter for the Health and Social Services Boards, which are at present engaged in reviews of the services provided to their local populations. Abortion is illegal in Northern Ireland except where necessary to save the life of the mother or where continuation of the pregnancy would involve risk of serious injury to her physical or mental health. It would therefore not be lawful to grant access to abortion services on the same grounds as in England and Wales, where the law is different.

  Petroleum Products
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the effect of the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland on(a) ancillary industries, (b) rural employment and (c) the rural economy; and if she will make a statement. [42890]

  Mr. Ingram
  Illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland is a matter for HM Customs and Excise and the Treasury. Treasury Ministers are aware of the Petrol Retailers Association's concerns about the economic effects and Customs are actively deploying resources to counter the threats posed to the revenue and to the Northern Ireland business community.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons she declined to meet the officers of the Petrol Retailers Association to discuss the illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [42881]

  Mr. Ingram
  The petrol Retailers Association wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expressing their concerns about illegal importation of petroleum products into Northern Ireland and requesting a meeting. Illegal importation of products across UK national boundaries is a matter for HM Customs and Excise and the Treasury. A response from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury has issued been to the Association.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what additional measures are being taken by the Royal Ulster Constabulary to intercept commercial vehicles transporting motor fuel products into Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [43448]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RUC has been liaising with a multi-national oil company and HM Customs and Excise. As a result a strategic, co-ordinated and intelligence led plan is being developed to address this problem effectively.

  A series of additional tactics and operational measures are now being actively considered.
  67

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the regulations that have been removed or amended to help small businesses since 1 May 1997. [42779]

  Mr. Ingram
  During the period 1 May 1997 to 30 April 1998 small businesses in Northern Ireland benefited from the repeal or amendment of the following regulations.

  Health and Safety (Miscellaneous Fees Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1997

  Motor Vehicle Testing (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1998

  Goods Vehicles Testing (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1998

  Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1998

  Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Amendment) Regulations (NI) 1998.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Fines (Lincolnshire)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total amount in fines levied(a) by courts in Lincolnshire, (b) on residents of Lincolnshire and (c) on residents of South Holland and the Deepings in the most recent available year. [43933]

  Mr. Hoon
  (a) The total fines imposed by Lincolnshire magistrates' courts in 1997 was £4.4m. (b) This Department does not hold any information on the amount of fines imposed by magistrates' courts on residents of Lincolnshire and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. (c) This Department does not hold any information on the amount of fines imposed by magistrates' courts on residents of South Holland and The Deepings and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Trust Office
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the staff/client ratio at the Public Trust Office in each year since 1990. [43957]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is only from the 1993–94 financial year that caseload figures in the Public Trust Office have been monitored on the same basis. Although figures prior to 1993–94 exist, they have not been formulated in the same manner as those available from that date. On this basis I am able to provide the staff/client ratio from 1993–94.

  1993–94: 457 clients per member of staff;

  1994–95: 497;

  1995–96: 517;

  1996–97: 532; and

  1997–98: 547.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidelines are followed by the Public Trust Office to keep next of kin informed about its involvement in each case. [43953]
  68
  Mr. Hoon
  Both the Court of Protection and the Public Trust Office treat each case on its merits, and endeavour, using the information available, to try and do what the client (the mentally incapable person) would wish. If this involves close liaison and involvement with the next of kin, this is done.

  However, the Mental Health area is not required to keep next of kin involved in each case on the grounds of confidentiality. If the individual was not suffering from a mental illness which meant that they were unable to manage their own financial affairs, they would not necessarily wish their next of kin to be informed of the current position regarding their finances. In some cases people would not, under any circumstances, wish next of kin involved in any way whatever. Each case must be judged on its individual merits.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many visitors are employed at the Public Trust Office; and how many visits each made per client in each year since 1990. [43956]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Public Trust Office assumed responsibility for the Lord Chancellor's General Visitors with effect from April 1996—prior to that the Visitors were employees of the Lord Chancellor's Department. There are currently six General Visitors who are appointed on a self-employed basis. Statistics showing the number of visits completed are available only from 1992–93 and are as follows:

  Visits completed

  1992–93

  1,500

  1993–94

  1,300

  1994–95

  850

  1995–96

  790

  1996–97

  1,680

  1997–98

  1,500

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many staff were employed by the Public Trust Office in each year since 1990. [43958]

  Mr. Hoon
  The figures provided are based on permanent staff in post plus casuals. The figures supplied show full time equivalents and exclude those staff "off strength" e.g. those staff on maternity or career breaks, or on unpaid leave.

  Number

  1989–90

  591.5

  1990–91

  590

  1991–92

  580

  1992–93

  592

  1993–94

  572

  1994–95

  528

  1995–96

  550

  1996–97

  558.5

  1997–98

  553

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the operation of the Public Trust Office. [43887]
  69
  Mr. Hoon
  As the Public Trust Office became an executive agency in 1994, it will be subject to the usual Quinquennial agency review which must be completed in 1999. As is normal with such reviews, this will include a review of all the Public Trust Office's functions.

  Court of Protection
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what checks are made by the Court of Protection before approving a loan. [43955]

  Mr. Hoon
  The exercise by the Court of Protection of its discretion in approving a loan is a judicial matter and its exercise varies according to the circumstances of each particular case.

  In approving a loan, the Court has regard to the requirements of the relevant Sections of the Mental Health Act 1983, the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1985, the Court of Protection Rules 1994, the Court of Protection (Enduring Powers of Attorney) Rules 1994 and relevant case precedent as necessary in the particular circumstances of the case.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what changes have occurred in the relationship between the Court of Protection and the Public Trust Office since the latter became an executive agency in 1994. [43954]

  Mr. Hoon
  There has been little change in the relationship between the Court of Protection and the Public Trust Office since 1990, except that the Court of Protection Rules 1994 and the review of the Public Trust Office's Framework Document in 1997 defined the functions and roles of each more clearly.

  Personal Injury Cases
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what research he has commissioned or undertaken into the effect of his proposals for the(a) wider introduction of conditional fee arrangements and (b) allocation of legal aid in personal injury cases from the consumer's perspective. [42586]

  Mr. Hoon
  Organisations representing consumers have been consulted during the development of these proposals and have responded to the consultation paper. All the responses are being analysed and we intend to publish our response to the consultation in due course.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what evaluation he has made of the pre-action protocols piloted by nine firms of solicitors and six insurers since October 1997; and if he will publish his conclusions, indicating the evidence underlying them. [42585]

  Mr. Hoon
  The pilot of the pre-action protocol for personal injury cases will continue until the end of August. The working group responsible for drafting the protocol, whose membership includes insurers and solicitors, and which is running the pilot, has agreed that officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department should evaluate the data produced by the pilot at its conclusion. Any decision on the publication of the results would be a matter for the working group.
  70

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what evaluation he has made of the Law Society's research undertaken by Sheffield University, and the Law Society's response to his Department's research undertaken by KPMG into conditional fees; and if he will publish his conclusions and the evidence underlying them. [42584]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Law Society's research into conditional fees and their response to the consultation paper Access to Justice with Conditional Fees are being analysed at the moment, together with all the other responses to the consultation paper. We intend to publish our response to the public consultation as soon as the analysis is complete and we have considered the results.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many firms of solicitors in England and Wales undertook legal aid work in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what was the average income from legal aid, excluding VAT and disbursements, of those firms in each of those years; and how many of these firms were not included in his answer to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) on 28 April 1998,Official Report, column 65. [42598]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. All solicitors' firms undertaking legal aid work are required to hold a Legal Aid Board account number to which payments are made. However, the payment records do not provide an accurate figure for the number of firms doing legal aid work, since a single firm may have more than one office, and therefore account number.

  Information on the range of payments for various categories of legal aid made by the Legal Aid Board to solicitors offices are published in its annual report each year. In the 1996–97 annual report, Table General 5 relates to payments made, within each range, to the number of solicitors' offices by each legal aid area. The payments are inclusive of VAT and disbursements as these are not recorded separately.

  However, it should be noted that the tables published prior to 1996–97 will not be comparable with those published in preceding annual reports as the tables were revised to make them more relevant to current developments in legal aid (paragraph 4.5 to Section 4 of the 1996–97 report refers). As of 1996–97, the area is the legal aid area in which the solicitor's office is situated.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many barristers in England and Wales undertook legal aid work in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what was the average income from legal aid, excluding VAT, of those banisters in each of those years; and how many of those banisters were not included in his parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) on 28 April 1998,Official Report, column 65. [42599]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Payments made to counsel for legal aid work are recorded by the
  71
  Legal Aid Board by range of payments and category of work only. This means that the statistics contained in the Board's Annual Report do not accurately reflect the number of banisters undertaking legal aid work, as each barrister may appear in a number of categories and ranges of payment.

  Information on the range of payments for various types of legal aid made by the Legal Aid Board to counsel are published in its annual report each year. In the 1996–97 annual report, Table General 9 relates to payments made to counsel (Table General 7 in preceding annual reports). The payments are inclusive of VAT and disbursements as these are not recorded separately. However, it should be noted that the tables published prior to 1996–97 will not be comparable with those published in preceding annual reports as the tables were revised to make them more relevant to current developments in legal aid (paragraph 4.5 to Section 4 of the 1996–97 report refers).

  Defamation Act
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the dates when those parts of the Defamation Act 1996 not yet in force are to come into force; and when the attendant rules of court will become effective. [42456]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government intend to bring the remaining provisions of the Defamation Act 1996 (including those which apply to Scotland) into force as soon as reasonably practicable. All those provisions will require secondary legislation to make them fully effective. We will make the necessary amendments to the Rules of Court and other Orders at the same time.

  Public Bodies
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (1) what is the average attendance fee of(a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department; [42845]

  (2) what is the average salary of (a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department. [42844]

  Mr. Hoon
  The majority of board members of non-departmental pubic bodies give their time and services voluntarily and receive no payment other than normal travel and subsistence expenses. Where members do receive remuneration, this can vary between an annual salary, an honorarium or an attendance fee (which itself can be a daily rate or a half-daily rate, or calculated on a per meeting or per case basis). Individuals' remuneration therefore is not directly comparable. Full details of all payments to board members of non-departmental bodies, by gender, are given in the Cabinet Office publication 'Public Bodies'. Copies of 'Public Bodies 1997' are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when his Department's action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments will be published; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [42846]
  72
  Mr. Hoon
  My Department's action plan will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Inquiries
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what provisions and at what cost were made out of public funds in respect of costs of legal representation for the families and relatives of victims at the public inquiries into the following tragedies(a) Piper Alpha, (b) Hillsborough, (c) King's Cross, (d) the Marchioness, (e) the Clapham rail crash, (f) the MV Derbyshire, (first inquiry) and (g) Stephen Lawrence's murder; and in each case how the costs were (i) agreed, (ii) verified and (iii) disbursed. [42974]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have been asked to reply.

  I regret that the information requested is not obtainable except at disproportionate cost.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to implement the Council of Europe's recommendations regarding fur farming. [43706]

  Mr. Morley
  The revision of the recommendations regarding fur farming currently being undertaken in the Council of Europe will provide the sound scientific justification for any new welfare rules. We will consider legislating on the basis of the Council of Europe's work if it makes sense to do so once we have established the timetable for phasing out fur farming in Great Britain.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice ADAS is currently giving fur factory farms with regard to investments in and improvements to their premises. [43707]

  Mr. Morley
  ADAS was privatised on 1 April 1997. Any services provided to fur farmers by ADAS are a matter for the parties concerned, and costs are met by the fur farms.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his timetable for banning fur factory farming; and what factors govern this timetable. [43708]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's firm intention is to ban fur farming as soon as practicable. Such a ban must be implemented in accordance with national and international law and I am currently considering how our intention can best be implemented. An announcement will be made once I have decided how to proceed and there will be public consultation on any proposals for legislation to ban fur farming.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink and fox fur factory farms there are by county. [43705]
  73
  Mr. Morley
  As at 28 May 1998, there were the following mink farms in England:

  County

  Number of licensed mink farms

  Cornwall

  1

  Dorset

  1

  Hampshire

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Lancashire

  6

  Northumberland

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  West Yorkshire

  2

  Total

  15

  There is no requirement to register fox fur farms. However, I am not aware of any in England.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from fur breeders opposing the Government's policy on fur breeding. [43710]

  Mr. Morley
  A public consultation letter seeking comments on how I proposed to prohibit the keeping of mink and other species for fur was issued on 5 August 1997. Since then, the Ministry has received 7 representations from fur breeding interests, including the British Fur Trade Association, the Fur Breeders Association of the UK and the International Fur Trade Federation, all opposing the Government's policy on fur farming.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance has been given to owners of fur factory farms with regard to the Government's policy on fur breeding. [43704]

  Mr. Morley
  All the current mink farm licensees have been informed in writing that it is the Government's intention to ban the keeping of mink for fur in this country and that I am considering how this intention may best be implemented.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy on the proposed EU update to Directive 88/166/EEC regarding the welfare of hens. [43886]

  Mr. Morley
  We are pleased that the Commission has now submitted to the Council of Ministers its proposals to set improved welfare standards for laying hens in cages and to introduce standards for alternative systems. The proposals will require thorough technical discussion, which we have already set going under our Presidency. Our aim is to secure a measure which significantly raises minimum welfare standards for laying hens throughout the European Union and leads to a phase-out of the battery cage.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the current welfare requirements for free range hens. [43728]

  Mr. Morley
  The welfare of laying hens in free range systems is covered by a Welfare Code made under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968. We 74
  would like in addition to see firm statutory requirements adopted at the EU level on the welfare of hens in alternative systems: we will be working to secure such requirements in the EU negotiation which is now under way on the Commission's recent proposals in this area.

  Marine Research Laboratory
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the future of the Marine Research Laboratory in Burnham-on-Crouch. [43209]

  Mr. Morley
  The laboratory at Burnham-on-Crouch is part of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), an Executive Agency of the Department. As part of its obligation to provide an efficient and effective scientific service, CEFAS is reviewing its long-term requirements for sites and specialist research facilities. The objective of the review is to ensure that CEFAS has appropriate facilities to support first class science, whilst recognising the need for the Agency to recover its full costs and offer affordable services. It is essential to develop flexible facilities, so that CEFAS can respond quickly to changing work opportunities.

  The current work programme at Burnham fully occupies the site, and staff numbers have been increasing. There is no expectation that this situation will change significantly in the near future. The estate review will aim to establish the long-term costs and benefits of maintaining all CEFAS sites, including that at Burnham. It will assess the need for future investment in facilities, taking account of the views of the MAFF customers who commission work at CEFAS on their likely requirements, and on the prospects of acquiring new non-MAFF business.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning his meeting with National Federation of Fisheries Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 30 April; and what issues raised at that meeting will be taken forward to the next meeting of fisheries ministers. [43872]

  Mr. Morley
  At my meeting with the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 30 April we discussed their joint paper on the future of the Common Fisheries Policy after 2002.

  I warmly welcomed the joint strategy as a good basis for discussion. Over the coming months the UK industry will discuss the paper with their counterparts in other Member States and there will be further discussions among ourselves in this country.

  Reform of the CFP is a continuous process, and the June Fisheries Council will be looking at reform of the marketing regime as well as proposals for changes to the rules on enforcement. The Commission will also be making a report on preparation for the 2002 review.
  75
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what amendment to the Treaty of Rome established the without time limit derogation of national allocation of quota from the equal access principle; [43819]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 6 May 1998, Official Report, column 421, if the common resource principle is part of Council Regulation EEC 3760/92. [43816]

  Mr. Morley
  The principle of equal access to fishing grounds is not set down in the EC Treaty but in Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2141/70. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3760/92 heavily qualifies the principle so far as the practical operation of the Common Fisheries Policy is concerned.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his Department's bodies that have responsibility for food safety and hygiene; and if he will make a statement. [43629]

  Mr. Rooker
  The bodies reporting to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, or jointly to the Minister and other Secretaries of State, which are concerned wholly or partially with food safety and hygiene, or which provide relevant services, are as follows:

  Executive Agencies

  Meat Hygiene Service

  Pesticides Safety Directorate

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate

  Central Science Laboratory

  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency

  Advisory bodies

  Advisory Committee on Microbiological Safety of Food

  Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  Consumer Panel

  Epidemiology of Foodborne Infections Group

  Food Advisory Committee

  Microbiological Food Surveillance Group

  Microbiological Safety of Food Funders Group

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee

  Veterinary Products Committee

  Working Party on Chemical Contaminants in Food

  Working Party on Chemical Migration from Materials and Articles in Contact with Food

  Working Party on Dietary Surveys

  Working Party on Food Additives

  Working Party on Pesticide Residues in Food

  Working Party on Radionuclides in Food

  Working Party on Veterinary Residues in Food

  Other

  BSE Regulatory Forum

  Meat Hygiene Appeals Tribunal.

  76

  Antibiotic Growth Promoters
  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates his Department has made of the increased cost to the consumer if antibiotic growth promoters were banned in the production of poultry, pigs and beef. [43793]

  Mr. Rooker
  No such estimates have been made. However, figures produced by the European Federation of Feed Additive Manufacturers indicate that withdrawal of antibiotic growth promoters could result in increased production costs of up to 10 per cent., with a cost to EU farmers and consumers of almost ecu 2,500 million per year.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Department has made of the experience of countries which have banned the use of antibiotic growth promoters in animal husbandry. [43792]

  Mr. Rooker
  The use of antibiotic growth promoters is controlled under EC Directive 70/524/EEC. Information in support of bans in certain Member states has been submitted to the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition (SCAN). This information has either already been considered by the UK's independent scientific Veterinary Products Committee, which advises Agriculture and Health Ministers, or is to be reviewed by the Committee shortly.

  Dr. Ladyman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the increased levels of(a) nitrates and (b) phosphates which will be excreted if antibiotic growth promoters are banned in the production of pigs, poultry and cattle. [43791]

  Mr. Rooker
  Figures from the European Federation of Animal Feed Additive Manufacturers and the National Office of Animal Health indicate that withdrawal of antibiotic growth promoters in France, Germany and the UK would result in the excretion of an additional 78,000 tonnes of nitrogen and 15,000 tones of phosphorus each year.

  Green-top Milk
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people have suffered food poisoning in each of the last 10 years where the source of infection has been green top milk. [43187]

  Mr. Rooker
  The majority of food poisoning cases are sporadic and the vehicle of infection is not known. Cases may also occur as part of outbreaks and for some of these the vehicle of infection may be established. The latest information on the number of people infected in general outbreaks of infectious intestinal disease in England and Wales associated with all unpasteurised milk will be made available in a detailed table to be placed in the House of Commons Library shortly. However, information is not available specifically on sporadic cases associated with green top or unpasteurised cows' drinking milk.
  77

SCOTLAND

  Buildings Refurbishment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the cost of buildings refurbishment carried out by his Department in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 to date and (d) 1997–98 full year; and if he will make a statement. [26644]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The information set out below relates to buildings owned by The Scottish Office and its associated Departments and Agencies, with the exception of the Scottish Prison Service, for which figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The total cost of buildings refurbishment for the years requested are:

  £

  1995–96

  8,629,204

  1996–97

  13,708,322

  1997–98 full year

  7,276,063

  Female

  Male

  Ethnic Minority

  Disabled

  The Scottish Office and its Executive Agencies (excl SPS) Staff appointed in:

  1995–96

  88

  148

  1

  3

  1996–97

  126

  175

  3

  1

  1 January 1997 to 30 April 1997

  54

  83

  0

  0

  1 May 1997 to 30 April 1998

  137

  203

  0

  1

  The Scottish Prison Service Staff appointed in:

  1995–96

  212

  486

  2

  0

  1996–97

  153

  370

  2

  0

  1 January 1997 to 30 April 1997

  55

  133

  0

  0

  1 May 1997 to 30 April 1998

  137

  322

  4

  1

  Quangos Staff appointed in:

  1995–96

  280

  418

  2

  1

  1996–97

  460

  533

  4

  1

  1 January 1997 to 30 April 1997

  51

  129

  3

  0

  1 May 1997 to 30 April 1998

  497

  442

  5

  3

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when his Department's action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments will be published; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [42874]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Office action plan will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Police Complaints
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many formal complaints have been made in each of the last five years against(a) Scottish chief constables and (b) deputy and assistant chief constables; how they were dealt with; and what the outcome was of each complaint. [42431]
  78
  The refurbishment work has been carried out on a range of buildings, offices and specialist facilities and has been necessary either to preserve the fabric of the buildings or to bring systems up to a modern standard. The greater part of the expenditure relates to the refurbishment of court buildings.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people appointed to(a) the Scottish Office and (b) quangos were (i) females, (ii) males, (iii) from ethnic minorities and (iv) registered disabled in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97, (3) January to April 1997 and (4) since 1 May 1997. [41811]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 13 May 1998]: The number of permanent staff appointed to the Scottish Office and Quangos, together with details of sex, ethnicity and disability are shown in the table.

  Mr. McLeish
  This information is not held centrally. Complaints made against chief constables, deputy and assistant chief constables are dealt with by the relevant police authorities.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how his Department ensures that police boards have an appropriate mechanism for dealing with formal complaints against the chief constable or deputy or assistant chief constables; [42428]

  (2) what system each police board has in place to deal with formal complaints against the chief constable or deputy or assistant chief constables. [42427]

  Mr. McLeish
  It is for each police board to decide what system to put in place to discharge its statutory duty to keep itself informed as to the manner in which the
  79
  Chief Constable handles complaints by members of the public. If it is reasonably believed that a disciplinary offence may have been committed by a senior officer, the police authority must institute procedures set out in the Police (Conduct) (Senior Officers) (Scotland) Regulations 1996. The Secretary of State has no locus to ensure that the police board's mechanism is appropriate.

  Green Belt
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy regarding the conservation of the Green Belt and of the countryside around cities and towns. [42546]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Government are committed to ensuring the long term protection of Scotland's green belts and countryside, whilst looking to planning

  Authority

  Applicant

  Development

  Location

  Ground area

  Approved

  North Lanarkshire

  —

  Letting bedroom block

  Dalziel Park, Motherwell

  —

  15.12.97

  North Lanarkshire

  Peter D. Stirling Ltd

  Infilling and recycling/reuse of construction waste

  Drumcavel Quarry, Mount Ellen

  —

  06.08.97

  South Lanarkshire

  Mrs. M. Ingram

  1 house

  Muir Farm, Carmunnock, Glasgow

  1.36ha

  27.11.97

  Renfrewshire

  Linzi and William Gorman

  Storage

  Yardfoot Farm, Lochwinnoch

  180m2

  19.11.97

  South Ayrshire

  Telecoms Tower and Compound

  Mercury Personal Communications

  Raith Hill, Prestwick

  96m2

  21.07.97

  East Dunbartonshire

  Cora Foundation/St. Mary's Kenmure

  Residential, teaching and leisure

  St. Mary's Road, Bishopbriggs

  366m2

  10.07.98

  East Dunbartonshire

  McCann, Lindsay Ltd.

  Extension to hard standing, industry

  Craigton Works, Craigton, Milngavie

  —

  06.05.97

  East Dunbartonshire

  Mr. J. Stark

  1 House

  Alton Farm, Antermony Road, Milton of Campsie

  —

  09.10.96

  Falkirk

  Goalday

  Landfill

  Avondale Farm, Polmont, Falkirk

  80ha

  15.11.96

  Falkirk

  Falkirk Football and Athletic Club

  Football stadium

  Westfield Road, Falkirk

  30ha

  03.06.96

  Kyle and Carrick

  —

  House and garage

  12 Monktonhill Road, Southwoods, Troon

  —

  10.02.97

  Kyle and Carrick

  Bett/Summerbridge

  Retail

  Heathfield/Whitletts, Ayr

  —

  24.04.96

  Midlothian

  —

  Private housing (45) development

  Dalkeith

  —

  22.03.95

  Hamilton

  George Wilson (Stonehouse) Ltd.

  175 Houses

  Strathaven Road/Carscallan Road, Hamilton

  7.082ha

  06.08.96

  Strathkelvin

  Mr. Kohli

  House extension and garage

  Lochview, Bardavie

  —

  16.04.96

  Strathkelvin

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services

  Offices to housing (change of use)

  The White House, Lennox Castle, Lennoxtown

  —

  15.01.96

  Strathkelvin

  Mr. Kohli

  Entrance vestibule and double garage

  Lochview, Bardavie

  —

  31.01.95

  Strathkelvin

  Beazer Homes

  Housing

  Garnhart Estate

  9ha

  11.96

  Aberdeen

  Stewart Milne Homes Ltd.

  Housing

  Contlaw Road, Milltimber

  15ha

  06.03.96

  Aberdeen

  Mr. F. J. McLean

  1 House (change of use from store)

  West Lasts, Peterculter

  —

  10.05.95

  Edinburgh

  Gogar Curling Club

  Extension to Curling Club

  Gogar Station Road, Edinburgh

  1ha

  30.01.96

  80
  authorities to ensure through their development plans that their policies remain relevant to local circumstances and to reflect those policies in their planning decisions.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list planning approvals allowing development in the Green Belt in Scotland since 1 January 1995, indicating the council concerned, the nature, date, location and extent of each development, the developer and whether approval was given by the council or by his Department. [42429]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Information on decisions taken by councils allowing development in the Green Belt is not held centrally. From 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1997 my right hon. Friend has granted approval for the applications listed in the table. The majority of these decisions were appeal decisions delegated to The Scottish Office Inquiry Reporters Unit.
  81

  Authority

  Applicant

  Development

  Location

  Ground area

  Approved

  Grampian

  J. Hutchison

  2 Holiday chalets

  Elrick Farm, Ridge of Muchalls, by Stonehaven

  —

  13.07.95

  Grampian

  C&R Fraser

  Housing

  Jellieshillock, Maryculter, Kincardine

  —

  25.01.95

  Kincardine and Deeside

  Trustees of late G. A. M. Saunders

  Housing

  Monduff, Newtonhill

  —

  15.05.95

  East Kilbride

  Lightbody Ltd.

  Housing

  Hamilton Road, Strathaven

  3.4ha

  01.96

  East Kilbride

  Whiteshawgate Ltd.

  Housing

  Hamilton Road, Strathaven

  6.9ha

  01.96

  Renfrew

  —

  Housing

  Kirktonfield Road, Neilston

  —

  16.03.95

  Strathclyde

  Wimpey Homes Holdings Ltd.

  Housing

  South of Wester Cleddons Road and West of Westerhill Farm

  30ha

  06.02.95

  Source:

  The Planning Exchange (details of applicant's name and ground area are not recorded in every instance)

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the councils which have sought approval since 1 January 1995 to remove protection from land previously designated as green belt and the date and the area of land involved in each case. [42446]

  Authority

  Green belt

  Housing allocation

  Date of submission

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Ayr, Prestwick, Troon

  650

  November 1995

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Greater Glasgow

  170

  November 1995

  Lothian Regional Council

  Edinburgh

  Up to 4,000

  January 1995

  Notes:

  1. The Grampian Structure Plan, submitted for approval in February 1995, includes a green belt exceptions policy which allows for limited release of land for housing and business use. The extent of these releases remains to be defined and quantified through the relevant Local Plans.

  2. The Edinburgh Green Belt is the subject of a review following modification of the Lothian Structure Plan by the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the parts of Scotland designated as Green Belt, indicating the areas covered. [42433]

  Mr. Macdonald
  There are six designated green belts in Scotland. The boundaries of individual green belts are defined in the relevant local authorities' local plans which can be viewed at the offices of the authority concerned. As at January 1998 the area covered by such designation is as follows:

  Green belt

  Area (hectares)

  Aberdeen

  23,039

  Ayr, Prestwick and Troon

  3,024

  Clackmannan

  981

  Falkirk and Grangemouth

  3,803

  Glasgow and Clyde Valley

  109,917

  Edinburgh

  15,869

  Total

  156,633

  Source:

  The Scottish Office Geographic Information Service—based on information in Local Plans.

  Scottish National Sleep Laboratory
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on his Department's funding for the Scottish National Sleep Laboratory for(a) 1998 and (b) each year since 1992; [42717]
  82
  Mr. Macdonald
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, the table indicates the housing provision in the green belt for which approval has been sought for release by the former regional councils since 1 January 1995.

  (2) how many people are currently on waiting lists to be treated at the Scottish National Sleep Laboratory; [42718]

  (3) what was the average length of time for which a patient had to wait for treatment at the Scottish National Sleep Centre in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [42719]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Until 31 March 1996 funding for the Scottish National Sleep Laboratory was provided centrally by the National Services Division of the Common Services Agency. Funding from 1992 until 1996 was as follows:

  Financial year

  £

  1992–93

  54,525

  1993–94

  295,916

  1994–95

  286,987

  1995–96

  519,338

  Planning of sleep disorder services was devolved to Health Boards with effect from 1996–97 and funds were allocated to them on a weighted basis. Exceptionally in 1997–98, the Management Executive granted an additional allocation of £150,000 to the Laboratory. There are currently 416 people waiting for a new out-patient appointment, 188 waiting for a diagnostic study, and 220 waiting to start treatment.

  The waiting time for a new out-patient appointment is on average 28 weeks, for diagnostic study 2.5 months and for the start of treatment 10 months.
  83

  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the funds and assistance provided in each year since 1994–95 to the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland by(a) the Scottish Office, (b) other Government departments and (c) each police authority or board. [42409]

  Mr. McLeish
  The assistance provided by The Scottish Office in respect of the staff salaries and administrative costs incurred by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPOS) was £104,000 in 1994–95, £119,000 in 1995–96, £135,000 in 1996–97 and £141,000 in 1997–98. No other Government department provided funding.

  Scottish Office funding for the ACPOS secretariat is included among the common police services for which the Secretary of State recovers 50 per cent. of his expenditure from police authorities. Details of the expenditure recovered from police authorities for the years in question are shown in the table.

  £

  Police authority

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Central

  2,380

  2,741

  3,123

  3,262

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,406

  1,573

  1,787

  1,985

  Fife

  2,856

  3,289

  3,737

  4,009

  Grampian

  4,313

  4,854

  5,533

  5,889

  Lothian and Borders

  9,238

  10,546

  11,981

  12,816

  Northern

  2,395

  2,758

  3,133

  3,518

  Strathclyde

  25,462

  29,202

  33,154

  33,588

  Tayside

  3,951

  4,537

  5,183

  5,433

  52,001

  59,500

  67,631

  70,500

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the grades within the uniformed police or civilian police service which make up the membership of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. [42405]

  Mr. McLeish
  The membership of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland comprises chief constables and assistant chief constables (including designated deputies).

  Grampian Constabulary
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of(a) the report by the Deputy Chief Constable of Lothian and Borders Police, on the Grampian Constabulary and (b) other reports concerning the management and administration of the Constabulary. [42404]

  Mr. McLeish
  Yes. Copies of the report by Graham Power on the handling of the Scott Simpson murder inquiry by Grampian Police have already been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Arrangements are being made to place copies of the Accounts Commission for Scotland's Report on the Scottish Police Service Performance Manual, published on 22 April, in the Libraries. Copies of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary's inspection report on Grampian Police will be placed in the House Libraries when it is published.
  84

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if his Department operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information. [42630]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: It does not. The low incidence of such inquirers has not warranted the setting up of a monitoring system across my Department.

  Voluntary Sports Clubs
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the cost in 1997–98 of discretionary rate relief for voluntary sports clubs in Scotland. [42912]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The cost of discretionary rate relief for voluntary sports clubs for 1997–98 is estimated at £5,398,120.

  Scottish Parliament
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the responsibilities in respect of the(a) regulation of and (b) payment of subsidy to the railways to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament. [43132]

  Mr. McLeish
  Under the Government's devolution proposals all matters relating to the regulation of the railway are to be reserved to the UK Parliament. We propose, however, to give appropriate oversight of Scottish passenger rail services to the Scottish Executive including the responsibility for funding passenger rail services which start and end in Scotland.

  High Rise Flats, Shettleston
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many blocks of high rise flats, containing what total number of housing units, there are in the Glasgow, Shettleston constituency. [43335]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 May 1998, c. 337–38]: The information requested is not available centrally by constituency.

  Housing
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to collect statistics on the number of houses below tolerable standards in each constituency in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [43333]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Information on the number of houses below the tolerable standard is available nationally (from the Scottish House Condition Survey) and at local authority level (from data collected by individual local authorities). Below tolerable standard housing is one of four national housing priority categories for investment for local authorities. There are no current plans to collect this information by constituency.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to collect statistics relating to high rise flats in each constituency in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [43334]
  85
  Mr. Macdonald
  Information on the number of council owned high rise flats is available at national and local authority level. There are no plans to collect this information by constituency.

  Asthma
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the net ingredient cost for preparations used in the treatment of asthma(a) in total, (b) per health authority and (c) per head of population per health authority, in each of the last five years. [43694]

  Ingredient cost (£ million)

  Ingredient cost per patient on GP lists (£)

  Health Board

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Argyll and Clyde

  3.206

  3.575

  3.867

  4.120

  4.455

  7.18

  8.06

  8.81

  9.39

  10.15

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3.470

  3.972

  4.373

  4.665

  5.096

  8.86

  10.12

  11.17

  11.91

  13.06

  Borders

  0.880

  0.949

  0.999

  1.036

  1.142

  8.21

  8.80

  9.25

  9.56

  10.56

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1.078

  1.195

  1.293

  1.412

  1.573

  7.03

  7.80

  8.43

  9.21

  10.31

  Fife

  2.377

  2.627

  2.892

  3.122

  3.496

  6.76

  7.44

  8.16

  8.80

  9.84

  Forth Valley

  2.004

  2.275

  2.490

  2.697

  2.968

  6.90

  7.83

  8.54

  9.27

  10.21

  Grampian

  3.546

  3.960

  4.337

  4.643

  4.980

  6.69

  7.22

  8.05

  8.59

  9.22

  Greater Glasgow

  7.198

  8.099

  8.841

  9.251

  9.796

  7.12

  8.13

  8.92

  9.33

  9.96

  Highland

  1.248

  1.401

  1.557

  1.752

  1.890

  5.88

  6.58

  7.28

  8.15

  8.76

  Lanarkshire

  4.448

  5.074

  5.706

  6.050

  6.590

  7.62

  8.68

  9.78

  10.32

  11.29

  Lothian

  5.237

  5.652

  6.091

  6.461

  7.279

  6.52

  7.03

  7.57

  7.93

  8.89

  Orkney

  0.109

  0.130

  0.144

  0.149

  0.156

  5.45

  6.47

  7.17

  7.38

  7.81

  Shetland

  0.100

  0.111

  0.128

  0.141

  0.158

  4.46

  4.82

  5.57

  6.12

  6.95

  Tayside

  3.435

  3.936

  4.388

  4.741

  4.979

  8.36

  9.58

  10.73

  11.57

  12.17

  Western Isles

  0.142

  0.172

  0.201

  0.215

  0.229

  4.76

  5.77

  6.76

  7.27

  7.88

  Scotland

  38.478

  43.128

  47.307

  50.455

  54.787

  17.17

  18.03

  18.84

  19.40

  110.22

  1 Based on cost of ingredients divided by the total numbers of patients on GP lists

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the regulations that have been removed or amended to help small businesses since 1 May 1997. [42781]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since 1 May 1997, The Scottish Office has made the following amendments to regulations which are expected to help small businesses:Invergarry-Kyle of Lochalsh Trunk Road (A87) Extension (Skye Bridge Crossing) Toll Order (Variation) Order 1997—(SI1997/2941 S.186)
  The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)(Scotland) Order 1997—(SI1997/3061)
  The Corn Returns Regulations 1997—(SI1997/1873)
  The Non-Domestic Rates (Levying)(Scotland) Regulations 1997—(SI1997/452—S.34).

TREASURY

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information. [42643]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: HM Treasury Public Enquiry Unit (PEU) records the total number of calls answered by PEU staff. We do receive calls from persistent inquirers but we do not monitor these independently of the overall total.
  86
  Mr. Galbraith
  The information by health board and Scotland for financial years 1993–94 to 1997–98 is set out in the table. The costs shown are based on the value of ingredients dispensed by community pharmacists and dispensing doctors before the addition of dispensing fees or deduction of any discount or patient charges. The cost of drugs used in hospital treatment of asthma is not available centrally.

  The costs shown relate to drugs used in the treatment of asthma contained in British National Formulary sections 3.1 (Bronchodilators), 3.2 (Corticosteriods) and 3.3 (Cromoglycate and related therapy). Some of the drugs may be used in the treatment of other conditions.

  Working Hours
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the minimum number of hours someone has to be working to count as employed under the ILO definition. [43972]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Willetts, dated 1 June 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the ILO definition of being employed.
  Under the definitions of economic status agreed by the Thirteenth International Conference of Labour Statisticians (Geneva, 1982) anyone working at least one hour in the reference period (normally the week preceding the interview) is counted as being employed. This minimum does not apply to those who happened to be away from work in the reference period due to sickness, holiday etc.
  The full ILO definition of employment is published on page 63 of the 1996 ILO Yearbook, a copy of which is available from the House of Commons Library.
  The United Kingdom's and all other European Union countries' Labour Force Surveys use the ILO definitions although there may be some small differences in interpretation between countries.

  Mortality Statistics
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the mortality rates for(a) heart disease,

  87
  (b) lung cancer and (c) renal failure in (i) the National Health Service North-West Region and (ii) Wigan and Bolton health area. [43308]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe, dated 1 June 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the mortality rates for (a) lung cancer, (b) other forms of cancer and (c) kidney disease in (i) the National Health Service North-West Region and (ii) Wigan and Bolton health area.
  The data requested are shown in the table.

  Death rates1 by cause in the North Western Regional Office and Wigan and Bolton Health Authority, 1996

  North Western RO

  Wigan and Bolton HA

  Lung cancer

  71

  64

  Other forms of cancer

  211

  193

  Kidney disease

  9

  11

  1 Deaths per hundred thousand population

  The deaths data were identified as those certified with an underlying cause assigned to the following International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision (ICD9) codes:

  Cause

  Lung cancer

  162

  Other cancers

  140–208 (malignant neoplasms) minus 162

  Kidney disease

  580–593 (renal failure and infections of the kidney)

  250.3 (diabetes with renal manifestations) 403–404 (hypertensive renal disease)

  Dividend Tax Credits
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 July 1997,Official Report, column 375, if he will provide a breakdown of the number of (a) non-taxpayers aged over 65 years and (b) all non-taxpaying individuals reclaiming tax credits on dividends in (i) 1995–96 and () 1996–97, in the categories (1) under £20, (2) £21 to £50, (3) £51 to £100, (4) £101 to £200 and (5) over £200 reclaimed. [41637]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The latest available estimates derived from the Survey of Personal Incomes cover dividends paid in 1995–96 and are given in the table.

  Amount of dividends tax credit claimed (£)

  Number of non taxpayers aged 65 and over with claims (thousands)

  Number of non taxpayers with claims (thousands)

  under 20

  100

  240

  21–50

  60

  130

  51–100

  60

  110

  101–200

  50

  90

  201 and over

  30

  60

  Total

  300

  630

  88
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 July 1997,Official Report, column 375, concerning tax credits on dividends, if he will provide figures for 1996–97. [41635]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I regret that the information requested for 1996–97 is not yet available.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 July 1997,Official Report, column 375, what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer of abolishing the repayment of dividend tax credits in respect of (a) all non-taxpaying individuals and (b) non-taxpaying individuals aged over 65 years. [41638]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  It is estimated that abolishing payment of dividend tax credits in respect of all non taxpaying individuals will save the Exchequer about £50 million in a full year. About half of this relates to payments to non taxpaying individuals aged 65 and over. These estimates do not take into account any behavioural effects which might result from abolishing the payment of tax credits.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals with no tax liability reclaimed a tax credit on dividends paid in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97; and what was the average amount re-claimed. [41636]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The latest available information is derived from the 1995–96 Survey of Personal Incomes. It is estimated that some 630,000 non taxpayers made claims, averaging £75, for payment of the tax credit on dividends paid in 1995–96.

  Euro-X Committee
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the terms of reference of the Euro-X Committee; and what matters have been reserved to ECOFIN. [43142]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The terms of reference of the Euro-X committee are set out in the Luxembourg European Council conclusions. The Luxembourg European Council conclusions state that decisions will in all cases be taken by the ECOFIN Council in accordance with the procedures set out in the Treaty.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the agenda for the June meeting of the Euro-X Committee. [43141]

  Mrs. Liddell
  As agreed by all member states, the agenda for the June meeting of Euro-X will include practical arrangements for future meetings of Euro-X and a preliminary assessment of the macroeconomic situation in the euro area with a view to the introduction of the single currency in those countries.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what mechanisms will be created to co-ordinate the work of the Euro-X Committee and ECOFIN. [43143]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Euro-X is an informal body to be established in line with the conclusions of the Luxembourg European Council. The ECOFIN Council is a formal body of the EU, established under the Treaty. The Luxembourg European Council conclusions state that the Ministers of member states participating in the euro area may meet informally among themselves to discuss issues connected with their shared specific responsibilities for the single currency. The Luxembourg conclusions also
  89
  state that whenever matters of common interest are concerned they will be discussed by Ministers of all member states. Decisions will in all cases be taken by the ECOFIN Council in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Treaty.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will announce the capital receipts initiative for the next three years. [43196]

  Mr. Darling
  The Chancellor announced in his 1997 Budget the amount of resources for the Capital Receipts Initiatives in 1997–98 and 1998–99.

  The provision for the next three years will form part of the new spending plans which will be announced in the summer following the completion of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Official Engagements
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list his official engagements during his recent visits to(a) Indonesia, (b) Korea and (c) Malaysia. [42398]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  My visit to Asia began in Korea, where I met President Kim Dae-Jung, the Ministers of Finance and Foreign Affairs and the Governor of the Bank of Korea. I also met members of the business and financial community, and representatives from the trade unions.

  I then travelled to Malaysia, where I met Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Anwar Ibrahim. As in Seoul, I also had discussions with members of the business and financial community in Kuala Lumpur.

  The final leg of the visit was to Indonesia. I met President Soeharto and delivered a strong message on the need for political reform. I then met a number of the key figures involved in the economic reform effort: the Ministers for the Economy, Finance, and Trade and Industry, and the Governor of the Bank of Indonesia. I also delivered a speech at the Jakarta Stock Exchange on strengthening the architecture of the international financial system, and visited a World Bank rehabilitation project.

  Korea
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Korean trade union movement. [42351]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  On my recent trip to Korea I met President Kim Dae-Jung, the Ministers of Finance and Foreign Affairs and the Governor of the Bank of Korea. I met some members of the business and financial community. I also met the leaders of the two main Korean trade union bodies: Park In-Sang, President of the Federation of Korean Trade Unions and Lee Kap-Yong, President of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions.

  HIPC Initiative
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussion of the five points of the Mauritius 90
  Mandate occurred at (a) the Finance Ministers' meeting and (b) the G8 summit; and if he will make a statement. [43837]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Agreement was reached at both the Foreign and Finance Ministers meeting on 9 May and at the Birmingham Summit itself on issues raised in the Mauritius Mandate. Both meetings agreed to the speedy and determined implementation of debt relief to more countries under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, and encouraged all poor countries to have begun the process of securing debt relief by the year 2000. The meetings also urged all countries that have not already done so to forgive aid-related bilateral debt or to take comparable action for reforming poor countries, and to use export credits to countries eligible for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative only for productive expenditure. These agreements follow directly from proposals originally made by the Chancellor in the Mauritius Mandate.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions were held regarding the six-year qualification period for the HIPC initiative at (i) the Finance Ministers' meeting and (ii) the G8 summit. [43836]

  Mrs. Liddell
  To date, five of the six countries that have had decision points under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, have been granted shortened second stages before their completion points, demonstrating the willingness of the international community to implement the initiative flexibly.

  The G8 further demonstrated its support for the speedy and determined implementation of debt relief to the world's poorest countries under the HIPC initiative in the communiques issued after both the G8 Foreign and Finance Ministers meeting on 9 May and the Summit itself.

  Following an initiative by the Chancellor at the Foreign and Finance Ministers meeting, the Summit also discussed the needs of post conflict countries. One possibility to be looked at is counting IMF post conflict assistance programmes towards a country's track record. This could bring the decision point forward by up to twelve months for certain countries.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from the Governments of(a) Japan and (b) Germany with regard to debt relief. [43735]

  Mrs. Liddell
  (a) The Chancellor has not received any recent representations from the Japanese Government with regard to debt relief.

  (b) The Chancellor has received recent representations from the German government, which make clear its support of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative and which illustrate its generosity in granting debt relief to date.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the G8 Finance Ministers regarding the sale of IMF gold stocks to fund Third World debt relief. [43734]
  91
  Mrs. Liddell
  At the present time the sale of IMF gold reserves is not necessary to finance debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. The British Government recognise that gold sales will eventually be necessary, and will discuss the issue with other creditors when appropriate.

  Asian Crisis
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what initiatives the G8 Summit discussed regarding the impact of the Asian financial crisis on the poor; and what proposals were made. [43733]

  Mrs. Liddell
  G8 leaders were very conscious of the serious impact of the Asian crisis on the poor and most vulnerable. They agreed that economic and financial reform needs to be matched with actions and policies by the countries concerned to help protect these groups from the worst effects of the crisis. G8 leaders welcomed the support for this by the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and bilateral donors and the increased emphasis on social expenditure in programmes agreed by the IMF. At the Summit there was also a full discussion of the challenges of poorer developing countries throughout the wider world and a number of steps were agreed to help them. The conclusions on this are contained in the G8 Communique in the Library of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  BSkyB
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister when Cabinet Office officials were consulted about the appointment of Mr. Timothy Allan to a position at BSkyB. [39892]

  The Prime Minister
  Before his contract was signed on 19 April.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was informed that his deputy press spokesman, Mr. Timothy Allan, was negotiating to become an employee of BSkyB. [39874]

  The Prime Minister
  I was aware that he was discussing employment with several companies for some weeks before his appointment with BSkyB was announced.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister when he was informed that his deputy press spokesman, Mr. Timothy Allan, was to become an employee of BSkyB. [39875]

  The Prime Minister
  On 19 April.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister if he provided a reference for Mr. Timothy Allan, his former deputy press spokesman, in connection with his securing a senior position at BSkyB. [39876]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the occasions on which he has met President Kabbah of Sierra Leone since 1 May 1997; and if he will publish the minutes of such meetings. [42093]
  92
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 19 May 1998, Official Report, column 313.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister what United Kingdom public funds were made available to President Kabbah of Sierra Leone during his exile; and what reports he has received on what the money was used for. [42803]

  The Prime Minister
  The total financial value of United Kingdom assistance to President Kabbah and his government representatives while they were in Conakry, Guinea was £342,711. This comprised direct support from the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for: the basic services of President Kabbah's government in Conakry; President Kabbah and a Sierra Leone delegation to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Edinburgh in October 1997; a workshop and seminar in the United Kingdom to help President Kabbah restore the legitimate Government of Sierra Leone; and communications equipment.

  The expenditure has been monitored by the British High Commissioner to Freetown, who worked alongside President Kabbah's government in Conakry, and by periodic reports to the Department for International Development from the government of Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister by whom the decision was taken to release the recent letter from President Kabbah to the press; who was consulted; and when. [42708]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 May 1998]: I took the decision in consultation with the Foreign Secretary on the day the letter was received. President Kabbah himself wrote in the letter that he had no objection to its contents being released to the media. When the letter was made public my Press Secretary made clear to journalists that there were interpretations in the letter which the British Government did not agree with—both in relation to interpretation of Security Council Resolutions and in relation to named individuals—but that we saw it as helpful in providing the perspective of the democratically elected and legitimate government of Sierra Leone on events which led to their restoration after the military coup.

  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Prime Minister how many intelligence reports on the activities of Sandline were submitted to No. 10 Downing Street; on what dates; and if he will extend the scope of Sir Thomas Legg's inquiry to include such reports. [43466]

  The Prime Minister
  All papers that were available to me will be made available to Sir Thomas Legg's investigation.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 11 May 1998,Official Report, column 19, what estimate he has made of the cost of holding centrally details of all the consultation papers issued by Departments since 1 May 1987. [42217]

  The Prime Minister
  I have made no estimate. Individual Ministers are responsible for the consultation papers they publish.
  93

  North Korea
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans Her Majesty's Government have to provide contributions in terms of(a) food aid, (b) agricultural development and (c) the provision of light water reactors to North Korea. [42424]

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom, in our Presidency role, led a European Union Technical Mission to North Korea from 8–17 May to assess the present humanitarian situation and consider future needs. The UK participated in the United Nations Development Programme Round Table on 28–29 May to discuss plans for agricultural rehabilitation. The Secretary of State for International Development will review UK policy in the light of these events.

  We and our EU partners are committed to resolving the issue of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula. The EU is a full member of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation (KEDO), which is providing North Korea with new Light Water Reactors and interim energy supplies in return for North Korea suspending (and eventually dismantling) its own nuclear reactor programme. The UK contributed $1 million to KEDO in 1995. The EU contributed 5 million ecu in 1996 and in 1997 agreed to contribute 15 million ecu a year for 5 years.

  China
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit(a) the Suzhou Industrial Park and (b) Sichuan Province during his forthcoming visit to China. [42352]

  The Prime Minister
  Arrangements for my visit to China in October are at the planning stage. However, given the large number of competing demands on the programme, I unfortunately do not expect to visit either the Suzhou Industrial park or Sichuan Province on this occasion. However, my programme will ensure that I see as many aspects of Chinese society as possible.

  Asia-Europe Meeting
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on ASEM II in London, listing his bilateral meetings with foreign leaders during the summit; and what responses have been received to the proposed trust fund from(a) foreign Governments and (b) international financial institutions. [42357]

  The Prime Minister
  The second Asia Europe meeting made a significant contribution towards reinforcing the bonds between Asia and both Britain and Europe as a whole.

  There was a strong message on the financial crisis in Asia: how we can work together to restore confidence and stability. At a critical time, we were able to emphasise Europe's commitment to the region and secure agreement on the need to maintain open markets and free trade.

  Action plans were agreed to encourage trade and promote investment. The third Asia-Europe Business Forum was also held during the Summit. This gave business leaders from all ASEM members the opportunity to report on the concerns of business directly to political leaders at the summit.
  94
  The ASEM process is breaking new ground in political dialogue between the two regions. At the London meeting, there was discussion of fundamental rights and issues ranging from international crime to developments in Cambodia, the Korean Peninsula, Kosovo and enlargement of the European Union.

  The London Summit also launched major initiatives in areas of particular concern to all our peoples: the environment and the welfare and education of our children.

  The UK's initiative to establish an ASEM Trust Fund was widely welcomed. The Fund, which will provide assistance in assessing the poverty impact of the Asian financial crisis and help with financial restructuring, will be managed by the World Bank. Discussions are at an advanced stage on the operating arrangements. Indications of financial support from EU ASEM participants exceed $30 (US) million (including £5 million from the UK) and further support is expected from both European and Asian participants.

  During the Summit and immediately before, I had bilateral meetings with the Prime Ministers of China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Thailand.

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Prime Minister if his Office operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information. [42627]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: Although requests for information under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information are routinely monitored, it has not been found necessary to introduce specific procedures for persistent inquiries.

  Whaling (Japan)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise Japan's continued whaling with Emperor Akihito during the latter's forthcoming visit. [42170]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 May 1998]: Under the Japanese constitution, the Emperor has a strictly non-political role. However, we have made the Japanese Government aware on many occasions that the United Kingdom supports a permanent international ban on whaling, with the exception of some limited aboriginal subsistence whaling. The most recent occasion was at the International Whaling Commission meeting that took place between 27 and 29 May in Oman.

  Former Service Personnel
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Prime Minister how many Government departments currently have responsibilities for the affairs of former service personnel. [43055]

  The Prime Minister
  Ex-Service personnel are accorded the same access to services provided by Government Departments as every other citizen. It will depend on the nature of the services required as to which Government Department will be involved. However, the majority of cases are matters relating to the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Social Security, of which the War Pensions Agency is a part, and the Department of Health.
  95
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will assess the advantages of having the affairs of former service personnel dealt with by a single Government department; what representations he has received on this matter; and if he will make a statement. [43056]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have received a number of representations on this subject. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces met the Secretary General of the Royal British Legion on 11 March, when they discussed how best to improve the handling of ex-Service affairs. The Ministry of Defence are looking closely at options for approaching the wider question of matters relating to the ex-Service community in the light of these discussions.

  Party Funding
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will arrange for the minutes of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee since 1979 to be made available to the Committee on Standards in Public Life for its inquiry into party funding. [43294]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Committee's advice has been given in confidence to the Prime Minister of the day to assist him or her in making recommendations for political honours.

DEFENCE

  British Beef
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made with the European Commission in seeking to release stocks of British intervention beef for use by the armed forces. [44107]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am pleased to announce that, following discussions with my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Defence—taken forward by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and as a result of his Ministry's approach to the European Commission—the Commission has approved a Regulation allowing access to intervention stocks of British beef for use by the Armed Forces at competitive prices. Access to these stocks on terms agreed should allow our food supply contractor to substantially increase the amount of British beef consumed by our UK based Armed Forces.

  Service Fatalities
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel lost their lives in the past 12 months while in action, or as a consequence of wounds received during active service, outside Northern Ireland; and what was the country or coastal region of their deaths or wounds which consequently resulted in their deaths. [42897]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.
  96
  Letter from Paul Altobell to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 1 June 1998:
  I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of service personnel who have lost their lives in action outside of Northern Ireland over the past 12 months, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility.
  I am happy to report that our records show that, in the period 1 April 1997 to 19 May 1998, no service personnel died as a result of battle wounds or injuries as a direct result of action by or against an organised enemy.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  WE177 Bombs
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what volumes of radioactive waste were generated in the research, manufacture, storage, maintenance and deployment of the WE177 nuclear bombs; what quantities of radioactive waste will be created in their decommissioning; what environmental measures are to be applied to their decommissioning; and where the residual radioactive waste and plutonium will be stored. [40778]

  Dr. Reid
  The WE177 free fall bomb programme started over 30 years go. Details of radioactive waste arising from the different phase of the programme were not recorded separately, and could be collated only at disproportionate cost.

  Decommissioning of WE177 is being undertaken in accordance with all relevant environmental legislation and in line with the requirements of the appropriate regulatory bodies, principally the Environment Agency and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.

  Any radioactive waste arising from this work will be disposed of via normal approved routes where these are available, and in accordance with certificates of authorisation issued by the Environment Agency; for example, suitable low level waste will be sent to BNFL Drigg. Other waste for which no disposal route is currently available will be stored safely and securely at AWE Aldermaston. Any plutonium will also be safely and securely held, though I must withhold details under Exemption 1 of the code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to Defence, Security and International Relations.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which establishments WE177 bombs were taken for servicing; what the nature of such servicing entails; and how regularly this servicing was conducted. [40814]

  Dr. Reid
  Servicing was carried out by the Atomic Weapons Establishment as necessary to ensure the continued safety and reliability of WE177 whilst in service. I am withholding details as to the regularity and nature of servicing under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to Defence, Security, and Internal Relations.

  RAF Menwith Hill
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 489, what proportion of the total cost of the infra-red system at RAF Menwith Hill has been met by his Department. [42073]
  97
  Dr. Reid
  As I told the hon. Gentleman in my reply of 2 March 1998,Official Report, column 489, the Space Based Infra-Red System (SBIRS) is a programme funded by the United States Government. As such, we do not have details of the total programme costs and therefore I am unable to specify what proportion of these costs associated with the SBIRS programme at RAF Menwith Hill is being borne by my department.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all visitors to HMS Cornwall in the period during which President Kabbah was aboard and in the preceding and following weeks; and if he will give their job titles, their reasons for being there and the dates when they were aboard. [41957]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: President Kabbah visited HMS Cornwall in Freetown on 19 March for a lunch jointly hosted by the British High Commissioner and the Commanding Officer of HMS Cornwall to mark the successful completion of the ship's humanitarian mission prior to her sailing the following day. The following visited the ship while President Kabbah was on board:

  Vice President Demby

  Dr. James Jonah—(then Ambassador to the UN, now Minister of Finance)

  Colonel Max Khobe—(ECOMOG Task Force Commander, Sierra Leone)

  Mr. C. Margai—(senior political figure, now Minister of Internal Affairs)

  Mr. A. Bangura—(Sierra Leone Radio)

  Mr. Peter Penfold—(British High Commissioner)

  Mr. Colin Glass—(Deputy High Commissioner).

  In the evening, the Commanding officer and the British High Commissioner jointly hosted a reception, also to mark the completion of Cornwall's mission. The following attended:

  Momodu Koroma—then Kabbah Task Force (now Minister for Presidential Affairs)

  Dr. Soyei—Cottage Hospital

  Tejan Kella—AFRICARE (organisation involved in humanitarian work)

  Dr. Philip Almeida—Cottage Hospital

  Mr. V. Collier—Head of Civil Service

  Mr. Gael—Action Against Hunger (organisation involved in humanitarian work)

  Mr. A. R. Wurie—Head of Protocol

  Mr. P. Lamsona—CARE (Organisation involved in humanitarian work)

  Dr. Julius Spencer—then Kabbah supporter (now Minister of Information)

  Mr. H. Charels—CAUSE Canada (organisation involved in humanitarian work)

  Martin Katta

  Mr. Koroma—Council of Churches, Sierra Leone (organisation involved in humanitarian work)

  Dr. Joe Lappia

  Mr. A. Cox—Concern Universal (organisation involved in humanitarian work)

  Kanga Sessay—Kabbah Task Force

  Ms K. Richardson—Catholic Relief Society

  98

  Desmond Luke—then Presidential Adviser (now Attorney General)

  Mr. J. Metzker—International Committee of Red Cross

  Mrs. S. Gbujama—then Foreign Minister (now Minister for Social Welfare)

  Mr. A. Eddo—International Committee of Red Cross

  Mr. S. Berewa—then Attorney General

  Jean Clement—Medecins sans Frontiéres

  Martha Carey—Medecins sans Frontiéres

  Rick Fitzpatrick—World Vision

  Col. Musa—ECOMOG

  Siko Pyker—OXFAM

  Lt. Col. Shoboiki—ECOMOG Freetown Commander

  Jost Vandenakker—OXFAM

  Mr. E. Perez Porras—European Union Resident Representative to Sierra Leone

  Clive Dawson—UK businessman

  Tony Todd—Crown Agents Emergency Logistics Management Team Consultant

  Mr. Hailey—Sierra Leone Police

  Mr. Lathbry—Cable and Wireless

  Mr. S. Lebby—British High Commission Mr. Clarke—Cable and Wireless

  Lt. Col. Ted Glover—Defence Attaché, Accra Mr. H. Kamara

  Mrs. Gloria Thomas—British Council

  Dr. Frank Nyama—New England Clinic

  Elizabeth Decker—Nurse

  Mrs. D. Fraser

  John BB Ganda—Head of Children's Clinic.

  The following visited the ship on 19 March as Wardroom guests:

  Mr. Juba Jubert—Sandline or associate

  Mr. John Farr—Sandline or associate

  Mr. Mike Ashworth—Sandline or associate

  Mr. Rupert Bowen—Sandline or associate

  8 others for whom full names were not given—Sandline or associate.

  The following visited the ship in the week preceding 19 March as representatives of their organisations:

  18 March

  Francis Okello—United Nations

  Martin Booth—United Nations

  Representative of Cable and Wireless

  17 March

  Lt. Col. Ted Glover—UK MOD

  Representative of Australian World Vision

  Representative of Filipino World Vision

  Representative of Cable and Wireless

  13 March

  Kristen Richardson—Catholic Relief Society

  Mr. Lathby—Cable and Wireless

  Mr. Clarke—Cable and Wireless

  Mr. Hailey—Sierra Leone Police

  12 March

  Francis Okello—United Nations

  Colonel Andrew Gale—United Nations

  Mike Booth—United Nations

  Dr. Jonah—Kabbah Task Force

  99

  Mike Downham—Medical Doctor

  Clive Dawson—UK businessman

  Peter Penfold—British High Commissioner

  Mr. Albrecht—ICRC Driver

  Mr. Mustaffa—CARE Driver.

  A comprehensive list of job titles is not available. The ship sailed from Freetown on 20 March.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place a copy of the captain's log of HMS 'Cornwall' for the last 12 months in the Library; [42407]

  (2) if he will place a copy of the ship's log of HMS 'Cornwall' for the last 12 months in the Library. [42418]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There is no such document as a Captain's log. HMS Cornwall's ships logs for the last year are either onboard the vessel, which is currently off Southern Africa, in the post to the UK, or in storage. The logs are not therefore readily available. However, as I told the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) in my reply of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 257, the logs for the period 1 January 1998 to 1 April 1998 are being collected and I will then consider their possible release. They cover the period that HMS Cornwall was off West Africa.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Royal Navy vessels which have(a) carried out and (b) attempted to carry out shore operations in Sierra Leone since May 1997; if he will make a statement on the operations concerned; and what involvement there was of private companies. [42709]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 20 May 1998]: Since May 1997, with the exception of HMS Cornwall which, between 1 and 20 March 1998, provided humanitarian assistance to the people of Sierra Leone, supported our diplomatic efforts there and assisted in the return of the British High Commissioner, no Royal Navy vessels have carried out shore operations in Sierra Leone.

  As far as involvement with private companies is concerned, the ECOMOG air operations centre, run by Sandline personnel, regularly briefed HMS Cornwall during her deployment to Sierra Leone on the security situation and the possible threat posed by rebels. This information was essential to ensure that HMS Cornwall's helicopter could safely carry out its humanitarian relief flights within the country. In addition, on 6 March, HMS Cornwall personnel spent two hours ashore repairing a Sandline helicopter, operating in support of ECOMOG, that had landed at a heli-port alongside the ship following a bird strike. While the helicopter was being repaired, the Sandline pilot and two others accompanying him were invited on-board. On 13 March, HMS Cornwall assisted Sandline personnel with some minor maintenance of the helicopter when it was at the same heli-port. On 19 March, the pilot and 11 others employed by, or connected with Sandline, were invited into the Wardroom for drinks.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what authorisation assistance was rendered to a Sandline helicopter by HMS Cornwall; what ship stores 100
  and spares were used during this operation; and under what head of charge these items were accounted for by the supply officer, HMS Cornwall. [42309]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The decision to assist with the repair of the helicopter operating in support of ECOMOG was, quite properly, taken locally by HMS Cornwall. No ship's stores or spares were used, apart from five litres of degreasant and 40 rivets. Both these items were routine consumables which were accounted for when they were issued to the ship's Flight by RNAS Culdrose prior to the Flight's embarkation in February 1998.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 258, to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), what payment was made for the assistance provided for Sandline International's helicopter by the crew of HMS Cornwall; if prior approval was sought and obtained from his Department by the Captain of HMS Cornwall; if Ministers were informed; and what other assistance was given by British military personnel to Sandline, and when. [43293]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). No other assistance was provided to Sandline in addition to that detailed in my answer to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 258. This was properly a matter for the local commander; ministers were not informed of, nor were charges raised for, the assistance provided.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those visitors to HMS Cornwall since 1 January 1996 who were employees of or connected with Sandline International indicating(a) the names of the visitors, (b) the dates of the visits, (c) the names of the persons met, (d) the purpose of the visits and (e) the location of the ship at the time of the visits. [41817]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: Information on visitors going back to January 1996 is not available. While HMS Cornwall was providing humanitarian assistance in Sierra Leone there were two occasions on which the ship was visited by identified Sandline personnel. On 6 March the pilot of the helicopter operated on behalf of ECOMOG, Mr. Juba Jubert, and two others accompanying him, identified as Mr. Farr and Mr. Ashworth, were invited on board while the helicopter was being repaired at the heliport alongside HMS Cornwall after a bird strike. On 19 March, twelve persons employed by, or connected with Sandline, were invited into the Wardroom for drinks. The group comprised Mr. Jubert, Mr. Farr, Mr. Ashworth, Mr. Bowen, and eight others for whom full names were not given.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if HMS 'Monmouth' provided support to ECOMOG in discharging UNSCR 1132; and if he will make a statement. [42559]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: HMS Monmouth did not provide any support to ECOMOG in discharging UNSCR 1132.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date notice was given to the crew of HMS Nottingham to report for duty to prepare to depart
  101
  for Sierra Leone; and on what date preparations were begun to load that vessel with humanitarian aid for that country. [42711]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 20 May 1998]No such notice was given to the crew of HMS Nottingham; nor was Nottingham loaded with humanitarian aid for that country.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of HMS Monmouth in Sierra Leone since May 1997; what requests were received from that vessel with respect to acquiring additional (i) personnel and (ii) equipment for land operations; and if representatives from Sandline International were in contact with that ship. [42710]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 20 May 1998]The instructions to HMS Monmouth (and later HMS Cornwall) were to deploy to the vicinity of Sierra Leone to be prepared to provide immediate humanitarian assistance to the people of Sierra Leone, to support our diplomatic efforts there, and to assist in the return of the British High Commissioner, should the democratically elected Government be restored.

  No requests were made by HMS Monmouth to acquire additional personnel or equipment for land operations. As far as we can ascertain at no time, nor in any way, did representatives from Sandline International have any contact with the ship.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date Sandline started running the ECOMOG Air Operations Centre. [43460]

  Mr. George Robertson
  This is not a matter for my Department.

  Merlin and Astor Programmes
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans for the future procurement of(a) Merlin and (b) Astor from Lockheed Martin. [42914]

  Mr. Spellar
  I can confirm that, like many other equipment programmes, the procurement of the second batch of Merlin HM Mark 1 helicopters is under consideration as part of the Strategic Defence Review. A judgment must be taken on the optimum balance of Anti-Submarine Warfare assets, including helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, ships and submarines, in light of the perceived threat and against the backdrop of finite resources.

  A package of SDR measures has been put before Cabinet, but no final decisions have yet been taken. Once they have, they will be published as quickly as possible.

  Final proposals for ASTOR development and production were received at the end of February 1998 and are currently being evaluated. It is planned that a final decision will be taken around the end of this year.

  Foreign Armed Forces Training and Assistance)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to Her Majesty's Government of 102
  providing training and assistance to the armed forces of (a) India, (b) Pakistan and (c) China in each of the last five years. [43095]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on 7 May 1998,Official Report, column 436. I wrote to my hon. Friend the same day and a copy of my letter is in the Library.

  Air Bases (Joint Use)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the air bases in the United Kingdom jointly used by the United Kingdom and the United States of America. [43630]

  Mr. Spellar
  There are various facilities where use is shared to some extent between UK and US personnel, but there are currently no air bases shared by flying units of our two nations on a permanent basis. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 7 April 1998,Official Report, column 219, which details those sites made available to the United States Visiting Forces in the UK.

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the current capacity of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency to deliver the correct types of uniforms in the correct quantities for recruits to the armed forces. [43729]

  Dr. Reid
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency (DCTA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Roycroft to Mr. Andrew Robathan, dated 1 June 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the current capacity of the Defence Clothing & Textiles Agency to provide uniforms for recruits to the armed forces, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Clothing & Textiles Agency.
  Recruits are issued with items from our uniform and operational clothing ranges for which the current availability is 77.53% and 87.52% respectively against a funded target of 80%. The figures represent the proportion of demands which are met on first presentation and do not include other methods of supply such as local purchase. The actual availability is therefore higher. When items are in short supply or a future problem is forecast, efforts are made to ensure that our stocks are husbanded and that the requirements of the recruit establishments are met as a priority second only to support for operations.

  I hope this answer is helpful and am willing to provide more precise information if you have specific concerns in regard to individual items.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at which United Kingdom educational institutions, including military colleges, Indonesian army officers are currently being taught, how many officers are at each institution and to what units each is attached. [41552]

  Dr. Reid
  There are eleven Indonesian army officers currently attending training courses at Ministry of Defence establishments in the UK. One is at the Joint
  103
  Services Command and Staff College at Bracknell, and a further ten are at the Royal Military College of Science at Shrivenham.

  Details of Indonesian army officers attending non-military UK educational institutions are not a matter for my Department. However, based on the information available to us, we understand that there are a further 18 army officers being taught at non-military educational institutions in the UK. Information on the location of those establishments has been withheld under Exemption 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. These students are part of a programme of university training in international relations, defence management, international law and human rights, and the programme is being provided on a private and commercial basis.

  we do not have records of which units Indonesian army officers have come from before attending course in the UK.

  Land Command
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of(a) the documents sent by GOC 2 Division to GOC Land Command in support of retaining a Land Command Divisional Head Quarters in York rather than Edinburgh and (b) the papers submitted to the Executive Committee of the Army Board on the future divisional structure of Land Command. [42903]

  Dr. Reid
  I am withholding the documents requested under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Service Personnel (Brave or Gallant Service Awards)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have been(a) awarded and (b) formally recommended but not yet gazetted for the Military Cross over the past 12 months, for service outside Northern Ireland; and what was the country or coastal location in which their acts related to the award or recommendation. [42896]

  Dr. Reid
  In the past twelve months two Servicemen have been recommended and awarded the Military Cross. One was for service in Sierra Leone, published in the London Gazette on 5 December 1997, and the other for service in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia published in the London Gazette on 8 May 1998. At present there are no other recommendations outstanding for the award of the Military Cross.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) awards and (b) recommendations not yet gazetted for gallantry or bravery have been made in relation to service personnel serving in Northern Ireland over the past 12 months. [42894]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]Nominations for brave or gallant service by soldiers, sailors and airmen of the three Services are considered centrally to ensure continuity of standards and to protect the integrity of the awards. All recommendations received from HQ Northern Ireland reflecting service from 1 April 1997 to 30 September 1997 were approved 104
  and subsequently announced in the London Gazette on 8 May 1998. No recommendations for service from 1 October 1997 onwards have yet been submitted.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) officers and (b) soldiers are attached to the 5LI Shropshire and Herefordshire Light Infantry and the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry. [43119]

  Dr. Reid
  As at 1 May 1998, the current and established strengths of 5 Shropshire and Hereford Light Infantry and the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry, by officers and soldiers, are as follows:

  5 Shropshire & Hereford Light Infantry

  Royal Mercian & Lancastrian Yeomanry

  Current strength

  Established strength

  Current strength

  Established strength

  Officers

  38

  36

  39

  39

  Soldiers

  491

  494

  297

  280

  Note:

  Figures include TA, Regular and Non Regular Permanent Staff (NRPS).

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from those living in Shropshire on the future of 5LI Shropshire and Herefordshire Light Infantry and the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry. [43120]

  Dr. Reid
  My Department has received a number of representations from hon. Members with constituency interests in the Territorial Army in Shropshire on the future of 5 Shropshire and Herefordshire Light Infantry and the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are being used in the Strategic Defence Review to decide which Territorial Army battalions will continue. [43628]

  Dr. Reid
  Our prime aim is to structure the Territorial Army in a way that will be relevant and useable in the operational circumstances we foresee. But we wish to take account of the valuable economic contribution made by Territorial Army units in their local community.

  We will also want to build on existing strong social links of Territorial Army units with their communities, and the cadets; we will want to build on the enthusiasm that there is in many areas for volunteer service. We will also wish to take into account the availability of training facilities; and the need for close working between Territorial units and the Regular Armed Forces.

  Within these constraints we aim to preserve as wide a presence as possible for the Territorial Army across the country. It may take some months after our first announcements to reach final decisions on what may be complex set of changes.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to visit the 5 Shropshire and Herefordshire Battalion and the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry at the Copthorne barracks in Shrewsbury. [43646]
  105
  Dr. Reid
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence nor I have any current plans to visit the 5th Shropshire and Herefordshire Battalion and the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the economic impact on Shrewsbury of the presence of the 5 Shropshire & Herefordshire Light Infantry and the Royal Mercian & Lancastrian Yeomanry. [43611]

  Dr. Reid
  No assessment has been made of the impact of any Territorial Army unit on its local economy, nor are there plans to make such an assessment.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the effect on the numbers of officers, soldiers and associated civilian staff of the amalgamation of the Queen's Own Mercian Yeomanry and the Duke of Lancaster's Own Yeomanry to form the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry. [43645]

  Dr. Reid
  The Queen's Own Mercian Yeomanry and the Duke of Lancaster's Own Yeomanry amalgamated on 1 April 1993 as part of the restructuring of the Territorial Army in that year. The establishment of the two units at the time of amalgamation, and the current establishment of the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry are shown in the table.

  Establishment

  Queen's Own Mercian yeomanry

  Duke of Lancaster's own yeomanry

  Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry

  Officers

  36

  36

  39

  Soldiers

  398

  398

  280

  Civilians

  14

  14

  19

  Total

  448

  448

  328

  Note:

  Figures include TA, Regular and Non Regular Permanent Staff (NRPS)

  Copthorne Barracks, Shrewsbury
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many civilian staff are employed at the Copthorne barracks in Shrewsbury. [43648]

  Dr. Reid
  255 civilian staff are employed by the Ministry of Defence at Copthorne Barracks, Shrewsbury, including 18 part time staff. In addition, 34 civilian staff are employed by a contractor at Copthorne Barracks, including six part time staff.

  Service Personnel Injuries
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel were injured(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad during (i) 1997, (ii) 1996 and (ii) 1995. [43481]
  106
  Dr. Reid
  The numbers of Service personnel injured in the UK and abroad in the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 were as follows:

  Year

  UK

  Abroad

  1995

  4,316

  1,717

  1996

  4,322

  1,389

  1997

  3,387

  790

  Notes:

  1. The figures provided include injuries resulting in death.

  2. The figures for the United Kingdom include injuries which occurred in UK waters and the North Atlantic.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel who were injured(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) abroad during (i) 1997, (ii) 1996 and (iii) 1995 were forced through their injuries to leave the service. [43480]

  Dr. Reid
  The numbers of Service personnel medically discharged in the years 1995, 1996 and 1997 owing to injuries sustained in the UK and abroad were as follows:

  Year

  UK

  Abroad

  1995

  450

  88

  1996

  573

  81

  1997

  484

  77

  Notes:

  1. The figures provided represent the numbers of medical discharges resulting from injury irrespective of the year in which the injury was sustained. The total number of injuries occurring in 1995, 1996 and 1997 which resulted in medical discharge within the same year or a later year could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.

  2. The figures for the United Kingdom include injuries which occurred in UK waters and the North Atlantic.

  Fishery Protection Vessels
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Spanish naval personnel or Spanish fishery officers have been aboard British fishery protection vessels in each year between 1993 and 1997; which vessels were involved; and what were the dates and the duration of those visits. [43873]

  Dr. Reid
  There has been no formal exchange of naval personnel between the Spanish Navy and vessels of the RN Fishery Protection Squadron. No records are kept of Spanish naval personnel who may have visited ships during port visits. It is however known that at least three members of the Spanish Navy were on board HMS Guernsey at various times during her visit to Vigo in 1997.

  My department does not hold records which would show the nationality of EU fisheries inspectors embarked on vessels of the RN Fisheries Protection Squadron.

  The Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency operates its own fishery protection vessels for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible. Since April 1997 these have had exclusive responsibility for fishery protection duties in Scottish waters.
  107

  Japanese Prisoners of War
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of widows of servicemen imprisoned by Japanese forces during World War 2(a) in total and (b) by constituency. [43306]

  Mr. George Robertson
  No estimate has been made and no centrally collated figures exist.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of(a) servicemen and (b) civilians who were imprisoned or interned by Japanese forces during World War 2 (i) in total and (ii) by constituency. [43305]

  Mr. George Robertson
  50,016 Service personnel from the Armed Forces of the United Kingdom were captured by Japanese forces during the Second World War. While matters concerning civilian citizens of the United Kingdom in such circumstances are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, I can advise that contemporary records show that some 20–21,000 civilians of British origin, British Indian or British subjects of European descent were interned by the Japanese during the Second World War.

  The information on these Servicemen and civilians broken down by constituency is not held centrally and it could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 19 May 1998,Official Report, column 322, concerning departmental energy use, if he will list for each site the (a) name and (b) rank of the Energy Manager; and what method is used to assess the individual's effectiveness in the collection of relevant data. [43680]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Top Level Budget Holders in the Ministry of Defence are responsible, in conjunction with Energy Efficiency Focal points, for the setting and achievement of performance targets within their area. Assessments of an Energy Manager's effectiveness are based upon the practical savings achieved against recognised performance indicators, such as usage.

  The names and ranks of the Energy Managers are being withheld under exemption 14 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those authorised to use depleted uranium in the United Kingdom. [43053]

  Mr. Spellar
  Depleted uranium has wide ranging use in both the civil and defence sectors, including shielding of radioactive sources, counterbalances for aeroplanes and oil rigs, and also in tank and naval ammunition.

  The use and handling of depleted uranium are governed by a number of different regulations, none of which requires specific "authorisation" as such. However, disposal, as opposed to use, of depleted uranium is authorised only for licensed nuclear sites. The basic control of depleted uranium is provided by the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (amended 1995), which
  108
  is administered by the Environment Agency. Other regulations which may be applicable are the Ionising Radiation Regulations and associated Code of Practice 1985 and 1993, and the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) (Great Britain) Regulations 1996. The MOD itself also issues a number of internal manuals, regulations and instructions relating to the control of radioactive material within the Armed Forces and the MOD.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the regulations that have been removed or amended to help small businesses since 1 May 1997. [42783]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence is not a Government Department which passes through Parliament regulatory legislation with which industry has to comply. The Department of Trade and Industry is the Government Department responsible for regulations concerning small businesses.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many occupational pension funds(a) have opted out of the Pensions Act 1995 provisions for member-nominated trustees, (b) have no contributing employee and no pensioner-nominated trustees and (c) have pensioner-nominated trustees. [43961]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government want to promote healthy and well run occupational pension schemes and attach great importance to the role that member-nominated trustees have to play in achieving this.

  We are taking stock of how the member-nominated trustee requirements are working in practice and, as part of our evaluation of the Pensions Act 1995, we will be looking very carefully at how we can further promote member-nominated trustees, including greater involvement for pensioner members.

  The time limit for completion of member-nominated trustee exercises ended in May 1998 and research is currently underway to obtain information along the lines requested. It will be published as part of the 1998 Employers' Pension Provision Survey. The National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF) Annual Survey 1997 provides some early indications from data collected from 613 of their member organisations in the last quarter of 1997. This shows that 83 per cent. of schemes adopted employers' alternative arrangements. This is commonly referred to as opting-out although it does not necessarily mean that a scheme does not have member trustees. The NAPF data shows that the vast majority of schemes, including those who used employer proposed arrangements, do, in fact, have one-third or more member trustees, although these trustees have not been nominated and selected under sections 16 or 18 of the Pensions Act 1995.
  109

  Incapacity Benefits
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if she will make a statement on the timetable for execution and evaluation of pilot schemes to test less restrictive definitions of incapacity for benefit purposes; [43560]

  (2) what budget the Government have set for 1998–99 for pilot schemes to test less restrictive definitions of incapacity for benefit purposes; [43562]

  (3) what plans the Government have to consult with disability groups prior to undertaking pilot schemes to test less restrictive definitions of incapacity for benefit purposes. [43561]

  Mr. Denham
  Pilots testing more flexible definitions of incapacity to help disabled people into work are due to start in April 1999. No budget has been set for 1998–99.

  The Government will continue to consult disabled people and their organisations on our plans to help disabled people who want to work.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to extend the linking period between work entry and benefit claiming for severe disablement allowance and incapacity benefit. [43564]

  Mr. Denham
  We are taking action to remove obstacles to work from the benefits system as part of our strategy for helping people with disabilities or long-term sickness who want to work. As one of the first steps in this process we will introduce a new 52 week linking rule for people receiving Severe Disablement Allowance and longer-term incapacity benefits who move into work. We are planning to introduce the new rules, which will take some of the risks out of a return to work, with effect from October 1998.

  Therapeutic Earnings
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will introduce greater flexibility in terms of(a) hours, (b) wages and (c) types of work considered therapeutic for the assessment of therapeutic earnings. [43566]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government announced in the Green Paper, "New Ambitions for Our Country: A New Contract for Welfare", changes to the benefits system to encourage disabled people who have the capacity to work to do so. Once we have seen the results of these initiatives we will then consider whether further changes are needed to the work claimants are permitted to undertake whilst retaining benefit.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will disregard therapeutic earnings up to the present therapeutic earnings limit for the purposes of income support and housing benefit calculations. [43565]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  For people in receipt of the disability premium there is a disregard of £15 in Income Support and Housing Benefit. There are no plans to introduce a special therapeutic earnings disregard in these benefits.
  110

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps her Department has taken to ensure that DLA recipients subject to Benefit Integrity Project review who have appealed against adjudication do not have to return their Motability vehicle. [43298]

  Mr. Denham
  Motability is an independent charity, but we have worked with them to consider what might be done in cases where entitlement to the higher rate mobility component (HRMC) of Disability Living Allowance is ended under the Benefit Integrity Project.

  The Governors of Motability have introduced, from 5 May 1998, a scheme whereby lease payments may be protected for Motability customers who have requested a review of the decision to end their HRMC entitlement. This protection will continue to the date that this further review is completed and the claimant is notified of the outcome. If that decision is favourable to the customer the lease reverts to its previous status; if the decision is still adverse, payment protection ends and the Motability car will have to be surrendered. The new procedures are explained in Motability literature sent to each customer whose HRMC entitlement is ended.

  The costs of payment protection will be met from within Motability scheme funds.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when her Department will undertake a review of Benefit Integrity Project cases where benefit was stopped or reduced prior to the introduction of pre-adjudication check. [43297]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) on 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 376–77.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 285, if she will list the variables which are considered in the management data routinely collected on the New Deal for Lone Parents; if she will make a statement on the reasons why housing status is not included; and what plans she has to include such information in the future. [43593]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Management data show the numbers of lone parents who have reached the various key stages in the New Deal for Lone Parents process.

  The information collected records:

  the number of initial invitation letters issued;

  the number of initial interviews with Personal Advisers booked;

  the number of initial interviews which have taken place;

  the number of lone parents who agree to participate in the programme following an initial interview;

  the total number of interviews conducted (including initial interviews);

  the number of referrals to Employment Service programmes or other training;

  the number of jobs obtained following participation;

  the number of lone parents who have increased their hours of work following participation.

  111
  These points mark the key milestones in the New Deal for Lone Parents process, and the information is collected and collated on a monthly basis.

  The following additional information is also collected for each positive work outcome (each case where either a job has been obtained or hours of work have been increased):
  for the first work outcome for each participant, a record is kept of whether the hours of work are (a) under 16 hours per week; (b) 16 to 29 hours per week; or (c) 30 hours or more per week;
  whether the outcome has led to a move off Income Support;
  whether the lone parent has a child under 5 years and 3 months;
  for those whose youngest child is over 5 years and 3 months, whether the lone parent put themselves forward before receiving an invitation letter;
  in cases where the lone parent has obtained a job not identified by their Personal Adviser, whether they have received other assistance under the New Deal for Lone Parents (such as referral to training, in-work benefit calculations, help with interview skills, preparation of a CV etc); and
  whether those moving into work were given help with making an application for Family Credit.

  Other information may be collected on an ad hoc basis, for example, by interrogation, on a case-by-case basis, of DSS/local authority computer systems and clerical records.

  The management data collected are designed to show the extent of participation in and process through the New Deal for Lone Parents programme. In this context it is not appropriate to collect information on other characteristics, such as housing status, of the lone parents who participate.

  Full independent evaluation of the New Deal for Lone Parents is being carried out by a research consortium led by Social and Community Planning Research on behalf of the Department. The evaluation will consider housing status and mortgage payments in its assessment. The final evaluation report will be published in autumn 1999.

  Pensions
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the cost of establishing a common minimum pension for men and women at 60 years including a breakdown of both costs and savings. [41981]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]The information is set out in the table.

  The cost of paying a basic State pension of £64.70 to every GB resident aged 60

  £billion

  Gross Retirement Pension cost

  40

  National Insurance (contributory) benefit offsets

  -31.5

  Means-tested benefit offsets

  -1.5

  Net cost

  7

  Notes:

  1. Costs and savings are in 1998/99 prices and are rounded to the nearest £0.5 billion. (-) denotes a saving.

  2. National Insurance benefit costs and savings have been provided by the Government Actuary's Department.

  3. Behavioural changes have not been allowed for, other than moves between National Insurance benefits.

  Mr.Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has, when reviewing the level of 112
  the basic state pension, to take account of the rises in the levels of fuel tax and council tax in 1998–99; and if she will make a statement. [42662]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to retain the basic State pension as the foundation of pension provision in retirement, and to increase it at least in line with prices.

  The Retail Prices Index used to uprate the basic pension takes into account increases in the price of a wide range of goods and services, including fuel and council tax.

  Pensioners with low incomes are entitled to help with their Council Tax through Council Tax Benefit.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 23 March 1998 concerning a constituent, (Reference 5/3644/28). [43307]

  Mr. Field
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 22 May 1998.

  Sick and Disabled People
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to pilot worker retention schemes(a) as part of and (b) in addition to the New Deal for Sick and Disabled People. [43563]

  Mr. Denham
  Using some of the £195 million set aside from the Windfall tax we will provide funding to run a number of innovative schemes to test ways of helping disabled people who want to work. These schemes may include worker retention schemes. We expect to announce the first contracts to be awarded towards the end of June.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Public Bodies
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what is the average attendance fee of(a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to her Department; [42818]

  (2) what is the average salary of (a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to her Department. [42817]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The majority of board members of non-departmental public bodies responsible to my Department give their time and service voluntarily, and do not receive payment other than normal travel and subsistence expenses. Where members do receive remuneration, this can vary between an annual salary, an honorarium, or an attendance fee—which can be a daily or half-daily rate, or calculated on a per meeting or per case basis. Individuals' remuneration therefore is not directly comparable. Full details of all payments to board members of non-departmental public bodies—by gender, are given in the Cabinet Office publication 'Public Bodies'. Copies of 'Public Bodies' 1997 are available in the Libraries of the House.
  113

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when her Department's action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments will be published; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [42819]

  Mrs. Beckett
  My Department's action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will announce her conclusions on the recent review of the coal industry contracts and the consumption of coal in power stations. [43063]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 2 February 1998,Official Report, columns 479–80.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for construction and operation of gas-fired power stations are currently awaiting decision; at what stage; from which applicants; for how much capacity; and if she will make a statement. [43061]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]The following is the information requested:

  Station

  Applicant

  Size(MW)

  Cottam (dual firing)

  PowerGen plc

  1,000

  Spalding

  InterGen (UK) Ltd

  800

  Baglan Bay

  Baglan CoGeneration Ltd

  1,200

  Partington

  AES Partington Ltd

  380

  Shotton

  Eastern Generation Ltd

  215

  Barking

  Barking Power Ltd

  154

  Rugeley B (dual firing)

  Eastern Generation Ltd

  1,000

  Drakelow C (dual firing)

  Eastern Generation Ltd

  1,000

  Teeside

  Teeside Power Ltd

  45

  York

  British Sugar plc

  80

  Castleford

  Yorkshire CoGen Ltd

  56

  Our general approach to those awaiting decision is set out in the reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) of 22 December 1997, Official Report, columns 519–20.

  It should be noted that the previous Government gave the go-ahead for some 23,000 MW of new gas-fired capacity, mostly combined cycle gas turbine stations but some combined heat and power (CHP). We inherited 21 applications for new gas-fired projects, totalling some 10,500 MW. Since coming into office we have given approval to 9 projects, 7 of which were industrial CHP totalling some 600 MW with another having an element of CHP.
  114
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list in normal order of consideration the various consents to be given before construction and operation of a gas-fired power station may be initiated. [43062]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]The construction, extension, or operation of a gas-fired power station with a capacity of more than 50 megawatts requires the President of the Board of Trade's consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. The President's approval is also required under section 14 of the Energy Act 1976 to use gas as the fuel for power stations over 10 megawatts. In addition, the President's consent under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 may also be required if the proposed station is to be connected to the transmission system via an overhead electric line. Other consents and approvals also need to be obtained from other statutory bodies, for example an Integrated Pollution Control licence under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 has to be sought from the Environment Agency. It is for the applicant to determine when and in which order to seek the necessary approvals.

  Petroleum Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the actual and percentage reduction in the number of retail petroleum outlets in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what assessment he has made of the adequacy of competition in the sector. [43100]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]The Director General of Fair Trading has considered the evidence on this as part of his report on 'Competition in the Supply of Petrol in the UK'. I have asked the Director General to respond to the hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies she has commissioned into the pricing behaviour of petrol retailers on motorways relative to general purpose roads; and if she will make a statement. [43088]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]None—since the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for keeping the operation of markets under review. The Office of Fair Trading report 'Competition in the supply of petrol in the UK', published on 18 May, does not address the particular issue of the pricing behaviour of petrol retailers on motorways.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade by what means she will monitor the retail petroleum industry for potential abuse of dominant market position. [43071]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for keeping the operation of markets under review. He has set out proposals for further monitoring of the petrol retailing market in Annex 3.1 of his report on 'Competition in the Supply of Petrol in the UK' published on 18 May. Copies have been placed in the libraries of the House.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will ensure that those types of vertical agreements in the retail petroleum industry which the
  115
  OFT has determined are not covered by the undertakings given by the oil companies in 1966 are subject to equivalent measures to ensure competition. [43097]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]I understand that the Director General of Fair Trading will shortly commence a review of the undertakings given by the oil companies in 1966; he will advise me whether modifications are necessary. The undertakings were last modified in January 1994. In addition, any complaints about vertical agreements not covered by the undertakings should be put to the Director General for his consideration.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she proposes to take in response to the recent OFT report on the retail petrol industry. [43070]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]The Director General of Fair Trading has responsibility for keeping under review the operation of the retail petrol market, and powers to act where necessary to promote competition. I am studying his conclusions. The hon. Member should address any comments on the report to the Director General of Fair Trading.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 11 February 1998,Official Report, column 218, when she expects to receive the report of the Director General of Fair Trading regarding the wholesale and retail petrol market. [42114]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I received a copy of the Director General's report on the wholesale and retail petrol market in the UK on 18 May.

  EU Postal Directive
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects the United Kingdom to adopt the EU Postal Directive; and if it will be fully applied in the United Kingdom. [43799]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  By early February 1999 and the Directive will be fully applied.

  Post Office
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will set out the calculation underlying the most recent Post Office external financing limit. [43804]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Post Office external financing limits for 1997–98 and for the current financial year remain as set by the previous Government in line with our commitment to maintain public expenditure at the levels they had set.

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the current(a) financial situation of and (b) plans for the future of Parcelforce. [43806]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Parcelforce recorded a loss of £21m in 1996–97; the Post Office accounts for 1997–98, which will include details of the Parcelforce financial performance last year, are expected to be published next month. The second stage of our review of how best to grant the Post Office greater commercial freedom within 116
  the public sector is looking at a range of issues, including the future status of Parcelforce. We hope to announce our conclusions on this second stage of the review in the Autumn.

  Meanwhile, the development of new twin hubs at Coventry Airport for use by Parcelforce for express and international traffic, for which planning permission has recently been received, will represent a major step forward in the modernisation of the business, and should help to secure its longer-term future.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received concerning the investigation of local complaints about the security of Royal Mail. [43059]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]One representation has been received.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received concerning the premature collection of mail from post boxes before the advertised time of last posting. [43060]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]A small number of representations from around the country have been received in the last year about collection of mail from post boxes before the advertised collection time.

  Utility Regulation
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will establish a unified regulator for the electricity and gas industry with particular responsibility for monitoring cross-subsidy between the two markets. [43108]

  Mrs. Beckett
  In the Green Paper on utility regulation `A Fair Deal for Consumers', which I published on 25 March, there is a proposal that the electricity and gas regulators should be replaced as soon as possible with a single energy regulator, and OFFER and OFGAS should be merged to create a single regulatory office. The duties of the new energy regulator will need to acknowledge the convergence of the gas and electricity markets. It will also be necessary to ensure that the creation of a joint energy regulator is underpinned by the proper integration of the supporting regulatory regimes.

  The Green Paper also proposes that, as an interim measure, steps should be taken to ensure collaboration on the regulatory issues raised by integrated energy markets, and strategic planning set in hand for the creation of the single regulatory office.

  Procedures are now in hand to appoint a Director General of Gas Supply as from November 1998. It is expected that the successful candidate will also be appointed as Director General of Electricity Supply, at or soon after appointment as DGGS. Subject to Parliamentary approval of legislation, it is also expected that he or she would later be appointed as Energy Regulator for Great Britain.
  117

  Energy Industry Reviews
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) when each of the current reviews relating to the energy industry will be completed; [42596]

  (2) how many reviews of the energy industry the Government are conducting. [42600]

  Mrs. Beckett
  A Green Paper on Utility Regulation, including regulation of gas and electricity, was published in March, and the consultation period extended until the end of May. My hon. Friend, the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, is currently considering future policy and programme options for renewables, and expects to make a further announcement later this year. My Department will be publishing an Energy Paper setting out our policy on clean coal technology in the Summer. The review of energy sources for power generation is expected to reach conclusions by the end of June. The review of electricity trading arrangements, which is being co-ordinated by OFFER, will report in July.

  Home Workers
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her policy towards the regulation of home worker schemes which require non-returnable registration fees; and if she will make a statement. [42686]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]People should never send money in advance for work at home. I have this week launched a publicity campaign to warn against the risks of falling victim to homeworking scams. Responsibility for investigating complaints about the promotion of such schemes lies with the Advertising Standards Authority. The British Codes of Advertising and Sales Promotion contain specific requirements for homeworking schemes and breaches of the codes in this respect are taken very seriously.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment her Department has made of the impact on small businesses of a fast rail link from the Channel Tunnel to the north via Ebbsfleet, Stratford and St. Pancras. [43093]

  Mrs. Roche
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of the economic regeneration aspects of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL). Negotiations on the future of the CTRL continue.

  Cambodia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences to British firms for arms have been(a) granted, (b) refused, and (c) revoked for export to Cambodia since May 1997 broken down by category of licence; and what human rights considerations were taken into account when considering the licences. [40811]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and the following results were obtained:

  Between 2 May 1997 and 3 April 1998, three Standard Individual Export Licences were issued covering the export to consignees or endusers in Cambodia of goods
  118
  subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List. The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. Two of these licences covered goods with a rating of ML4; the other covered goods with a rating of ML13. In addition to those shown above, one Standard Individual Export Licence was issued for an export to Cambodia under the End-Use Control.

  In the same period, no Open Individual Export Licences covering such exports were issued; no Standard or Open Individual Export Licences covering such exports were revoked and no applications for Standard or Open Individual Export Licences covering such exports were refused.

  This does not include any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  This information should be considered in light of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  During the period, goods on the Military List may have been exported to Cambodia under certain Open General Licences, though it cannot be assumed that any such exports actually took place. Copies of all Open General Licences that were valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  All applications for licences to export goods on the Military List are considered on a case-by-case basis against the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29. The Government take into account respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the recipient country, and will not issue an export licence if there is a clearly identifiable risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression.

  Astra
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total public cost of(a) Treasury solicitors and (b) others in connection with the disqualification proceedings against Mr. Gerald James and the directors of Astra Holdings. [41875]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The final figures have yet to be determined, but Treasury Solicitors' costs are likely to be about £280,000. The costs (£122,000) of two directors have already been paid after proceedings against them were discontinued in May 1996. Following the request by the judge that I personally consider the handling of the case, and my subsequent decision to abandon the proceedings against the remaining four directors (three of whom are legally aided) my Department will meet their costs, to be taxed on the standard basis, unless previously agreed. It is too early accurately to predict what those costs might amount to.
  119

  Nuclear Material
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what guidelines her Department has in place to restrict the supply of weapons-usable nuclear material to foreign countries; [43065]

  (2) what steps her Department takes to prevent the use for military purposes abroad of weapons-usable nuclear material of United Kingdom origin. [43066]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]Transfers of nuclear materials from the UK to other countries are subject to strict controls. The requirements in the case of separated plutonium and uranium enriched in the isotopes 235 or 233 to more than 20% (highly-enriched uranium or HEU) are particularly stringent.

  The UK's export controls on nuclear and nuclear-related goods are derived from international nuclear non-proliferation commitments and membership of international nuclear export control regimes, in particular the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) whose members have agreed common guidelines for the transfer of nuclear and nuclear-related goods and technology. The NSG guidelines are reproduced as International Atomic Energy Agency document INFCIRC 254 Parts I and II as amended. In addition, the UK was among a group of nine countries which recently adopted a set of Guidelines for the Management of Plutonium published as INFCIRC 549 which adds a further requirement in the case of transfers of plutonium.

  These commitments are given effect in the relevant legislation, which in this case is Council Regulation (EC) No. 3381/94 on the export of dual use goods and the related Council Decision 94/942/CSFP as amended. Separated plutonium and HEU require an export licence—even in the case of transfers to other EU Member States.

  Before such a licence could be issued certain conditions would have to be fulfilled which include assurances from the recipient Government as set out in the NSG guidelines in relation to peaceful use, physical protection and retransfer of the materials. Transfers to non-nuclear weapon States (NNWS) are only authorised once the receiving State has brought into force an agreement with the IAEA requiring the application of safeguards on all source and special fissionable materials in its current and future peaceful activities. In the case of separated plutonium and HEU, the UK's consent would be required for any retransfer.

  Moreover, pursuant to our adoption of the Guidelines for the Management of Plutonium and in addition to the foregoing, before any shipment of separated plutonium exceeding 50 grams to one recipient country in any period of 12 months is undertaken, we require the recipient to provide a certificate containing details including the end-use and timetable for utilisation. The correctness of the information in the certificate has to be confirmed by the Government of the recipient country. This builds on the existing requirement within the EU for a similar certificate to be completed in the case of transfers of plutonium and HEU.

  In addition to these governmental assurances an end-use undertaking would also be required from the consignee explicitly excluding uses that might result in
  120
  any weapon of mass destruction and an assurance that the goods would not be used in any unsafeguarded nuclear fuel cycle activity.

  As noted, the controls that we have in place on transfers include requirements for the application of IAEA safeguards. The purpose of these safeguards is to ensure that nuclear materials are not diverted to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will place in the Library a copy of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate's report on Dounreay' s fuel cycle area, referred to in the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate's Site Inspector's Quarterly report for UKAEA-Dounreay for 1 January to 31 March. [43067]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]The NII report covers areas that will form the subject of the major audit into the Management of Safety at the Dounreay plant which was announced by HSE on Friday 15 May. The report of that audit will be published later this summer.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when a statement will be made regarding the UKAEA application for funding for the repair of Dounreay plant D1206; and what criteria will govern her decision. [43069]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]My officials are in discussion with UKAEA about their proposals for the repair of the Dounreay plant D1206 and, when they have been concluded, they will make a recommendation to me regarding plans for the future of the D1206 plant. Depending on the outcome of these discussions, I may wish to consult more widely before making a decision.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what directions and instructions have been issued in the last month to the UKAEA by the Safety Inspectorate. [42376]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]I have been advised by the UKAEA that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), during the past month, have issued one direction which requires the UKAEA to shut down all processing activities in the Dounreay Fuel Cycle Area facility other than those operations and activities which are necessary to maintain the safe condition of the facility. In addition, and following on from the formal direction, the NII have issued the two following oral instructions. Firstly, no excavation permits may be issued until further notice and all excavation permits currently in force must be suspended until further notice. The only exception is the work to repair the damaged cable. Secondly, evidence must be preserved for the NII investigation into the power failure.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which facilities at Dounreay are not currently functioning; and what recent reports she has received on the safety and condition of the plant. [42120]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]No reprocessing facilities are currently functioning in the Fuel Cycle Area at Dounreay apart from those required for safety purposes. Otherwise, normal Decommissioning and
  121
  Waste Management Operations are continuing at the site. Work at Dounreay continues to be subject to strict independent regulation by the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. My officials hold quarterly meetings with the NII at which policy matters are discussed. Specific safety issues are a matter between the NII and UKAEA, but my Department does have sight of the NII Site Inspector's quarterly report on Dounreay. I expect my Department to receive full reports from both UKAEA and NII after they have concluded their investigations into the recent incident at the site.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investment the UKAEA is planning at its Dounreay facilities in the next three years; and what revisions to these plans have been made in the last six months. [42122]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]The UKAEA's expenditure plans at Dounreay are described in the 1996–97 UKAEA Annual Review, which is available in the Library of the House. Such plans are reviewed at least annually by my officials. It is normal practice to withhold precise details of expected project costs to protect UKAEA's ability to subject the work to competition. The only significant revision in the last six months was the decision to retrieve waste from the Shaft which was reported to Parliament on 31 March 1998. We are currently waiting for UKAEA to complete their proposal for investment in a replacement dissolver in the Prototype Fast Reactor fuel reprocessing plant. This expenditure by UKAEA is aimed at discharging their main function which is removal of their existing nuclear liabilities safely, with due regard for the environment and at minimum cost to the taxpayer.

  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the recycling capacity at Dounreay is currently operational. [42121]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]The reprocessing capacity at Dounreay is not currently operational. UKAEA suspended all reprocessing operations on Friday 8 May, pending a full safety review following an incident on the previous day.

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Ann Cryer
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the outstanding level of ECGD exposure for the supply of Hawk Fighter jets to Indonesia. [43621]

  Mrs. Roche
  ECGD' s exposure, which covers interest as well as the principal value of the guaranteed loans, currently amounts to £531 million.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the impact of recent disturbances in Indonesia on British exports to that country. [42918]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]The economic and political crisis being experienced by Indonesia has inevitably affected UK exports to Indonesia. Exports fell by 50.3 per cent. in the first quarter of this year.
  122

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many full-time equivalent positions within her Department are currently occupied by people working on(a) millennium and (b) single currency compliance requirements. [41928]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The numbers of people within my Department working on the following are:(a) Millennium—About 7.6 full-time equivalent staff are dealing with Millennium issues relating to information systems and to estates and facilities management in the Department. A further 2.5 staff are involved in assisting UK businesses to deal with the problem of the Millennium date change in co-ordination with Action 2000 which DTI set up earlier this year. The numbers may vary according to the needs of the programmes.
  (b) Single currency—Some 1.5 full-time equivalent staff are directly involved in helping UK firms prepare for Economic and Monetary Union. These officials are working closely with Treasury's Euro Preparations Unit, which has the primary role in raising awareness of UK firms to the implications of EMU and helping them to prepare. A number of DTI staff have been seconded to the Treasury to work in that unit.

  Duty Free
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what surveys have been carried out by(a) the Government of the United Kingdom and (b) the European Union to establish the effect upon jobs of the proposed abolition of the duty-free trade; and if she will make a statement. [42342]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has undertaken a study into the effects on the transport sector of the abolition of intra-EU duty and tax free sales in 1999. The European Union has not undertaken a survey to establish the effect upon jobs of the proposed abolition of duty and tax free sales within the EU. The Government's position remains that they would not oppose a study should there be a consensus amongst Member States in favour of such a study. However, when these matters were discussed at 19 May EFOFIN Council, there was no consensus amongst Member States to call for a Community-wide study of the impact of abolition.

  Solar Energy
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much her Department spent on research into solar energy in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; and what plans she has for future expenditure on this. [43126]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department, under its New and Renewable Energy Programme, spent £2.0 million (net of any associated receipts) in 1996–97, and £1.6 million (net of any associated receipts) in 1997–98 on RD&D into solar energy. Within the overall solar budget the proportion allocated to photovoltaics is increasing as part of DTI's funding of the Energy Design Advice Scheme (EDAS). EDAS is being funded by the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) while they consider the shape of a future energy advice scheme. Future expenditure plans are the subject of the renewable policy review, the outcome of which will be announced later this year.
  123
  In addition, the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) has been spending £1 million a year over the past three years on basic and applied research, and the Office of Science and Technology (OST) has committed £1 million to the £2.5 million Foresight Challenge Solar programme which aims to put photovoltaic arrays into 100 schools and colleges across the country by 2000.

  More Group Plc
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contacts the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs has had with executives or personnel of More Group plc, or its subsidiaries, in connection with the bid by J. C. Decaux. [43213]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  None.

  Mergers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many mergers she has referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission against the advice of the Director-General of Fair Trading since May 1997; what representations she has received on this issue from United Kingdom financial institutions or businesses; and if she will make it her policy to state in full her reasons for all decisions taken against Office of Fair Trading advice. [43201]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Between 1 May 1997 and 21 May 1998 my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade disagreed with the Director-General of Fair Trading's ("DGFT' s") advice on whether or not to refer a merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission ("MMC") on just three cases out of 189. These were National Express Group ("NEG")/Central Trains, NEG/ScotRail and PacifiCorp/The Energy Group.

  In each case, the President or the DGFT received representations from competitors, customers or other third parties both for and against reference to the MMC.

  On each occasion, the Department's announcement referred explicitly to the President's disagreement with the DGFT' s advice. It is our intention to continue this practice. The President has made it clear that it is her policy to make references primarily on competition grounds. Where other public interest considerations lead to an MMC reference against the advice of the DGFT, this will be made clear in the announcement, as was done when PacifiCorp/The Energy Group was referred.

  Funerals
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement about her Department's plans to ensure adequate protection of consumers purchasing their funerals in advance. [42053]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) on 22 January 1998,Official Report, column 655. The Department is actively discussing this with interested parties.
  124

  Post Office Users National Council
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will accept nominations for membership of the Post Office Users National Council from rural community councils. [43329]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  An advertisement for appointments to a number of consumer councils, including the Post office Users National Council, will appear in the press in the next couple of weeks. At the same time we seek nominations for appointment from a range of bodies, and will be happy to consider any names put forward by rural community councils for appointment to the Post Office Users National Council as part of this process.

  Anyone wishing to apply to be considered for appointment to the Post Office Users National Council should write to:

  Consumer Affairs & Competition Policy Directorate 2b

  Department of Trade & Industry

  Room 4.T.11

  1 Victoria Street

  London SW1H OET.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she will announce the outcome of the review into corporation tax exemption under Section 508 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. [42869]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]I hope to issue revised guidance notes for applicants by July.

  Ice Cream
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she will take during the Presidency of the EU to support the European Commission in resisting attempts to delay implementation of decisions designed to ensure fair competition in ice cream markets; and if she will make a statement. [43101]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]The European Commission is the competent investigative authority on EC competition law cases. It is therefore the appropriate body to respond to attempts to challenge its decisions or delay their implementation. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that we support the full and fair application of EC competition rules.

  London Art Market
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has made to Britain's EU partners concerning the preservation of the London art market. [42005]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government continue to press the case for the preservation of the London art market. So far as artists' resale rights are concerned, the Government have argued repeatedly that the European Commission's proposal is ill-considered and would damage the international competitiveness of Community art markets, in particular the London art market, and would lead to a net loss of earnings and jobs in the Community. We are actively seeking the support of other Member States to defeat the proposal.
  125

  Vehicle Licensing
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what the cost is per licence of providing a vehicle licensing service by the Post Office; and if she will provide a breakdown of the costs; [41045]

  (2) what the cost is, per licence, of providing a vehicle licensing service using the postal service. [41047]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  This information is commercially confidential.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licence applications are currently pending. [42579]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]Licences to export arms and other goods subject to control for strategic reasons are issued by the President of the Board of Trade and the Export Control Organisation of the Department of Trade and Industry is the licensing authority. All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by the DTI to other Government departments with an interest as determined by them in line with their policy responsibilities. These include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development.

  ECO management data on the processing of licence applications are compiled on the basis of four-week periods. At the end of the last four week period for which statistics have been compiled—ie 4 April 1998 to 1 May 1998—a total of 1,752 applications were awaiting a decision: these applications comprised applications for new standard or open individual export licences to export strategic goods and applications for the renewal or amendment of existing individual licences. This compares with 2,184 outstanding applications on 17 October 1997. ECO is also the licensing authority for goods whose export is only controlled because of UN trade sanctions but data on the number of applications awaiting a decision are not compiled as most decisions are subject to UN authorisation, which can take some time.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how old is the longest outstanding application for an export licence. [42580]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]Licences to export arms and other goods subject to control for strategic reasons are issued by the President of the Board of Trade, and the Export Control Organisation of the Department of Trade and Industry is the licensing authority. All relevant individual licence applications are circulated by the DTI to other Government Departments with an interest, as determined by them in line with their policy responsibilities. These include the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence, and the Department for International Development.

  Of applications for individual licences pending a decision at 21 May 1998, the oldest application for a Standard Individual Export Licence was received in August 1996; processing of this application cannot be completed until the applicant fulfils a request from the Export Control Organisation to supply an end-user undertaking. The oldest application for an Open Individual Export Licence pending a decision on this date
  126
  was received in February 1996. My Department has now received the necessary advice from advisers in other Government departments, and after final checks the licence will be issued.

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the consultation papers published since 1 May 1997 giving the date of publication, closing date for submissions and the number of respondents. [42251]

  Mrs. Beckett
  A list of significant consultation papers has been placed in the Library.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how frequently she receives reports on arms sales to African markets. [42378]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]Reports on arms sales to any market are not routinely received by any Minister in the Department of Trade & Industry. The Defence Export Sales Organisation of the Ministry of Defence is primarily responsible for assisting the British defence industry to promote its goods and services overseas.

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if her Department operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information. [42632]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]My Department provides a great deal of information to business, the scientific community, and the general public in pursuit of its objectives. No central exercise to monitor persistent inquirers for information is undertaken.

  Competitiveness White Paper
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if an environmental appraisal will be produced as part of the Competitiveness White Paper, using "Policy Guidance on Policy Appraisal and the Environment". [42667]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The forthcoming Competitiveness White Paper will set out the Government's vision for sustainable wealth creation, based on a high-skill, high-investment, innovative, modern economy. It will contain a range of policies and initiatives for companies themselves to improve their performance, and for Government and others to create the right framework and conditions to foster such an improvement. It will be for each public and private sector body involved to address the environmental implications of their activities, including where necessary, through specific environmental appraisal.

  Caravans
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has for further protection of consumers regarding the buying and selling of static caravans. [42913]
  127
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Director General of Fair Trading has recently agreed a revised code of practice for holiday caravans with the two main site owners' organisations which give clear rights to those buying and selling holiday caravans. Buyers of holiday caravans also benefit in the same way as other consumers from general consumer protection legislation, such as the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994. The responsibility for legislation covering residential caravans lies with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

HEALTH

  Cosmetic Surgery
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will legislate to restrict the use of the term cosmetic surgeon to doctors with specialist qualifications and membership of the British Association of Plastic Surgeons or the British Association of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons. [34164]

  Mr. Boateng
  Legislation would not be practicable because cosmetic surgery is not a defined specialty and not all cosmetic surgery practitioners are plastic surgeons.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of(a) men and (b) women who have undergone cosmetic surgery in each year since 1990. [34163]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is not possible to estimate the number of people who have undergone cosmetic surgery because it is not a defined medical specialty. Available information relates to the number of consultant episodes of treatment in which an operation or procedure was recorded "for purposes other than for remedying health states".

  In 1994/95 there were 3,676 such episodes in the National Health Service in England.

  Organophosphates
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) guidance and (b) information his Department provides to general practitioners in farming areas on the symptoms and health risks associated with organophosphates; and if he will place a copy of this information in the Library. [41379]

  Ms Jowell
  The advice given by the Department has been widely distributed on a national basis and has not been confined to farming areas.

  The Chief Medical Officer wrote to all doctors in England in 1991 and again with the Chief Executive of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in June 1993 to alert doctors to the possibility of adverse effects from exposure to pesticides and certain veterinary medicines and to remind them of the reporting schemes for human adverse reactions to veterinary products operated by the Employment Medical Advisory Service and the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food's Veterinary Medicines Directive. The Chief Medical Officers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also wrote to doctors in those countries.
  128
  An article in the October 1995 edition of Chief Medical Officer's Update, sent to all doctors in England, dealt with both the acute and chronic effects of organophosphates and the methods of reporting adverse reactions to them.

  A further article, in the April 1996 edition of Update (England only) informed all doctors of the publication, in the same month, of the new edition of the book "Pesticide Poisoning: Notes for the Guidance of Medical Practitioners". This book was sent by all United Kingdom Health Departments to general practices, accident and emergency departments and consultants in communicable disease control (and equivalents) with a covering letter.

  Copies of this book were also sent to the Presidents of the Royal Colleges under cover of an explanatory letter which encouraged them to draw the book to the attention of their Fellows/Members through their continuing medical education programmes.

  Copies of the book "Pesticide Poisoning: Notes for the Guidance of Medical Practitioners" are available in the Library.

  We will look closely at the Report of the "Working Party on Management of Patients Chronically Exposed to Organophosphate Sheep Dips" set up by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists to be published later this year to identify issues for action including whether further guidance to medical practitioners is necessary.

  Asthma
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each local authority area, the number of emergency admissions of patients suffering from asthma and breathing-related illnesses for each year since 1992. [41948]

  Mr. Boateng
  The available information has been placed in the Library. It gives estimated episodes of treatment, by health authority, in National Health Service hospitals in England for the years 1992–93 to 1995–96 (the most recent for which data are available), for emergency admissions with a primary diagnosis of asthma and other chronic lower respiratory diseases. These figures represent the number of episodes of care under individual consultants.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the potential savings to the NHS for treating asthma and other breathing-related illnesses from a reduction in air pollution levels of(a) five per cent., (b) 10 per cent., (c) 15 per cent., (d) 20 per cent. and (e) over 20 per cent. [41947]

  Ms Jowell
  None. The January 1998 report by the Department's Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, "Quantification of the Effects of Air Pollution on Health in the UK", copies of which are in the Library, illustrated that air pollution has a substantial effect on people's health. It included estimates of the numbers of people affected by different air pollutants. The Committee concluded that deaths and hospital admissions and readmissions were likely to be brought forward as a result of exposure to air pollution. That is why we are committed to reduce air pollution both in this country and in Europe.
  129
  However, there is no guarantee that reducing air pollution by particular amounts would lead to a corresponding reduction in the health effects nor in treatment costs associated with such illnesses. For instance, not all air pollutants affect people with asthma. Also, because some pollutants have no threshold of effects—that is, effects can be detected even when concentrations of particular pollutants are low—there will clearly be an effect at any level for some people.

  Dentists
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists practise in Norfolk; and what is the average number of people registered with each dental practitioner(a) in Norfolk and (b) nationally. [42770]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the number of dentists and patients registered with them is available by health authority. The table gives details for England, and for East Norfolk Health Authority and North West Anglia Health Authority which cover Norfolk.

  General dental service: number of dentists1 and average number of registered patients per dentist at 31 March 1998

  Number of dentists

  Average number of registered patients per dentist

  England

  16,830

  1,477

  East Norfolk HA

  215

  1,572

  North West Anglia HA

  111

  1,635

  1 Principals, assistants and vocational trainees (not salaried, hospital and community dentists)

  Mental Health
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that nurses staffing the NHS direct telephone advice line are trained in advising people on mental health issues and dealing with people who may have mental health problems. [42876]

  Mr. Boateng
  We recognise the importance of ensuring that the NHS Direct service can appropriately meet the needs of people with mental health problems. We will ensure that this is addressed by NHS Direct sites in their plans for staff training.

  Family Planning
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance has been issued to health authorities about providing a choice of sources for family planning services; and when it was last issued. [42887]

  Ms Jowell
  Departmental guidance on National Health Service family planning services was issued in January 1992. The circular HSG(92)6 "Guidelines for reviewing family planning services Guidance for Regions", copies of which are in the Library, states that specialist family planning clinic services should complement those provided by general practitioners. The guidance asks health authorities to consider the best way to integrate the two to ensure the most comprehensive range of effective family planning services is provided to their local populations.
  130
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by health authority, the number of objections which he has received since 1 January about reductions in family planning services. [42888]

  Ms Jowell
  Since 1 January 1998, proposals from Northamptonshire Health Authority, which include changes to local family planning service provision, have been referred to Ministers for a final decision.

  Fit for Business Campaign
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to support the national Fit For Business campaign. [43058]

  Ms Jowell
  We welcome initiatives in the private sector in promoting health in the workplace. Our new health strategy, "Our Healthier Nation", identifies healthy workplaces as one of the key settings to help deliver our aims to improve the health of the population as a whole. We also support the "Health at Work" and "Workplace Health" initiatives, through the Health Education Authority, which provides information, advice and research on health promotion in the workplace.

  Drugs Budget
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the gross cost of drugs to the NHS in actual and percentage terms for the last year for which information is available; and what is the estimated expenditure in the current year. [43031]

  Mr. Milburn
  In 1996/97 total expenditure on drugs was £4.7 billion accounting for 14 per cent. of total National Health Service expenditure.

  Final outtum figures for 1997/98 and forecasts for the current year are not yet available.

  Child Developmental Checks
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health authorities currently carry out 18 months old developmental checks on children; and how many do not; [42975]

  (2) what guidance has been issued by his Department to health authorities regarding developmental checks on young children. [42976]

  Mr. Boateng
  Developmental checks on children, including at the age of 18–24 months, form part of the core child health surveillance programme recommended in guidance issued by the Department in 1992—which updated the content and focus of this activity in line with developments in medical knowledge. The programme is led by general practitioners, who are trained and accredited in the practice of child health surveillance, with the assistance of health visitors and other members of the primary health care team. The majority (some 94 per cent.) of general practitioners participate in this service. We do not know of any health authority area where the service is not available.

  GP Lists
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the circumstances under which a patient may be removed from a general
  131
  practitioner's list and on the healthcare arrangements which are available to patients who are not registered with a general practitioner. [43160]

  Mr. Milburn
  General practitioners' terms of service provide that a doctor has the right, subject to certain necessary safeguards to ensure ongoing necessary treatment is not disrupted, to remove patients from their list without giving a reason unless they are seeking immediate removal due to an act or threat of violence in which case a complaint has to be made to the police.

  General practitioners' terms of service also require that, unless they have been specifically relieved from such responsibilities, they provide healthcare to any person to whom they may be requested to give treatment which is immediately required owing to an accident or other emergency at any place in their practice area.

  Cardiomyopathy
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of teenagers who might be at risk from cardiomyopathy leading to sudden death. [43130]

  Mr. Boateng
  While cardiomyopathy is one of the leading causes of sudden death in teenagers, it is not known how many people are affected by cardiomyopathy nor, of those who are, how many might be at risk. The Department is working with clinicians and voluntary organisations on the diagnosis, management and treatment of this condition.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of establishing a national screening programme for cardiomyopathy for all children starting secondary school to identify those suffering from Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome. [43129]

  Mr. Boateng
  The National Screening Committee (NSC), which offers health Ministers advice about the case for individual screening programmes, has not yet considered the case for screening children for cardiomyopathy. The NSC has commissioned a study of the emerging evidence which will inform its consideration later in the year. Any decision on the introduction of a national programme will be made in the light of that consideration.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received and what response he has made on the issue of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. [43330]

  Mr. Boateng
  Since November 1997, 37 private office cases have been received on the subject of sudden unexpected death from epilepsy (SUDEP) and one Parliamentary Question has been asked in the same period. Virtually all the private office correspondence has been from families who have lost a relative through SUDEP.

  The Department has awarded £45,000 in total for the years 1997–2000 to the organisation Epilepsy Bereaved? through a Section 64 grant, to help them raise awareness of SUDEP.
  132
  I shall be meeting representatives from the charity Epilepsy Bereaved? and the Joint Epilepsy Council on 2 June.

  Bacteria Spraying
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment his Department has made of the effects of spraying bacillus golbigii, E.coli and serratia marcescens on(a) humans, (b) men, (c) women and (d) pregnant women; [43290]

  (2) if he will conduct a study of the health records of people resident in South Devon and South Dorset between 1966 and 1971 who were sprayed with bacillus golbigii, E.coli and serratia marcescens in Ministry of Defence germ warfare tests. [43289]

  Ms Jowell
  Information received from the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency states that the bacteriological material released during tests in the 1960s and 70s was composed of organisms which either occur naturally in the environment, or which were killed before release. The bacteria used do not present health problems.

  Following concerns raised by local residents, Dorset Health Authority has commenced a survey into birth defects in the East Lulworth area. Preliminary investigations have not revealed any unexplained cluster of birth defects or ill health.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue further guidance on the weight which purchasers are required to give to the views of disabled people and their families when evaluating options for providing social care for people with learning disability who have been in long-stay residential hospital provision; and if he will make a statement. [43299]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans to do so. Current guidance already makes clear that we would expect the views and wishes of disabled people and their families to be taken into account when planning and arranging services. We are currently looking at the closure plans for the old long stay learning disability hospitals so that we can be sure that the proposals are based on sound individualised planning, proper consultation has taken place and all options have been fully considered.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to promote independent mobility for disabled people. [43355]

  Mr. Boateng
  Between 1996 and 2000 the Department is making an additional £50 million available to National Health Service wheelchair services to enable them to provide electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchairs for those severely disabled people who can benefit from them, and to introduce a voucher scheme to give wheelchair users more choice.

  Chiropody Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to the recommendations of Age Concern's report, On Your Feet: Older People and NHS Chiropody Services. [43161]
  133
  Mr. Boateng
  I wrote on 8 May 1998 to Evelyn McEwan, Director of Age Concern England. The report provides valuable information about National Health Service chiropody services and the perceptions of its users and providers.

  Officials in the NHS Executive are looking at ways in which chiropody services might be further developed and will be consulting Age Concern during this process.

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 May 1998,Official Report, column 353, on hospital waiting lists, what information is held centrally; and for what reasons the information requested was available for 1996–97 and 1997–98. [43357]

  Mr. Milburn
  Waiting list/time information held centrally is based on the well established series of quarterly returns from health authorities and trusts. The information provided last year in respect of 1996–97 and 1997–98 had already been collected centrally as special exercises by the previous administration.

  Children Act
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to review the guidance issued by his Department in respect of the Children Act 1989. [43296]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are no plans for a fundamental review of the guidance issued by the Department in respect of the Children Act 1989. Where legal changes or new policy requirements have arisen, appropriate guidance by way of a local authority circular has been issued.

  Cancer and Kidney Disease
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the incidence is per 1,000 population of(a) lung cancer, (b) other forms of cancer and (c) kidney disease in (i) the National Health Service North-West Region and (ii) Wigan and Bolton health area. [43309]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures which show the incidence of these diseases is not collated centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the cancer registries at Liverpool and Manchester Universities which collect some information about the incidence of certain cancers.

  Whooping Cough Vaccine
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the circumstances in which his Department advises that the pertussis vaccine should not be administered to a baby; [43205]

  (2) what guidelines are issued to health practitioners on the use of the pertussis vaccine on babies; and what are the recognised side-effects of the vaccine. [43203]

  Ms Jowell
  Details of the recommendations for pertussis vaccine, the contraindications to vaccination and the adverse reactions associated with the pertussis vaccine are set out in the United Kingdom Health Departments' memorandum 'Immunisation against Infectious Disease'. This publication is issued to doctors, practice nurses, health visitors and pharmacists involved in immunisation. Copies are available in the Library.
  134
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases have been recorded since 1987 of brain damage or blood poisoning which(a) have been attributed to the pertussis vaccine and (b) are claimed to be attributable to the pertussis vaccine but are yet to be determined. [43204]

  Ms Jowell
  There has been one suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR) report of mental handicap made via the United Kingdom spontaneous reporting scheme since 1987 associated with the multiconstituent diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (DTP) vaccine. There have been no such reports of blood poisoning since 1987. Doctors are asked to report suspected adverse drug reactions via this scheme and therefore it is not possible to attribute causality definitely. When ADRs are reported with multiconstituent vaccines such as DTP it is not generally possible to know which, if any, component of the vaccine was responsible.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which trusts in the South Thames Region have, as respondents, made applications in the past year to have industrial tribunal hearings held in camera; and what legal costs have to date been incurred in respect of each application; [42494]

  (2) how many applications in respect of unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal are outstanding in relation to (a) health authorities and (b) health trusts in the North Thames Region and South Thames Region; and to which authorities and trusts they relate; [42492]

  (3) which trusts in the North Thames Region have, as respondents, made applications in the past year to have industrial tribunal hearings held in camera; and what legal costs have been incurred in respect of each application. [42493]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not held centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact individual trusts for details.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the proposed ban on tobacco sponsorship will be introduced. [43745]

  Ms Jowell
  On 13 May the European Parliament voted through unamended the common position on the tobacco advertising Directive agreed by European Union Health Ministers last December. We hope that it can now be adopted during the United Kingdom Presidency. Following this, member states would have three years to implement the basic provisions of the Directive; a further 2 years are available beyond that for sponsored events; sponsored events organised on a global basis could be exempted for up to three further years, subject to diminishing advertising visibility and sponsorship expenditure. All forms of tobacco advertising and sponsorship covered by the Directive must cease by 1 October 2006. The timescale for implementation of the Directive in UK law will be set out in the tobacco control White Paper to be published later this year.
  135

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the regulations that have been amended or removed to help small businesses since 1 May 1997. [42786]

  Ms Jowell
  While none of the regulations laid by the Department have specifically targeted small businesses, all which impact on business generally take account of the needs of small businesses. For example, Statutory Instrument 1998/574, The Medicines for Human Use and Medical Devices (Fees and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1998, reduced fees for all businesses involved in the manufacture and sale of medicines for human use. It also extended a small business concession to a greater number of companies.

  Haemophiliacs
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to respond to the proposal for a special payment scheme for haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis through NHS tests treatment. [43465]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) on 11 May 1998,Official Report, column 39.

  Abortion
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will require general practitioners to make information publicly available as to whether they are prepared to refer women for abortion. [43602]

  Ms Jowell
  Referrals under the Abortion Act are part of the general medical services provided by general practitioners. Guidance issued by the British Medical Association states that practitioners with a conscientious objection to abortion who fail to refer on to another practitioner quickly could be alleged to be in breach of their terms of service. In these circumstances public statements about the GP's personal views on abortion are neither necessary nor appropriate.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will replace the current assurances for private hospitals providing abortion with guidelines that will apply to both NHS and private services. [43603]

  Ms Jowell
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State has a power under Section 1(3) of the Abortion Act to approve non-National Health Service premises for termination of pregnancy. The assurances were introduced to combat abuses of the Act and to ensure that approved places provide an appropriate standard of care. The approval and monitoring processes have ensured that these abuses have been eradicated. Key extracts from the current assurances were issued to the NHS in 1995 for information.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the inquiry into health inequalities will include an investigation of inequalities in abortion services. [43597]

  Ms Jowell
  It is for the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health to determine its own work programme in discharging its terms of reference. Copies of the terms of reference have been placed in the Library.
  136

  Emergency Contraception
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make emergency contraception available through(a) pharmacy prescription and (b) pharmacies without prescription. [43454]

  Ms Jowell
  The emergency contraceptive pill is classified as a prescription only medicine under United Kingdom and European Community legislation which takes into account the safety of the product, the risk to health if utilised without medical supervision and the likelihood of incorrect use.

  There are currently no proposals to make emergency contraception available through pharmacies without a doctor's prescription. Any such proposal would be carefully assessed by the Medicines Control Agency, taking into account the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, and there would be statutory public consultation before a decision was reached.

  There is presently no legal provision for pharmacists to prescribe medicines.

  Smoking
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of teenage(a) boys and (b) girls in England was smoking tobacco (i) in 1988 and (ii) at the most recent date for which figures are available. [44019]

  Ms Jowell
  The table shows the percentages of boys and girls aged 11–15 who smoked regularly in 1988 and 1996.

  Year

  Boys

  Girls

  1988

  7

  9

  1996

  11

  15

  Notes:

  1. Regular smoking is defined as smoking at least one cigarette a week

  2. Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole figure

  Source:

  Smoking Among Secondary School Children Surveys, 1996, conducted by the Office for National Statistics on behalf of the Department of Health

  West Kent Health Authority
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the mechanism used to determine funding for the West Kent Health Authority for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99; and what factors underlay (i) the requirement for additional funding in (1) 1995–96, (2) 1996–97 and (3) 1997–98 and (ii) the overspend in the current year. [41922]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]: From 1996–97 a national weighted capitation formula has been used to determine each health authority's target fair share of available resources. Annual decisions are taken on how quickly health authorities are moved closer to their weighted capitation target. Prior to 1996–97 the regional health authority managed the allocation process using a similar formula.
  137
  Other than moneys held centrally, such as funding for the new deal to help reduce junior doctors hours, additional funds have been provided in 1997–98 to ease the pressures on the health and social care system during the winter and in 1998–99 to reduce National Health Service waiting lists to below the record levels we inherited, by next April.

  Figures will be available on the health authority's financial position in 1998–99 at the end of July.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of young people aged 18 to 24 years who have attended their first New Deal interviews have not then met a subsequent appointment as part of the New Deal. [43881]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested. This will be assessed as part of the evaluation strategy.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 7 April 1998,Official Report, column 228, on National Insurance, when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment will write to the hon. Member for Havant. [43989]

  Dr. Howells
  We are still awaiting assessments by the Further and Higher Education Funding Councils of the impact on the further and higher education sectors respectively of changes to employers' National Insurance contributions from April 1999. Meanwhile, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals have estimated that the annual cost to the higher education sector across the UK is likely to be some £10 million. In the case of further education, we estimate that the effect of the changes is likely to be a small saving of around £5 million per annum. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as we have received and considered the Funding Councils' advice.

  European Voluntary Service
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the European Voluntary Service will be eligible for the voluntary option of the New Deal. [43968]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The European Voluntary Service programme has not yet been formally agreed by the European Council and European Parliament. If and when the programme is fully operational, the opportunities offered will be eligible for the Voluntary Sector option of the New Deal for young unemployed people if they satisfy the design and quality criteria of that option. Organisations offering opportunities abroad on that option must also ensure that participants comply with benefit and immigration regulations.
  138

  Access Courses
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if sub-degree level higher education access courses will be covered by the New Deal as part of the education and training option. [43971]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Full-Time Education and Training option of the New Deal for 18–24 year olds is primarily aimed at enabling young people who do not hold qualifications at NVQ Level 2 (or equivalent) to gain those qualifications. Support for higher level studies can also be given, where this will clearly enhance the young person's employability. In the case of an Access to Higher Education course, support can be given under the New Deal where the course forms part of a coherent action plan leading towards sustained employment.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost and the number of staff to be involved in administering means tests for tuition fees for students from the EU. [43974]

  Dr. Howells
  The cost of administering the means test will be approximately £400,000 for the academic year 1998/99 and there will be some 25 staff providing this central service.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when his Department expects to make an announcement on the timetable for the implementation of part 3 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [43594]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) on 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 282.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide disability awareness/equality training to employers as part of the New Deal for Sick and Disabled People. [43559]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Employment Service, through its Placing Assessment and Counselling Teams and Disability Employment Advisers, already provides significant support to employers. The Personal Adviser Service, the key part of the New Deal for Disabled People, will also provide employers with advice on employing disabled people. This will complement the role of the many voluntary organisations who also work with employers to increase their disability awareness.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide specialist advisers to the(a) post acute brain injured and (b) recovering mentally ill as part of the New Deal for Sick and Disabled People. [43570]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We will expect those providing the Personal Adviser Service as part of the New Deal for Disabled People to ensure advisers are equipped with the necessary knowledge and expertise to support people with a wide range of specialist needs, including the post-acute brain injured and people recovering from mental illness.
  139
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much money the Employment Service plans to invest in supported employment programmes for sick and disabled people in 1998–99; [43556]

  (2) what funding has been given to supported employment programmes for sick and disabled people since 1995–96 by the Employment Service. [43555]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Supported employment programme

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96 outturn

  154.2

  1996–97 outturn

  154.3

  1997–98 outturn

  155.6

  1998–99 plans

  155.1

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide disability awareness/equality training to personnel in the Careers Service as part of the New Deal for Sick and Disabled People. [43558]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Careers advisers are required as part of their initial training to undergo disability awareness and equal opportunities training. Training as appropriate will be provided for New Deal for Disabled People Personal Adviser Service staff.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on integrating pupils with(a) severe learning difficulties, (b) moderate learning difficulties and (c) emotional behavioural difficulties into mainstream schools. [43798]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are preparing an action programme to take forward our policies on special educational needs (SEN), taking careful account of the responses to the Green Paper—Excellence for all children; meeting special educational needs. Progress on inclusion will be at the heart of those policies. We want to see an increased proportion of children with SEN included in mainstream schools where parents are happy with this, and where schools are properly prepared. But we will also promote a strong special school sector, to provide support for mainstream schools, and to offer high quality specialist provision for those children who need it.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements he is making to transfer grant-maintained schools back to the control of LEAs; when he expects this process will be completed; and if he will make a statement. [43808]

  Mr. Byers
  We are not proposing to transfer grant-maintained schools back to the control of LEAs. The School Standards and Framework Bill currently before Parliament provides for a new framework for the organisation of schools, which will accommodate all existing schools, including grant-maintained schools. It 140
  will strike a better balance between the discretion of schools to manage their own affairs and the role of Leash in supporting and challenging schools in raising standards. The Government propose to introduce the new framework in September 1999.

  Dental Students
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact of his Department's proposals for higher education on the numbers of dental students; and what research his Department has evaluated on this matter. [43019]

  Dr. Howells
  The progress of applications to enter higher education in October 1998 is being closely monitored. Although applications for Clinical Dentistry are currently down on last year (from 11,939 to 10,381 as at 16 May according to figures from the Universities and Colleges Admission Service) we do not expect universities to have difficulty meeting the UK dental target of 805 places per year.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the regulations that have been amended or removed to help small businesses since 1 May 1997. [42784]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  None of the Statutory Instruments made by the Department for Education and Employment revoking or amending regulations between 1 May 1997 and 22 May 1998 had a direct impact on small businesses. The Department is continually mindful of reflecting in policy the importance of job generation in small businesses, for example in the design of the New Deal and its self-employment option.

  Supported Employment Placements
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will estimate the cost of increasing the capitation grant for supported employment placements by the rate of inflation between 1 April 1998 and 1 April 1999; [42993]

  (2) what was the cost of the capitation grant for supported employment placements in 1998–99. [42989]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The capitation grant for 1998–99 is £4,680. The cost of supported placements in 1998–99 can be calculated on a retrospective basis only once the financial year has ended and supported employment providers have sent the Department their audited accounts. Providers have been given a deadline of December 1999 for this.

  Uprating the capitation grant in line with the GDP deflator of 2.9 per cent. would result in a level of £4,815.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the budget of the Staffordshire TEC in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99; [43114]
  141
  (2) what has been the level of public funding for each TEC in the West Midlands since they were
  established. [43115]

  West Midlands TEC funding (DfEE and DTI) 1995–96 to 1998–99

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Birmingham

  27,187,475

  31,481,373

  29,419,491

  29,141,010

  Central England

  8,891,325

  8,350,991

  9,630,290

  620,756

  Coventry and Warwickshire

  21,444,349

  21,400,763

  22,001,108

  20,076,484

  Dudley

  7,566,289

  8,311,713

  9,355,398

  8,462,913

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  11,566,289

  11,647,220

  13,012,475

  15,394,526

  Sandwell

  10,739,570

  10,938,147

  10,455,393

  9,439,113

  Shropshire

  11,517,320

  12,058,394

  12,069,144

  11,515,966

  Staffordshire

  26,071,937

  27,430,212

  24,861,306

  24,369,613

  Walsall

  6,370,719

  6,840,242

  7,702,685

  7,028,588

  Wolverhampton

  8,084,884

  8,955,628

  8,119,765

  7,735,364

  Notes:

  Information prior to 1995–96 is not readily available and has, therefore, not been provided.

  The contract with Central England TEC ceased at the end of 1997–98. The funding shown for this TEC for 1998–99 represents carry-over liabilities from the 1997–98 contract.

  The area covered by Central England has been taken over by Birmingham (Solihull) and Herefordshire and Worcestershire (Redditch and Bromsgrove and Wyre Forest).

  The 1998–99 funding for Birmingham and Solihull includes funding in respect of these areas.

  Local Management of Schools
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) when he expects to publish the document on local management of schools: framework for guidance of local education authorities; [43033]

  (2) when he expects to implement further delegation of responsibilities from local education authorities to schools. [43034]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government's consultation paper on the future development of local management of schools was published on 29 May. The intention is that the new arrangements should take effect from the beginning of the financial year 1999–2000. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library.

  Chefs (Work Permits)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the number of applications he has received for work permits for chefs for each year since 1990 indicating the number of permits granted; what plans he has to review his Department's policy on the admission of chefs; and how many work permits for chefs are currently under consideration by his Department. [43083]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information about work permit applications for chefs requested is as follows:

  Year

  Number of applications received

  Number approved

  1990

  2,160

  767

  1991

  2,091

  538

  1992

  1,408

  455

  1993

  1,058

  349

  1994

  844

  238

  1995

  530

  198

  1996

  589

  259

  1997

  513

  220

  142
  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  These figures include a small number of chefs training or gaining work experience. The totals for 1990–94 reflect the large number of applications made for a limited number of available permits under the former Dependent Territories Quota Scheme which was phased out over the period.

  There are currently 114 work permit applications for chefs under consideration.

  The Department consults, informally and formally, employers and interested bodies about the criteria for work permits but there are no firm plans at present to review the criteria for chefs.

  Asperger Syndrome
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children are diagnosed as suffering from Asperger Syndrome in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) West Sussex. [43284]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have been asked to reply.

  Data are not collected centrally on the number of cases of Asperger Syndrome. Research in Scandinavia has suggested a prevalence rate of 36 per 10,000 population. The National Autistic Society estimate there are 47,400 children with Asperger Syndrome in the United Kingdom.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the procedures which officials must follow when asking for an inquiry by Customs and Excise officials. [41727]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]In the normal way FCO officials refer allegations which they believe might require investigation to Customs and Excise officers.
  143
  Further action is for Customs and Excise to determine given that in such matters they are acting as an independent prosecuting authority of the Crown.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of his departmental officials are specifically responsible for policy relating to arms sales to Sierra Leone. [41596]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]Within the FCO, arms sales are dealt with by the geographical department concerned in consultation with the Non-Proliferation Department.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings were held between Government representatives and President Kabbah of Sierra Leone while the President was in exile; who was present at such meetings; where and when they were held; what was their purpose; and what was discussed at them. [41800]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 13 May 1998]Officials from the High Commission had numerous meetings with President Kabbah in Conakry. Officials also met him when he visited the UK in October 1997.

  The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), met President Kabbah on 20 October when he addressed the seminar 'Restoring Sierra Leone to Democracy'; on 25 October, with the Minister of State at the Department for International Development; and on 31 March 1998 when he visited Sierra Leone as a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group mission.

  My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, met him informally during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Edinburgh in October 1997. I met the Foreign Minister of Sierra Leone in the margins of the UN General Assembly meeting in September 1997.

  It is not normal practice to release the records of discussions with foreign Governments, but all relevant documents will be available to Sir Thomas Legg for his investigation.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many reporting telegrams his Department received from Freetown and Conakry since 1 May 1997; and how many of these were copied to the private office of a Minister. [42096]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]From 1 May 1997 to 18 May 1998 the FCO received 141 telegrams from Freetown, 102 of which were copied to my office and that of my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

  During the period when Freetown was evacuated, the High Commission operated out of a hotel room in Conakry and communicated with the FCO by fax. No record has been kept of the total number of faxes received during this period. However 48 of these faxes were retransmitted as FCO telegrams, 43 of which were copied to Ministerial offices as above.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the reports submitted by the Committee of the UN Security Council established by paragraph 10 of UNSCR 1132. [41967]
  144
  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]The Sierra Leone Sanctions Committee has yet to make a periodic report.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by whose authority repairs were effected by Royal Naval personnel to a helicopter exclusively used by a Sandline International crew; and if this constituted a breach of the UN arms embargo. [41969]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), on 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 258. We do not believe that the repair of this helicopter constituted a breach of UNSCR 1132.

  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date Ministers and officials in his Department first consulted ministers and officials in the Ministry of Defence concerning the use of UK military assets to help restore the Government of Sierra Leone. [41830]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]UK military assets were not used to overthrow the junta in Sierra Leone, which fled from Freetown on 13 February. The instructions to HMS Monmouth, and later to HMS Cornwall, were to deploy to the vicinity of Sierra Leone to be prepared to provide immediate humanitarian assistance to the people of Sierra Leone, to support our diplomatic efforts there, and to assist in the return of the British High Commissioner, should the democratically elected Government be restored. The FCO and the MOD liaised closely throughout this period about the activities of HMS Monmouth and HMS Cornwall.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any official of his Department was in contact with officials of the Customs and Excise on 28 or 29 April in connection with the investigation into Sandline International. [42313]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]The FCO fully cooperated with the Customs and Excise investigation throughout April and early May.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central, discussed the activities of Sandline International with Mr. John Flynn at their meeting on 19 March. [42284]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]No.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions on which his Department's Overseas Visitors Unit arranged calls by President Kabbah of Sierra Leone on Sandline International during his visits to the United Kingdom since 1 May 1997. [43206]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Overseas Visitors section has not arranged any calls by President Kabbah on Sandline International.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he took after he was informed on 6 February that military intervention was planned in Sierra Leone. [42625]
  145
  Mr. Robin Cook
  I took note of the reports of the military action by forces of the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) against the junta in Sierra Leone. In the following weeks, the following actions were taken by the FCO:the Permanent Representative to the UN was instructed to seek an explanation from members of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Committee of five Foreign Ministers during a briefing for Security Council members held on 6 February and at the subsequent meeting on 6 March;
  we drafted the EU Presidential Statement on Sierra Leone issued on 20 February.
  on 20 February, we instructed our Missions in ECOWAS capitals to carry out a joint demarche with EU Troika partners urging inter alia that ECOMOG open up humanitarian supply lines, and assist in the rescue and evacuation of EU nations held hostage in Sierra Leone;
  the FCO liaised closely with MOD about instructions to HMS Monmouth on 10 February to proceed to the waters off Freetown to stand by to provide humanitarian assistance, HMS Monmouth was replaced by HMS Cornwall which entered Freetown on 1 March;
  we contributed to the drawing up of the statement issued by the president of the Security Council on 26 February;
  we contributed to the drawing up and adoption of UNSCR 1156 on 16 March 1998 which welcomed President Kabbah's return to Freetown and lifted the prohibition on the supply of petrol and petroleum products to Sierra Leone;
  we contributed to the drawing up and adoption of UNSCR 1162 on 17 April, which authorised the deployment of up to 10 United Nations military liaison and security advisory personnel to work under the Secretary General's Special Envoy. HMG is contributing one officer to the deployment;
  we donated £2 million to the UN Trust Fund established in February to support the demobilisation and disarmament process, and instructed our diplomatic missions in the EU and elsewhere to urge their host governments to contribute towards the Trust Fund and to provide humanitarian relief for Sierra Leone.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if his Department received telegrams from the British High Commissioner for Sierra Leone warning that Sandline might breach the arms embargo; [42602]

  (2) if his Department communicated the terms of the Sierra Leone (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1997 to the British High Commissioner for Sierra Leone. [42603]

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the occasions on which Mr. Peter Penfold visited the offices of Sandline International since 1 May 1997. [43207]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 20 May 1998]I refer the right hon. and hon. Member to my statement in the House during the debate on 18 May 1998,Official Report, columns 604–11, in which I announced the investigation by Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC into allegations about Government involvement with the supply of arms to Sierra Leone by UK citizens and firms, and said that the Terms of Reference would be placed in the Library of the House. I intend to publish the report of the investigation.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the written brief received by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Manchester Central, before(a) the visit to CHOGM of President Kabbah, (b) his speech to the seminar
  146
  in London on restoring Sierra Leone to democracy in October 1997, (c) the decision to invite HM Customs and Excise to conduct an investigation into Lord Avebury's allegations on 10 March, (d) the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group meeting in London on 2 and 3 March, (e) the decision to send HMS Cornwall to Sierra Leone, (f) the debate on Sierra Leone in the House on 12 March, (g) his visit to Sierra Leone in March, and (h) his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 5 May; and if he will list the oral briefings received in connection with those occasions, stating who was present when oral briefings or office meetings took place about Sierra Leone. [42099]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]I refer the hon. Member to my statement in the House during the debate on 18 May 1998,Official Report, columns 604–11, in which I announced the investigation by Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC into allegations about Government involvement with the supply of arms to Sierra Leone by UK citizens and firms, and said that the Terms of Reference would be placed in the Library of the House. I intend to publish the report of the investigation.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the nature and scope of his responsibilities in relation to the review of European structural funds in respect of Wales, indicating the timetable for action by his Department. [42471]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry on 21 May 1998,Official Report, column 543.

  Turkey
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Turkey on the shooting of the Human Rights Association Leader Akin Birdal. [42439]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 18 May 1998]As EU Presidency, the UK issued a declaration on behalf of the European Union on 13 May expressing shock and dismay at the shooting of Mr. Akin Birdal, condemning this cowardly attack on the Chairman of the Human Rights Association, and strongly supporting statements of the Turkish authorities that every effort would be made to bring to justice those responsible.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear the importance we attach to the proper protection of human rights during his visit to Ankara on 19 May. He took the opportunity to visit Mr. Birdal in hospital to emphasise our support for the work of the Human Rights Association.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with Jose Ramos Horta; and what representations he has made recently to the Government of Indonesia regarding human rights, with particular reference to ethnic Chinese residents of Indonesia. [42345]
  147
  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had a wide-ranging discussion with Mr. Ramos-Horta on 31 March. We have made various representations about human rights, in both a Presidency and national capacity, to the Indonesian authorities in Jakarta. My right hon. Friend raised human rights in East Timor in his meeting with Vice President Habibie and Foreign Minister Alatas in the margins of ASEM 2.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the first annual human rights report from(a) foreign Governments and (b) British non-Governmental organisations. [42396]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The report has been widely welcomed. Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, has written that she believes,"it is a marvellous initiative by the Government",
  Amnesty International stated publicly that they were
  "delighted at the publication of the first such report".
  It quoted David Bull, a Director as saying,
  "This is a good day for human rights".
  The response of NGOs has been generally positive.

  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has received no formal representations about the report.

  Arms Sales
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the new European Code of Conduct on arms sales will ensure that signatories will open their arms sales to parliamentary scrutiny. [43170]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No. Different Member States have different practices in this respect. It would not have been realistic to propose a Code which sought to dictate Member States' internal licensing procedures.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation will take place under the European Code of Conduct on arms sales before one member state accepts an arms contract that has been turned down on ethical grounds by another. [43174]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Code of Conduct specified that before any Member State grants an export licence which has been denied in accordance with the Code by another Member State or States for an essentially identical transaction within the past three years, it will first consult the Member State or States issuing the denial(s).

  UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made about proposed changes to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. [43128]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by UNGA in 1989 and has achieved near universal ratification. The UK ratified in 148
  1991. States Parties recognise and undertake to uphold the full range of human rights—and, political, economic, social and cultural—in respect of children.

  We have no plans to propose changes to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, nor have we received representations to do so. We are, however, participating actively in UN Working Group discussions on draft Optional Protocols to the convention on the involvement of children in armed conflict, and on the sale of children, child prostitution, and child pornography. We support efforts to bring these discussions to a successful conclusion.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken in the last four weeks to secure EU recognition for Gibraltar I.D. cards. [43106]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  My answer to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) of 13 March 1998,Official Report, column 402, recorded that we were pursuing our complaint against Spain's non-recognition of Gibraltar's ID cards through the relevant Commission procedures. That remain the position.

  Clive Allison
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the French Government over the disappearance of British citizen Clive Allison in Lyon on 25 April and subsequent events. [43359]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Following Mr. Allison's disappearance our Consulate in Lyon contacted the French Police who confirmed that they had already circulated his details as a missing person. On 29 April they issued a "search notice" to all police forces and hospital emergency units. A body was found in the Saone on 4 May and identified the next day as Mr. Allison.

  The police investigation into Mr. Allison's death is continuing.

  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek reports upon the steps taken by(a) the British Consulate in Lyon and (b) the French authorities following the reported disappearance of British citizen Clive Allison in Lyons on 25 April; and if he will make a statement. [43358]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our Consul in Lyon has provided a full report of action taken by consular staff and French police when informed of the disappearance of Mr. Allison.

  We are satisfied that the French authorities and our consular staff did all they properly could to help Mr. Allison's friends and relatives. Our consular staff cannot investigate the disappearance of a British citizen; that is a job for the police. In this case there was no reason to suspect foul play was involved and the police acted according to normal practice when dealing with missing persons.

  Following the discovery of Mr. Allison's body the police opened an investigation, which is continuing.
  149

  Tibet
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the resolution by the European Parliament calling for a United Nations commission of inquiry into Tibet. [43164]

  Mr. Fatchett
  During our Presidency of the European Union the issue of Tibet has featured prominently in the EU' s human rights dialogue with China. A delegation of EU Ambassadors to Beijing visited Tibet in May in order to make an assessment of the situation there. Our EU partners are considering their report.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the regulations that have been removed or amended to help small businesses since 1 May 1997. [42775]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Since 1 May 1997 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not amended or removed any regulations to help small businesses.

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made on the implementation of the interim agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the EU and Israel in respect of verifying the accuracy of the labelling of goods as Made in Israel; and if the agreement will prohibit the labelling of goods produced in part or wholly in(a) illegal Israeli settlements, (b) East Jerusalem, (c) the Golan Heights, (d) the West Bank and (e) the Gaza Strip as Made in Israel. [43351]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On 13 May, the European Commission adopted a Communication to the Council on the implementation of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community and Israel. This Communication is now being studied at a technical level by Member States and the Commission.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made on the implementation of the interim agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the EU and Israel in respect of monitoring human rights abuses in the occupied territories and the Israeli Government response to those abuses. [43352]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The EU continues to monitor closely the human rights situation in Israel. The EU attaches great importance to this subject, which is reflected in the terms of the EC/Israel Interim Agreement. EU Heads of Mission regularly report to the Council on the human rights situation in Israel and the Occupied Territories. A summary of the last report was released on 15 May. Member States, including the UK, also raise human rights in their bilateral contacts with Israel. The EU/Israel Association Agreement awaits ratification by all Member States. The EU/Israel Association Council set up under that agreement should also provide a welcome new forum for discussion of human rights.

  Iraq
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement 150
  on the latest inspection of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the last agreement was reached; and what estimate has been made of the amount of such weapons left. [43337]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are satisfied that Iraq has adhered to the commitments it gave to the UN Secretary-General on 23 February, and at present is allowing weapons inspections to proceed in line with its obligations under relevant Security Council Resolutions.

  The latest report by the Executive Chairman of the UN Special Commission, issued in April, reported little progress in verification of all 3 areas of WMD (Biological weapons, Chemical weapons and Ballistic missiles), as a result of 4 months of crisis. As a result of the latest report from the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), the United Nations Security Council has agreed that the IAEA dedicate its resources to the implementation of Ongoing Monitoring and Verification of the nuclear capabilities of Iraq, subject to satisfactory Iraqi responses to outstanding IAEA questions and concerns prior to the issue of the next IAEA report (October 1998).

  Copies of these reports will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Dependent Territories
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information is available from British Consular offices in North America to potential investors in British Dependent Territories in the Caribbean. [43423]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our Consulates-General in North America assist with any inquiries about investment in the Caribbean Overseas Territories either by obtaining relevant information from the Governments of the Overseas Territories themselves, or by putting potentional investors in direct contact with them.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans(a) he and (b) other Ministers have to visit the Turks and Caicos Islands. [43427]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Neither my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, nor other FCO Ministers have any immediate plans to visit the Turks and Caicos Islands.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress made in his review of the future status of Britain's Dependent Territories. [43446]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary published a response on 13 May 1998 to the FAC's Interim Report on the Dependent Territories. A copy of this is available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the Governments of(a) the British Virgin Islands (b) the Cayman Islands and (c) the Turks and Caicos Islands on his proposals for their future status and citizenship. [43447]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, discussed the proposals on the future status and citizenship with the Chief Ministers and equivalents of
  151
  all the Caribbean Overseas Territories' and Bermuda in February. We have consulted the Overseas Territories's governments on this matter at regular intervals since the announcement of the FCO Review last August. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, wrote to the Chief Ministers updating them on progress with the Review last month.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on defence exports of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 265, if he will make a statement on the means by which the monitoring and assessment policy was applied to each item authorised for sale to Indonesia since 1 May 1997. [43450]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough referred to the process of assessing at the licensing stage the risk that proposed exports might be used for internal repression. We have made such an assessment in the case of all licence applications for the export of controlled goods to Indonesia circulated to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office by the Department of Trade and Industry in line with our policy responsibilities. No formal 152
  procedures exist for routinely monitoring the use that is made of British defence equipment, once exported. But we are ready when necessary to investigate any specific allegations of misuse.

  Nuclear Tests (South Asia)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government first learned that India was about to test nuclear weapons this year. [43451]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We first learned of the Indian nuclear tests from the Indian Government's statements to the press on 11 May and on 13 May, announcing that the tests had been conducted.

  Departmental Inquiries
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those inquiries which were launched by his officials without his prior knowledge since 1 May 1997. [41724]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]No formal investigations have been launched since 2 May 1997 by officials of the FCO without my knowledge. In the case of the alleged breach of the arms embargo on Sierra Leone, officials acted perfectly properly in referring allegations to Customs and Excise.

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

Overseas Aid
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made towards the objective of untying aid in overseas development co-operation programmes.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we strongly support multilateral untying of aid. Some progress is being made. There is now agreement in the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, which was endorsed by the G8, that we should work towards a recommendation on untying aid to the least developed countries. The intention is to propose a text to the 1999 high level meeting of the Development Assistance Committee.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will my noble friend accept that we find that reply extremely encouraging? Has he seen the analysis which indicates that if all OECD donors were to untie their aid, that would amount to an increase in value of the total aid programme of some £2.5 billion? Is the Minister aware that there are good indications that if there were a general untying of aid there could be considerable benefits for the British economy and British jobs? Can we perhaps move ahead practically by starting with binding reciprocal agreements with like-minded governments—for example, the Netherlands—to ensure that at least we can start the process of phasing out mixed credits to follow up the move that has already been made on the aid-and-trade provision?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my noble friend indicates, the British Government have made some
2
progress in ending the trade-for-aid arrangements. We are seeking as wide agreement as possible through the G8 and our partners in that group. I have seen figures indicating the benefit that would accrue were we to untie substantial amounts of aid. The UK has made more progress in that respect than many other countries. We are below the average for the OECD in terms of tied aid. We hope to make progress in that forum by the time of the 1999 high level meeting.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I welcome the robust defence of the Secretary of State and of the noble Lord of the multilateral approach to untying aid and its repetition in the international development White Paper. This, alongside the eventual elimination of export subsidies, should have been one of the main items on the agenda of the group of industrialised nations when it met in Birmingham this May. I am sorry that greater progress was not possible. Can the Minister say when the Secretary of State will raise these matters with her German and Japanese counterparts, and whether we can expect a statement on tied aid to be included as part of Britain's EU presidency?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, these matters are being pursued from time to time in the Development Council of the EU. However, the main forum for reaching agreement is the OECD, which includes the Americans, the Japanese, the Canadians and so forth. As my main Answer indicated, it will be at the high level meeting next year that we expect the most progress to be made rather than through the EU, although we are attempting to get maximum agreement among our EU partners in this respect.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in the light of my noble friend's answers, does he agree that if we are to be true to the commitment which the Secretary of State repeatedly emphasised—that our aid programme must be concentrated on the elimination of poverty—and if we accept that through having tied aid we may be building inconsistencies into the economies of

3
developing countries which are compelled to purchase other than on sound market criteria, we should avoid waiting until everyone has agreed? As I asked in my earlier supplementary question, will he consider the possibility of moving ahead, with reciprocal agreements, with those governments who are prepared to do so?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, that may be an option which we can explore. However, our main effort at the moment is to try to reach agreement at the OECD. The total bilateral aid programme of the United Kingdom now is only 14 per cent., which is substantially ahead of most of the other countries that we hope to persuade to go down the same road. However, we see possibilities of extending the agreement, which has already been made in principle at the G8, to further countries and achieving a major step forward over the next 12 months in that respect.
Lord McNally: My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify the Secretary of State's attitude to emergency humanitarian aid? Unfortunate publicity was given to a recent speech which suggested that reaction to a public response to an emergency such as that in the Sudan was not the right approach. Does the Minister agree that for the people and the aid agencies concerned it was an emergency which had to be responded to and which could not to be caught up in longer-term aid planning?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, to some extent the remarks made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and the response to them, were misrepresented in the press. The department has always supported the efforts made by NGOs in bringing urgently needed humanitarian aid to where it is required. Last week we announced a doubling of our assistance to NGOs working in southern Sudan, so our commitment is clear. The point that the Secretary of State was making was that television seems to show only negative pictures of the developing countries and, distressing though they may be, we ought to focus more on the positive aspects of development aid and the progress that is being made in terms of improving the lot of the people in developing countries, outside the crisis areas, as a result of government aid, private investment and NGOs. Notwithstanding that, we support the humanitarian appeals and should like others to support them also.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House some indication of whether, after due consideration of the G8 proposals, we can expect any detailed proposals from the European Commission?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the untying of aid, as my earlier answers indicated, we see the main forum for that as the OECD, which involves a wider range of donor countries. The whole question of the EU's development programme is shortly to be considered in the context of the new Lomé
4
arrangements. Those negotiations will start shortly and there will be announcements on the progress that is made in the coming months.

Power Station Fuel: Short Rotation Coppice
2.44 p.m.
Viscount Mersey Viscount Mersey asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to promote short rotation coppice as a fuel for power stations.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, short rotation coppice (SRC) is one of the country's key potential sources of renewable energy. Ten contracts have already been awarded under the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) arrangements for renewables to generate power from SRC and forestry residues for a period of 15 years.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but is he aware that the general target of achieving 3 per cent. of our total energy requirement from renewables by 2010 is a very tough target to meet? Is the noble Lord also aware that the cost of establishing coppice is very high, at about £500 per acre, and that that is not attractive to farmers who might be attracted instead towards the softer option of set-aside? Is the Minister aware of what happens in Sweden, where there is a generous subsidy, resulting in the cost coming down to about £200 per acre and the planted area being a lot greater? Should we not do as the Swedes do?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, perhaps I may allude generally to the measures which are being taken to give support to the use of traditional coppice in response to the points so reasonably made by the noble Viscount. Generators proposing to use existing coppice have been eligible to bid in the NFFO competitions for biomass (in NFFO 3 and 4) which have been held so far. The Woodland Grant Scheme offers both annual management grants for coppiced woodlands and a one-off woodland improvement grant to bring neglected woodlands back into management as coppiced woodlands. The Forestry Commission also promotes training courses in traditional coppicing skills and supports the publication of the sales magazine, Woodlots, which gives owners the opportunity to offer coppiced timber to potential buyers. In addition, the Woodland Grant Scheme is being reviewed by the umbrella organisation, British Biogen, which is hoping to make an announcement sometime in the summer. So, some considerable support is already being given, although not along the lines suggested by the noble Viscount in relation to Sweden.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, does the Minister intend to grant biomass power stations extra development time

5
under future NFFO rounds in order to allow the first harvest to coincide with the power plant coming on-line?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I believe that that matter will be dealt with under the review to which I have just alluded.

Directors' Remuneration: Disclosure
2.47 p.m.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps have been taken to implement Recommendations 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 of the Greenbury Report on directors' remuneration.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, action has been taken to implement the recommendations made to the Government by the Greenbury Committee. In particular, Schedule 6 to the Companies Act 1985 has been amended so that the legal requirements relating to the disclosure of directors' emoluments are consistent with the disclosure provisions in the Greenbury code of best practice and the Stock Exchange listing rules.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. If I understood him correctly, he seemed to be saying that all three of Greenbury's recommendations have been implemented by successive governments. That prompts one to ask, "What about the 30-odd recommendations of the Greenbury Committee and other similar bodies which were directed at British industry?" Do the Government have any evidence of whether British industry has implemented the other recommendations?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, our information is that generally the recommendations are being applied. If my noble friend wishes to refer any specific cases to me, I hope that he will do so.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent flotation of Computacenter, following which 30 managers who helped their company to grow by taking shares and share options in lieu of salary increases became paper millionaires while about 700 other members of staff received shares with an average value of £314,000? Does the Minister regard those people as stakeholders or as fat cats whose loyalty to their companies will single them out for disadvantageous tax treatment?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not know whether they are fat cats, or whatever. The fact is that they were advantaged by what happened. The Government's case in relation to all this is whether the advantage gained by share options or increased pay and remuneration is related to performance. Even if it is related to performance, is it excessive in all the circumstances having regard to the interests of the
6
company concerned, its workforce and so on? Those are the essential criteria that we seek to apply in line with both Greenbury and the subsequent report.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House whether he regards these individuals as stakeholders because their work benefited the company and they took shares or share options? Their value depended upon the work that they put into the company. Are they stakeholders or just fat cats?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Baroness can have her choice. I shall not go into the specifics of a particular company. I do not believe that that advances the argument other than when applying the criteria to which I have just alluded. It does not help to describe them in any way whatever. I should like to know more about the company, as indeed should the noble Baroness before embarking on this line of questioning.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does my noble friend support the recommendation of both the Greenbury and Hampel committees that the reports of remuneration committees be voted upon each year by shareholders? Can my noble friend inform the House when the government paper on company law, whether white or green—perhaps my noble friend can clarify that—is to be published? Is there not now a compelling case for its early publication?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Government have just issued a Green Paper on the governance of companies. This matter is to be looked at. Representations will be made to the Government. We shall consider the position very carefully in due course. I regret that I have forgotten my noble friend's question.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I asked whether the Government's paper was a Green or White Paper. I hear my noble friend say that it is to be a Green Paper. I am informed that it is the first question that he has forgotten. Do the Government support the recommendation of both the Greenbury and Hampel committees that reports of remuneration committees be voted upon each year by shareholders?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, those recommendations have been noted and there is a great deal of force in them. The Government are considering these matters. The Government prefer this aspect of governance to be dealt with on a voluntary basis rather than by enshrining it in legislation. I refer back to the somewhat confusing situation, for which I am entirely responsible. It was not a Green Paper; it was a consultation document.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the real problem that prompts this continuing debate, as the Minister indicated in his last answer, is that despite the fact that over a year has elapsed since the election and the publication of the Labour Party manifesto, the Government still have not made up their mind whether they wish these matters to be dealt with

7
voluntarily by the Stock Exchange implementing its listing particulars or by the more restrictive legislation enshrined in the manifesto?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have already stated that the Government prefer the matter to be dealt with by way of the application of a voluntary code that is adhered to, not one to which people merely pay lip service, rather than go down the more restrictive route of legislation. We have made that very clear in this House and in the other place on a number of occasions.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that the minimum wage will be determined on the basis of a rate per hour, can the Minister inform the House whether the Government have any intention of ensuring that directors' remuneration should also be reported on the basis of a rate per hour?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I shall not be led down the byways of the national minimum wage because that matter will be debated at Committee stage and perhaps in the course of a Statement to be made in the very near future. I do not believe that it is helpful to judge the matter in the way that my noble friend suggests. I have already set out what I believe to be the critical criteria which essentially are based on performance. That does not excuse totally excessive remuneration which has sometimes been the case.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, can the noble Lord expand slightly on his last answer? Who is to determine what is excessive? Is it the Minister?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, certainly it is not a matter for me. I have no responsibility within the department to do that. Mine is a collective responsibility. I do not decide this matter. We believe that the performance criteria should be judged by the companies themselves in the first place, applying objective standards which measure up to them. I believe that that is the right way to proceed. Companies know instinctively whether what they are doing is in their interests, the interests of the nation as a whole and their workforce. All these matters must be taken into account.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, do the Government agree that the aim of Cadbury, Greenbury and other committees was to try to arrest and control the ever-higher levels of bonuses and salaries and fiddles of various kinds being paid out to top executives? As the Minister accepts, we still do not have any information as to whether the recommendations have been carried out and whether the trend has been reversed. All the signs are that the trend is getting worse year by year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not accept the last assertion. These matters deeply concern the Government, the CBI and others in seeking to apply
8
fairness. This matter is kept very firmly under review. I am perfectly happy to return to the House in due course and report on the matter when the Government have had reasonable time to make a proper assessment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the Minister explain why he and his colleagues in the department are so exercised about the top salaries of business people who after all create economic activity and jobs when, for example, Geri Spice, who left the Spice Girls yesterday, is reputed to have earned £10 million in the past two years?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I think that she has enough problems without my adding to them!

Prisons: Strategy for Tackling Drug Misuse
2.57 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take on drugs following the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons on HM Prison Featherstone.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the Prison Service published its new strategy Tackling Drugs in Prison on 12th May. The strategy has been informed by a full review, including independent research. The strategy builds on a record of success in reducing drug misuse in prison in recent years. It will maintain an appropriate balance between control measures and treatment and rehabilitation and will enable access to voluntary testing for all prisoners who request this.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I remind him that my Question is concerned with a report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons on Her Majesty's Prison Featherstone. Many of us have been reassured by the generally positive message contained in that report. Is the noble Lord aware that 96 per cent. of the staff of Featherstone, according to the Chief Inspector of Prisons, felt that the level of drug misuse in that establishment was either fairly or very high? Does the Minister agree that that is a very disturbing figure? Specifically what can be done to deal with that situation?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the level of drug misuse at Featherstone was higher than at most other establishments. I believe that at Featherstone the figure was 40 per cent. whereas at most establishments the figure was 20 per cent. I thank the noble Lord for referring to the good things that are taking place at Featherstone, for example the efficient running of the prison, the range of training provided, the level of healthcare and the good staff relationships at that establishment.

9
Referring to the noble Lord's comments on the chief inspector's claims, a good number of these are based on anecdotal evidence and not hard evidence. The independent research commissioned by the Prison Service in 1996 does not support the claim that widespread switching between soft drugs and hard drugs is taking place. Many of the recommendations that have been made are being implemented at Featherstone. The problem of drug misuse is being taken very seriously. Extra staff are being trained to deal with it. Special training is being given to staff. Special provision is being made for voluntary testing, including the setting up of a unit. HMP Featherstone and its governor are treating drug misuse very seriously.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in offering congratulations to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector on his report. I make it clear that I agree with the noble Lord that the report is generally positive about the prison. It says that it is a good Category C establishment, with a sound industrial base and good relations between staff and prisoners. If that is the case, why are the Government cutting funding to that prison by some £600,000?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, that may be so, but we have to look at expenditure at all prison establishments. It would not be right to look at Featherstone in isolation. What is more important is what is being done at Featherstone, particularly in relation to the drug problem. As I said, it is setting up a multi-discipline team of officers to look at the problem. It has participated in projects in relation to drug information leaflets. It has issued information to prisoners. It is taking the matter extremely seriously. If there is any cut-back in expenditure in the prison, I do not believe that it will affect the effectiveness of this programme in relation to drug misuse.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what is Home Office policy on the use of sniffer dogs to seek out drugs in prison? Are they not sometimes more successful than people at finding drugs?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, indeed they are. The use of dogs is taken seriously. At present 168 dogs are being used in prisons. In addition to those, as the noble Baroness will be aware, passive dogs are also being used. They are good at indicating whether visitors to prisons have drugs. Prisons, including Featherstone, are co-operating among themselves in the use of those dogs. We find that they are a useful instrument.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, will the noble Lord please explain what a passive dog is?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, it is not passive in the sense that it would attack, but in the sense that it is trained to detect whether people visiting the prisons are carrying drugs. That is what they are used for. In
10
other words, they are in the visitors' centre, and if the dog believes that there are people with drugs it draws the attention of its attendant to that.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, do prison governors have discretion about whether or not to invite police to prosecute serious cases of drug misuse? How many successful police prosecutions have been brought, according to the latest available figures?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the evidence in relation to that question. The noble Lord asks a serious question. I hope that I may write to him with that information.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the Minister worried that, despite the evidence of the recent Home Office research study that mandatory drug testing resulted in some reduction in the level of drug misuse at the four prisons where the study was undertaken, nevertheless, the levels were still extraordinarily high? Has the Minister no further advice to give the House on how that is to be tackled, other than by the use of these multi-discipline teams that he mentioned? For example, could not the Government consider having separate drug-free prisons to which inmates could go if they undertook never to use drugs, so that they would be separated from the harmful influence of those who try to persuade them to indulge in those bad habits?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's last point. If people agree to voluntary testing, it is important that they are placed in units which are, as far as possible, comparatively drug free. Indeed, that is what I said was happening at Featherstone Prison. It is a positive result. One unit is being set up there to which people who declare for voluntary testing can go. Mandatory testing was a great success. It brought down to 20 per cent. the number of prisoners using drugs. Nevertheless we must have these other positive measures alongside it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that on an occasion such of this it is right to pay tribute to the outstanding work done by the Chief Inspector of Prisons who has made a major contribution towards improving conditions in Her Majesty's prisons?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord in praising what has been done by the Chief Inspector of Prisons and what was done by his predecessor in relation to the Prison Service.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. today, my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the recent nuclear tests in India and Pakistan.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, before we move into Committee, I wonder whether it would be helpful for the consideration of the Bill in Committee if the Minister were prepared to make a statement to clarify the speech made last week by Mr. Byers at the head teachers' conference in which he said that in future schools were to receive 100 per cent. delegation of their budgets. I ask her that because in Committee we shall be dealing with organisational committees, adjudication, school organisation plans, new schools, special schools, which were mentioned by Mr. Byers in his speech, and the activities of governing bodies.
Clearly Mr. Byers' speech was an important speech which I welcome strongly, because in effect he was saying that in future schools, whether they are called foundation schools or community schools, according to the Bill, will be given control of 100 per cent. of their budgets, and virtually be given the advantages that old grant-maintained schools had. That represents a considerable change of heart by the Government, not since they were in Opposition, but since they were in government, because the Bill is not drafted along those lines. It is drafted on the assumption that LEAs will still have a considerable role to play.
It is clear from Mr. Byers' speech last week that the LEAs' role will be residual. I happen to welcome that strongly. I do not revel in the fact that it is a 100 per cent. change by the Labour Party. It voted against those measures when I introduced them in 1988 and it has been opposed to them consistently. I do not revel in that. I welcome the fact that it has accepted it. It would be immodest of me to suggest that it must have read a speech that I made two years ago, recommending that. I am sure that it never passed over its desk, but, nonetheless, the Government have reached the right conclusion. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to clarify the details: how much will be left to LEAs; and how much will be delegated. I suspect that on this side of the House we shall want as much as possible to be delegated. We want the schools to be in charge of their budgets. Grant-maintained schools have shown that they can produce magnificent results. The Government are almost there. Well done!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is saying that the Government have come to the right conclusion. That being so, could not we discuss this matter when we reach the appropriate amendments?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I strongly support the importance of this speech and the paper to the debate
12
that we are having today. It does not relate just to Clauses 45 to 52 but also to the organisational committees, the work of the adjudicator and the work on standards and improvements in schools. That is all money that will be deducted before the 100 per cent. We are all in favour of 100 per cent. delegation to schools. We should like to see that. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness would explain that the 100 per cent. is 100 per cent. of what is left after the four issues are addressed: access, improvement of schools, strategic management, and all the matters that are listed in the paper.
We are again discussing amendments—it is not the first time—in a vacuum. Nothing in the Bill makes provision for the proposals in the paper that we understand was released on Friday. If 100 per cent. delegation is to be delivered, and schools are to receive that money, there needs to be considerable enabling amendment to Clauses 44 to 52. Have the Government any plans to bring forward amendments; or will they accept amendments from this side of the Committee to ensure that the proposals in the Statement made by the Minister in another place are delivered to schools? Expectations by schools are now very high. However, as one reads the detail of the paper, the scope for withholding money is very considerable indeed.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: Before the Minister replies, it would be unfair for the noble Lord, Lord Baker, to receive all the credit. The noble Lord may recall that in the 1970s I had the privilege of chairing a committee which recommended more delegation to managers and governors of schools, and 100 per cent. responsibility. Does the noble Lord, Lord Baker, remember that that was during the time of a Labour Government?
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful for my noble friend's interjection. He reminds the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that during the late 1970s and 1980s many people thought about greater delegation to schools.
The Opposition requested that we delay discussion on local management of schools (LMS) until Thursday. The Government have acceded to that request to give the Opposition a little more time to go through the document published on Thursday on local management of schools. It takes further what we had said earlier; and takes further a document that was put into the Library of both Houses when the issue was discussed in another place.
It would be foolish to start a discussion now on the subject before we have reached the right part of the Bill, which must be the right time to discuss it. I am sure that that is what my noble friends, and noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, would think was right. It would be wholly in accordance with our procedures to wait until then.
In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I shall be happy to consider any amendments that the Government may decide to put down on this part of the Bill. Amendments that we are bringing forward are already tabled for Thursday. I do not believe that we

13
should go further on this matter, but should get on with the Committee stage of the Bill and move to the agreed business for this afternoon.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps the noble Baroness will accept a word of congratulation on the calm with which she has just spoken, and on her complete detachment, almost failure to recognise, the marvellous conversion that she and her colleagues have undergone.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 23 [School organisation committees]:
3.15 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 22, line 20, at end insert ("to act in an advisory capacity for the local education authority").
The noble Lord said: I forbore to join in the previous exchanges because I agreed with the Minister that this was not the proper time for such discussion. However, I cannot resist saying that I and my colleagues are a little less wholehearted in our congratulations to the Government on their conversion.
The amendment deals with one of the areas about which we are less content: school organisation committees; and, in Clause 24, the issue of adjudicators. It will become clear that we are uneasy about the concept of school organisation committees. They impose another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy with all the cost and administrative complexities of running such a body. The body will be unbelievably cumbersome, comprising of a number of groups. Those groups may comprise of representation of between one and seven. Each group has only one vote. I am unclear—perhaps the Minister will make clear—how that group vote is to be exercised where there is not unanimity in that group, as I fear will be the case on many occasions. The body is cumbersome because even assuming that the group has a unanimously agreed vote, there has to be unanimity within the school organisation committee. The Minister has said elsewhere that he expects that in the majority of cases school organisation committees will be unanimous. I can only think that that Minister has had little to do with education and local education authorities if he believes that all those interested parties in education will be unanimous in the majority of cases. We all hope so, but it may be a triumph of optimism over realism.
The most telling point against the concept of school organisation committees is that it is one further step in undermining the democratic legitimacy of local education authorities. Let me be the first to say that the democratic legitimacy of local government is rightly under question. A few weeks after the turnout at the last local elections, no one can stand here and proclaim that too strongly. The Government are attempting to address that issue in other ways, although we do not believe that they are going far enough.
Nevertheless, the local education authority and its members are the democratically elected representatives of the local communities. They have that responsibility. The appointment of a school organisation committee, composed as it will be, can only be a further nail in the coffin of the local education authority. If that is the Government's ultimate intention, as many of us are coming to believe, I wish that they would now clearly and openly say so.
The Government are missing an opportunity to deal with the many important aspects of school organisation and administration arrangements within the context of a light touch LEA framework. I shall return to that point more strongly in a later amendment. I accept that bringing together partners which will form a school organisation committee can perform a useful role. It is important that it is an advisory role for the LEA, does not supersede the LEA, and is not a statutory role which overrides the LEA.
The amendment suggests that school organisation committees—it is a concept about which I am not keen—should act in an advisory role. In many good local education authorities—dare I include my own?—such bodies exist. They are not usually given the title of school organisation committee; they exist as consultative forums. In many cases they work extremely well, as in my own LEA. The views and representations made are valued. They are listened to and debated, but the accountability is clear. It rests with the democratically elected local education authority which is, and should be, properly accountable for the decisions so reached.
We move the amendment, not out of great enthusiasm for school organisation committees, but recognising that if they are to exist they can have a valuable role. However, that role should be advisory. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I preface my strong support for the amendment with a question in order to make sense of the funding paper. Will the money for this aspect of activity for LEAs, school organisation committees and the adjudicators be deducted from the budget for local education authorities before the 100 per cent. figure is delegated to schools? Is it a matter for deduction? From my brief reading of the paper, I believe that it is.
While I strongly support the amendment, I would rather not have organisation committees or adjudicators. Local authorities are made up of members served by officers. Those members are elected democratically by the local community. If the local community loses its confidence in the work done by those local authority members it can exercise its choice about that at the ballot box.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, speaks of more recent experience than I do, having been a member of a local authority. Before coming here, I spent my formative years as a member of a local authority and as a member of its education authority. I have knowledge of the pain and the anguish that councillors experience when dealing with difficult issues, for example, closing schools. I cannot recall more anxious moments than

15
when we were trying to do our best by the local community, looking that community in the eye, talking with the parents and the grandparents, the friends, the staff and the governors of schools when we were going through the process of closure. It would have been quite wrong for me to pass on responsibility for taking that decision to someone else—the unelected placemen of any government in the future. I believe that having initiated the process and having consulted all the relevant people, it is absolutely incumbent on the elected members to face the responsibility of taking the decision.
I have always thought it right and a good test of whether or not we have done the job properly that there should be a long-stop. In my view, that should be the Secretary of State. At the end of this process with the local communities, after all the work and consultation required by statute, you come to a conclusion. But that conclusion is further tested by an appeal to the Secretary of State. Parents and their supporters can put their case to the Secretary of State who takes into account the objectors' case, the case put by the local authority and the work done by the elected council of that authority. The Secretary of State comes to a view whether the case should be upheld or overruled. I believe that that procedure has worked very well in the past.
To superimpose on the system another body of placemen, the organisation committee, with the absolutist powers given in this Bill to the adjudicator, frankly, I believe, is wholly abhorrent. There is nothing democratic about it at all. It sidelines the responsibility that councillors should have and it passes the buck from the Secretary of State who simply says, "It's not me guv, go through your organisational committee or correspond with your adjudicator." There is not even an appeal on the adjudicator's position.
My preferred position would be not to have an organisation committee at all but as a halfway-house I support very strongly, on democratic grounds alone, that if there has to be this body it should be advisory only. My preferred position is that advisory bodies are different in different circumstances and there are occasions where local authorities should discuss with head teachers, local communities, other minor local authorities and other interest groups, and those will be different on different occasions.
Once this organisation committee is set in tablets of stone, as of course it will be, it is a single body with set representation which may or may not be appropriate. It seems to me wholly inappropriate. I support very strongly what I regard as a halfway-house amendment, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. This proposal flies in the face of democratic accountability. It will emasculate local government which, as we know, is the hidden agenda behind much of the Bill. Certainly, more overt statements are being made almost daily by Ministers about the sidelining of local government in these matters. At the end of the day, I believe that the
16
Secretary of State, in addition to local elected councillors, should stand up and be counted. I strongly support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I wonder whether the Minister can help me on this amendment. As I understand it, in relation to voluntary aided schools it is the Secretary of State who at present takes a range of decisions such as, for example, whether a new school should be opened or a school should be closed, whether a school should be significantly enlarged or whether it should have a nursery class added.
It seems to me that what is laid out in the Bill is that that power in relation to voluntary aided schools, which at present lies with the Secretary of State, should pass to the school organisation committee. If I have understood that incorrectly, perhaps the noble Baroness will put me right. However, if that is the case, clearly the advantage of the school organisation committee is that decisions will be made in relation both to voluntary and to county schools by the same body. That seems to me a step forward.
It is clear that Clause 23 mentions only three categories: members of the local education authority, a person nominated by the diocesan board of education for a diocese of the Church of England, and a person nominated by the bishop of any Roman Catholic church. Those are the three parties which have to agree. It seems to me that the question of how many should be in each of those groups is in a sense not germane to the thrust of this intention, which is that representatives of those three bodies should agree policy in relation both to maintained schools and voluntary schools.
The Churches are major providers of schools and have been for nearly two centuries. Twenty five per cent. of primary schools in England have been provided by the Church of England. We have a significant investment in the education service of which the Church is rightly proud. We are particularly aware that many of these schools are popular and over-subscribed schools. What is true for the Church of England is also true for the Roman Catholic Church.
If decisions affecting the future of church provision, whether Church of England or Roman Catholic, are to be taken locally—it seems to me that that is the thrust of the clause—then it is surely right that both Churches locally should have a voice and a decisive voice.
The Church of England and other Churches want to have a positive partnership with local education authorities. It would seem to me that that is exactly what the school organisation committee provides. Far from giving less responsibility to local education authority representatives, in fact, it gives them a say in the future of Church schools. It is surely the case that an effective school organisation committee must depend upon each of the partners having an effective voice. I would be grateful if the Minister, in reply, would indicate whether I have the right understanding and whether my support for school organisation committees is on sound grounds.
Lord Whitty: The Government respect, understand and fully appreciate the role of local education

17
authorities, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. However, the proposals for a school organisation committee reflect the fact, as the right reverend Prelate has just said, that in each LEA area the provision of school places is a matter of a partnership between different providers, the LEA, the schools and other voluntary and charitable providers and currently grant-maintained schools.
The existing arrangements for deciding proposals for change to school organisation maintain a balance between all the partners. Local education authorities can currently decide any of their own proposals unless they attract objections, in which case, again as the right reverend Prelate said, they are referred to the Secretary of Sate, or the Secretary of State decides to call them in for his own decision. All proposals for change to voluntary and to grant-maintained schools must currently come to the Secretary of State for decision.
The proposal in this clause is to ensure that that decision is kept locally. The noble Baroness, as I understand her position, wishes to maintain the position that all appeals go, in effect, into the stratosphere or at least to the Secretary of State, whereas our proposals keep those decisions local. Changes in school organisation are local. It is the Government's view that the decisions must be taken at local level and we are developing new ways in which that can be achieved. That is the central purpose of the school organisation committee. It will take on, in effect, the role in the process currently taken by the Secretary of State. It will therefore be an element of decentralisation, not of centralisation or bureaucracy in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, claimed.
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 are to retain balance, one partner cannot be more equal than the others. The school organisation committees which we propose will consist of representatives from local groups involved in the provision of education in the area. The committees' voting arrangement will mean that no decision can be made on the school organisation committee unless all groups, including the LEA, agree. That reflects the local authority's role as a partner in the process.
In reference to the schools' representation, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, asked whether their views would be by unanimity and if not how would the system operate. There is still some element of consultation on that matter, but we assume that we shall reach a consensus in the schools' group which will be reflected in the unanimity of the school organisation committee when it reaches a decision.
In order to reach that decision, all groups, not only the LEA, must make their views count. Those objectives would not be met by giving the LEA the power to take decisions on all statutory proposals. Others have significant parts to play. The amendment would give the final decision-making power to the LEAs. They will
18
continue to have a vital role in maintaining standards in schools, but because they are not the only local providers we must have other representatives within that process. Local decision-making is about partnership and about reaching a consensus whenever possible.
In terms of how the decision will be reached, we propose that each group represented on the committee will have a single vote and that all votes cast on the final decision must be unanimous. If not, and only after exhaustive discussion between all the partners involved, the decision will be passed to an adjudicator. Later today we shall discuss amendments which make that clear.
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. We believe that that is the best way of ensuring a balance of views and of "putting the pressure on" to ensure that in most cases a consensus is reached. A local education authority will remain free to determine most of its own uncontested proposals for changes to individual schools—
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has made some very conflicting statements. He said that local authorities will make the final decision. Nowhere in the consultation papers, the background papers to the debate or in the Bill is it stated that local authorities will make the final decision. The noble Lord will need to read Hansard tomorrow. I believe that he did say that; I was listening carefully to what he said.
Secondly, the noble Lord said that it is a matter of partnership. It is difficult to disagree with that; partnerships at local level are essential. Local authorities are engaged in creating partnerships with their local community in all its forms. We are talking about when things go wrong, when partnerships do not work and when the organisation committee has one dissenting voice. The local authority might agree on something which is then sent to the organisation committee for approval. One dissenting voice on that committee will mean that the matter must go to the adjudicator. The idea that there must be a consensus decision does not hold water. The adjudicator is a single, arm's length, unelected placeman and that person will have the power to make the decision.
The strength of the case being put by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and by Members on these Benches is that the elected people in the group making the decision will be the councillors at local level and the Secretary of State and his Ministers at national level. We say that the people who have been superimposed in between are wholly unaccountable and there is no appeal against their decision. Presumably, if they make a procedural mistake one can take them to court.
The Minister said that the Government wanted the views of all parties. That is good. He also said that they wanted strong partnerships and that has great force. But the views of all parties count for not one fig. If there is a dissenting voice on the organisation committee the matter will go to the adjudicator who has the power to

19
accept or reject the majority view and to modify or overrule the decision. Part of what the noble Lord is saying in response to the amendment is inconsistent and part of it is simply wrong.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may clarify the position. I said that if the amendment were passed the local education authorities would be left to make the final decision. The circumstances on which I touched before the noble Baroness intervened related to unopposed proposals. In that case, the local education authority has the final decision.
The whole purpose of the school organisation committees is to ensure that the partnership which already exists and usually operates well in the area is institutionalised and reaches its own decisions. All partners should engage in negotiation and in a little give and take and reach a decision with which they can live. If in, it is to be hoped, the rare circumstances that that fails to emerge from a school organisation committee, the decision will be referred to the adjudicator. His powers will be discussed at a later stage in the Committee.
The whole intention of establishing school organisation committees is to ensure that there is maximum and institutionalised pressure to ensure that, as far as possible, the partners reach an agreement among themselves and that one partner—if the amendment were followed that would be the LEA—does not have the ability to overrule the others.
Baroness Young: I, too, support the amendment. I take the view that the committee is unnecessary. The proposal raises major constitutional issues about local government. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has ever served in local government. I believe not, but perhaps he will forgive me if I am wrong. We have local education committees and are to establish committees beneath them called school organisation committees. When I was a member of an LEA that is what I thought I was doing. The second committee will incur costs; the cost of meetings, offices, paper and all the work. Those costs will be deducted from money which might go to the schools.
My noble friend Lady Blatch raised an important point. We are told that the committee must reach an unanimous decision. Let us examine a practical example which it will have to face. Let us suppose that the LEA believes that it should close a small school which has only six or twelve pupils. For reasons of costs and so forth, the LEA decides that the school must close. That decision is bound to be very contentious and the idea that it will not is held only by people who have no concept of local government. All the parents will object. The school will probably be in the countryside and everyone living nearby will object. Naturally, someone on the committee will be found to take up the case which will be put very forcefully. There will be petitions; everyone will be visited; and all the members of the committee will be telephoned. Experience in local government shows exactly how it will work.
20
An agreement is supposed to be reached, but that is unlikely in such contentious issues. We are talking about the reality of the situation and not about a theory. There will be endless meetings and huge costs will be incurred. At the end of the day, the matter will go to the adjudicator about whom we know nothing. The appointment is left to regulations. Presumably, he will be appointed by the Secretary of State and will be a placeman or woman in the local authority. In making such decisions, he or she will have to have the wisdom of Solomon and will need to be paid well to do the job. That will add more cost to the local authority and will mean more money taken away from the schools.
I shall be interested to hear from some Members of the Labour Benches who have sat on LEAs whether they believe that in a real situation—not a theoretical situation—the proposal will work. Is it in the best interests of the pupils, which is what we are supposed to be discussing? Is it in the best interests of a local authority? I understand that local authorities will receive no extra money but will be capped. So we know perfectly well at the end of the day it will all come off schools.
It will be the pressure from the local education authority, which will say that school X or school Y, for perfectly explicable reasons—financial and educational—should close. I have heard myself argue that the proposition of a school with 12 pupils and only one teacher, who has to do everything, is all right if the teacher is excellent. However, that is not so if the teacher is not so good. There are all sorts of arguments about this that will have to be faced at local level. We are being asked to agree a clause in a Bill which is based on the assumption that in really contentious cases there will be unanimity.
Let me add one further constitutional point. I entirely support what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said. But Church representatives, whether Church of England or Catholic, are not directly responsible to the electorate, and they will now have a major say in the spending of money on all this. Perhaps we think that that is now right. I am sufficiently old fashioned to think that local government was not quite run like that. Of course they should be part of the committee; of course they should be consulted. But at the end of the day the responsibility for how the money is spent should rest with elected councillors.
It seems to me that this proposition raises many serious constitutional issues. I feel quite sorry for the people who are to sit on this committee. They will have difficult decisions to take. I wonder whether the Government would not like to take all of this back. I do not know what local authorities have had to say about this in consultation. I think it raises serious issues and that it will not be in the best interests of the children within the authority.
Lord Baker of Dorking: This is a good example of where the Government are getting into a huge administrative muddle. The present procedure for the organisation of schools, which usually means the closure of a school, is, as the right reverend Prelate said, very clear. It goes to the Secretary of State; he receives

21
delegations from the local education authority, from the parents involved and, if it is a voluntary aided school, from the Church itself. That is now to be delegated, first, to an organisational committee because there is a variety of schools. Then there will be an adjudicator, a sort of Deus ex machina, who suddenly comes in and makes his own decision. I cannot make out whether the Government are creating a system which will make it easier to close schools or more difficult.
I think the Government are totally confused in this matter. I do not think they have a clear idea as to how this is to operate in practice. Then, on top of that, a hand grenade is lobbed in by Mr. Byers' speech, where there is to be delegation of 100 per cent. of the budgets and the LEAs will have residual responsibility. So the LEAs will have residual responsibility but still be responsible for some sort of planning. And then there are the organisational committees. Who is doing what to whom? It is a very muddled set-up.
The points raised by the Liberal Democrats who moved the amendment and by the right reverend Prelate have not effectively been answered. This aspect of the Bill is muddled. One would hope, even at this late stage, that the Government might take it away and reconsider it, because something approaching chaos will emerge.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may clarify two matters before I come to the point of principle. I fully accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, says, that many of these proposals will inevitably be contentious among the bodies represented on the school organisation committee. We shall on subsequent amendments discuss membership. But the proposals for membership that we have put both on the face of the Bill and in the document lodged in the Library indicate that we would expect the groups that are represented to have one vote each. Therefore, the providers would have one vote each and the schools group would have one vote. The question of unanimity, therefore, appears to be easier, although the problem of contested—
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I did not say one person; I said a dissenting voice. The voice could be the Church, the teachers or any one of the groups on that body—one dissenting voice from the group. There is only one vote per group. As my noble friend Lady Young said, with something like a school closure there is always a dissenting voice. Therefore, it is likely that more decisions will go rather than only rarely, as the noble Lord suggested. The noble Lord, if he was in a local authority, would know that many of these decisions are very difficult for local councillors.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: Of course, many of the decisions are difficult for local councils. But at the moment, if there is a dissenting voice, or the equivalent of what would be a dissenting voice in this context, the matter is referred to the Secretary of State. What this proposal for an organisation committee proposes is that as far as possible the decisions should be reached by discussion in an institutionalised arrangement among the partners of the providers of schools in the area to reach unanimous agreement.
22
Obviously they will not start from a position of unanimity in many cases. The intention is that this committee will provide a structure to ensure that in as many cases as possible unanimity eventually emerges. Where it does not, these issues will be referred to an adjudicator. That adjudicator will be appointed by an open appointment system from people who are experienced in school organisation—as we shall come to at a later stage in this Bill.
The whole point is that at the moment, where there is dissent, where there is a local problem, it is referred to the department and to the Secretary of State. The whole point of these proposals is to ensure that decisions as far as possible are made among the partners at local level. That seems to be an increase in devolution and democracy and not a centralisation or an increase in bureaucracy.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Some of us are not any clearer in our minds than we were when this debate started. As far as I understand it, the education committee is still the responsible organisation, the elected authority in charge of education in its area in the broadest sense of the word. So my question is, who is taking the decisions? If it is not the responsible organisation, why is it not the responsible organisation? And if it is the responsible organisation, why is not the school organisation committee an advisory committee, as my noble friend suggested, rather than not an advisory committee but a decision-taking one? You cannot have two organisations which are separately constituted—one elected and one non-elected—with both of them having power of decision over something. It simply will not work on the ground. It is constitutionally absurd, and I use that word in the correct meaning of the term.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to come back again but there are two questions, one of which the noble Lord has not answered. First, will the resources that will be needed to service the organisation committees, the adjudicators and all the attending costs be a matter for deduction from the funding for local education authorities? Secondly, the noble Lord a moment ago said that the adjudicator would be appointed by a local committee. The Bill says the adjudicator will be appointed by the Secretary of State.
Lord Whitty: On the second point, I think I said that they would be appointed by the Secretary of State through an open process of application. We will both check Hansard tomorrow. Whether or not I said that, I certainly intended to say it, and that is in fact the case.
As far as the funding is concerned, the estimate of any additional funding in this puts the cost relatively low, below £1 million, against which has to be set the current cost of what are, in effect, appeals to the Secretary of State. I stress that that is £1 million in total, but against it has to be set the current costs of appeals to the Secretary of State. The whole point of this process, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, is that clearly the local education authority is the constitutionally responsible body. But its position will

23
be subject to the views of the school organisation committee in the sense that it is already subject to the Secretary of State under the present arrangements. We intend to push that responsibility back to the local level to the school organisation committees.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The noble Lord is now saying that these school organisation committees will be exercising the powers of the Secretary of State. But how can they do so in conflict with local authorities, which are also exercising their powers under statute? It seems to me that the internal inconsistencies of these clauses are not fully apparent to those sitting on the government Benches. We shall really get ourselves into a muddle on the ground in trying to work out who does what under the system. As I understand the decision-taking process, there are no fewer than 10 potential stages in the school organisation plan alone. That already is many more stages in decision taking than most local authorities ever become involved in. It will mean increased bureaucracy, which is very dangerous, time consuming and expensive; but, above all, it means that we are moving into internal inconsistencies in the legislation.
In response to an earlier intervention, the noble Lord said that what he wanted to do was institutionalise existing systems of consultation. Again, that wish could be satisfied if we were to agree, as set out in my noble friend's amendment, that these committees would work "in an advisory capacity". The fact that they appear to be decision-taking committees is causing the difficulty.
Lord Baker of Dorking: It seems to me that the Government must decide under which flag they are actually sailing. A moment ago the Minister said that this is a measure of devolution to the local community. However, a few moments later, he was forced to admit that the adjudicator is to be appointed by the Secretary of State on local advice. All of us who have served in government will know what that means as, indeed, will the noble Lord. In effect, the Secretary of State will largely decide who is to be the adjudicator.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, was chairman of the Surrey County Council, when I was a member, which introduced considerable changes in education, some of which were most controversial and some totally wrong. However, we will not go into that aspect of the matter. None the less, it all went through a democratic process and not to an adjudicator; indeed, I took delegations to my successors as Secretary of State. As far as I can see, that will not happen in the future. The adjudicator has been put forward and I have no idea whether or not he will receive delegations from councillors, local residents and local parents. Quite frankly, I do not believe that the Government have the remotest idea in that respect. This is actually administration on the hoof and the Government should recognise that fact.
Lord Peston: Before I begin, perhaps I may declare an interest, or lack of one, in that I have never been elected to anything in my life. Indeed, I never deigned
24
to place my future in the hands of any electorate and still would not dream of doing so. That is why I so much enjoy being a Member of this Chamber. However, I must admit that it seemed to me that what the Government proposed on this matter made some modicum of sense. As always, my confusion arises from the present debate in this Chamber.
As I see it, the local education authority still remains responsible for organising education in its area. Indeed, there is a section in the Bill which refers to drawing up an organisation plan. I have interpreted it as going in the following way; namely, to follow the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the plan will include the possibility that a school will be closed. Alternatively, it may include a provision stating that such an occurrence might happen in due course.
It seemed to me that the Government's intention was to try to find a way, when controversy arose, to ensure that the matter did not revert all the way back to the centre. That is my reading both of what the Bill says and what my noble friend the Minister said. In other words, they are trying to find a method of saying, "We agree that there is a problem here. We agree that you're rowing about it. We are trying to set up a structure that will still enable you to sort it out at the local level if you possibly can". I understand the role of the school organisation committee to be just that.
In saying that, I speak as someone who is as committed as anyone in this Chamber to local government—just to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said in his earlier intervention. Indeed, I am fully committed to local government. However, I do not see this as being necessarily antipathetic to local government; I see it as a way of trying to say to those concerned, "Can't you at your level possibly sort this out without it going to the Secretary of State?" If one objects to the non-democratic nature of the adjudicator, it seems to me, from my experience of advising Secretaries of State, that one should not believe—but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will tell me that I am wrong—that they have actually looked in detail at such local matters. He or she would certainly have had the equivalent of a non-elected person saying, "This is a load of rubbish. If I were you I would do the following", but the Secretary of State would, of course, carry the can in such cases.
I have no great problem about the adjudicator, if such a process will work in practice; in other words, if we can persuade those concerned at the local level to move towards taking harsh decisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is completely right. My experience as regards taking decisions about closing anything is that there will always be an objector. My favourite example is the case of trying to close a public lavatory, let alone a school or anything of that kind, where it becomes a matter of major constitutional importance. We should not doubt the fact that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is right to point out that rows will occur.
What I am trying to say in support of the Government is that they are trying to introduce a process whereby they are saying to those concerned, "Can't you do it at your level? Can we not set up a structure so that you

25
can do it at your level and get some agreement?" I do not believe that the proposal is quite such a mess as noble Lords have stated. However, having said that, I believe that Members of the Committee are right to express their fears as to whether or not it will work. But how do we know? Indeed, I should very much like to encourage my noble friend the Minister not to back down on this. It is certainly worth a try.
Lord Baker of Dorking: As the noble Lord mentioned me, perhaps I may point out that the actual receipt of suggestions for school closures is one of the matters which keeps Ministers and Secretaries of State for Education busy. In fact, the decision is not perfunctory; indeed, it is not taken lightly. As my noble friend Lady Young said, there is always an objection. One invariably sees delegations. They often nobble Ministers in the Lobby in the other place and demand to be seen. So Ministers see them and that means reading the case, as well as receiving one delegation in favour and one against. It is not perfunctory; it is actually part of our quaint democratic system working in practice.
Baroness Young: When I was an education Minister the happy task of looking at school closures fell to me. I recall quite clearly the numbers of Red Boxes full of submissions on each school. I saw delegations both in favour of the school in question and against it. As my noble friend Lord Baker said, the difference is that, in those cases, you could get the intervention of an MP and the matter could actually be raised in Parliament. After all, Ministers are all responsible to Parliament in some way. It is a new constitutional principle to have an adjudicator appointed with, as far as one can see, unlimited power to make a decision without any kind of an appeal over and above the local authority and, presumably, without there being any opportunity to raise the matter in any other forum, such as Parliament. This really is a matter which is worthy of further consideration.
Lord Peston: I and other Members of the Committee are most sympathetic to what the noble Baroness is saying. However, does she at least agree that it would be better if the people involved at the local level sorted out such matters themselves? That is what the Bill is trying to do. It is trying to suggest to those concerned that they should sort it out without going all the way through the system to whoever the current Ministers may be. I understand the point that is being made, but it seems to me that there is rather less sympathy than there ought to be among noble Lords opposite as regards what the Government are trying to do on this matter.
Lord Rix: Perhaps I may ask a somewhat naïve question. What will actually happen to the SOCs and the adjudicator if the schools opt out? Will they disappear, or will they still be effective bodies?
4 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure whether I am answering for my noble friend when I say that we
26
absolutely agree with the notion that these matters should be handled at local level. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, misunderstood the concept of the school organisation plan. This plan is drawn up by a local authority's elected councillors. Normally there is a great deal of discussion at local committee level and there is consultation with the community. The bones of the plan are then drawn up and eventually something more substantial is submitted to various education sub-committees and then to the full education committee.
Even then the plan is not finalised until it is submitted to the full council. The full council comprises elected people from every corner of the local education authority area. The full council draws up the final organisation plan.
However, it is proposed that the plan will then be submitted to an unelected body; namely, a school organisation committee. That unelected body can oppose the plan. If that occurs, the plan is submitted to an adjudicator who can disagree with the decision of the school organisation committee. The adjudicator can take the majority view; he can reject the majority view; he can accept a minority view; or he can submit a totally different plan.
At the end of the day the decision is not that of the local authority. We agree that these matters should be decided at local level. A school organisation plan comprises details on mergers, closures, the establishment of new schools, the organisation of new places and the demands arising from the demography of a local education authority area. Any decision is taken within the context of the plan, but it is proposed that the decision will be completely removed from a local authority; now a local authority is to comprise nothing more than a part of the process. Elected people will pass the responsibility for taking such decisions to the adjudicator, not even the elected Secretary of State.
I refer to the experiences of my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking as a former Secretary of State for Education and my noble friend Lady Young as an education Minister and my experience as a former Minister at the Department for Education. Decisions reached us after a great deal of deliberation on the part of local authorities. However, that process provided one more opportunity for an elected person to reconsider the decision that had been taken. Sometimes a Secretary of State reversed the decision of a local authority. However, that process enabled people to have their case heard one more time. However, we are talking now about an unelected body of placemen and placewomen and all powerful adjudicators. The adjudicators have the most draconian powers, more than any elected representative in the country, whether at national or local level, with no appeal. We shall discuss amendments later concerning an appeal to the adjudicator. However, this is the most undemocratic proposal. It may be consistent with what we believe is the hidden agenda; namely, the sidelining of local authorities.
Lord Whitty: I think we are all surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has never been elected to any

27
position. That must be due to his modesty in not putting himself forward rather than to any rejection on the part of the electorate. He has articulated more clearly than I, or any of the Government's guidance, the Government's intention; namely, that, as far as possible, these issues should be dealt with at local level. I respect the diligence with which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Blatch, have pursued their duties as Ministers of the Crown. However, those decisions should not be taken at that level; they should be taken at local level. The intention of establishing school organisation committees is that, as far as is possible, such decisions will be taken at local level. The adjudicator is meant to act as a failsafe mechanism.
I believe that almost everyone who has contributed to the debate respects the view that these decisions should be taken at local level, as we propose. However, the amendment would allow the final decision to be taken by a local education authority, against the wishes of other partners in certain circumstances, without the existing appeal to the Secretary of State. That may not be the intention of the amendment but it would be its effect. We should recognise that it is the intention of the Government to return these decisions to local level. The adjudicator is not a draconian major general. He is to act as a failsafe mechanism in a situation where no unanimity can be reached even after lengthy deliberation by the partners involved at local level. This provision is not an anti-democratic device and it is no different from any other circumstance where local authorities are subject to final decision by an adjudicator.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: It is important to clarify one point. The Minister has repeatedly said that the decision should be taken at local level. Is it the intention that every local area should have an adjudicator in waiting, as it were; otherwise, how on earth can he be local? If he is not to cover a wide area, surely it will be most expensive to have an adjudicator in each local area to consider every possible closure that may arise.
Lord Whitty: It is not the intention to have an adjudicator for every LEA, if that is what the noble Baroness is suggesting. We hope that in the case of most local education authority areas, a decision will be reached unanimously by the school organisation committees. Therefore there will be no need for an adjudicator. I hope that Members of the Committee opposite recognise that the intention of this clause is to enable local providers and other interested parties to reach agreement at local level, and that the adjudicator—whose powers we shall discuss later—is to act as a failsafe mechanism. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in particular recognises that the amendment as it stands would give a local education authority the right to overrule all other partners without the existing
28
appeal to the Secretary of State. In the light of that response I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment as it stands.
Lord Tope: Before I respond to the debate, which I have been itching to do, I wish to press the Minister on the question of costs which we have not discussed fully. As I understand it, the Government have estimated the cost to be £1 million. That can be only a rough estimate, because as the Minister said, none of us knows quite what will happen. Depending on one's point of view, that is an optimistic estimate based on the Government's apparent belief that consensus will rule; unanimity will be the norm; and we shall go through only half of the ten-stage process that this Bill envisages. As I understand it, the eventual cost is to be borne by LEAs in full. I hope that the Minister will confirm that. Given the Government's recently announced intention to delegate 100 per cent. of funding to schools, will the cost of this process then be met by the schools? Will they be compelled to opt into this process and to contribute, or will the funds be top-sliced from local authority money? How will it work, or is it yet another matter that the Government have not yet worked out?
Lord Whitty: We shall debate funding at a later stage. As the noble Lord surmises, the intention is that the money would form part of the administrative expenditure of a local education authority and would not be devolved to schools.
Lord Tope: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall now contribute to what has inevitably and rightly been a wide-ranging debate. In introducing the amendment I made little reference to the adjudicator because I realise that is the subject of the following clause. However, it is impossible to discuss the whole concept of a school organisation committee without also considering the role of the adjudicator. Although we have strayed a little wide of my amendment, I think it was right and inevitable that we should do so.
The Minister was absolutely right to say that the effect of the amendment is to leave the final decision with the LEA. However, what alarms me is that the Minister is putting that forward as an objection to the amendment. However, that is the purpose and intention of the amendment. The local education authority is the democratically elected and accountable body which should take local decisions. We appear to have struck an extraordinary unanimity in the Chamber today. We all want to see these decisions taken locally and democratically; and that requires a form of election. The local education authority is responsible for ensuring the provision of education for all children in an area. It is democratically elected and accountable. That is why we tabled the amendment. For the Minister now to put that forward as a reason for opposing the amendment alarms me almost more than anything else I have heard today.
We have had much discussion on consensus and the desire for unanimity. I hope that we all wish to see these matters resolved in a spirit of co-operation and

29
consensus and rejoice when unanimity is arrived at. I do not doubt that, in numerical terms, many of the plans and proposals may be fortunate enough to go that way. Our concern relates to those cases where unanimity and consensus do not rule. I, too, have had some experience, albeit many years ago, of school closures. I have yet to hear of closures on the basis of unanimity among all concerned. Although it may have happened, it is certainly the exception rather than the rule.
Sometimes unanimity will not be achieved, and sometimes consensus, however hard sought, will not be achieved. Exhaustive discussions will sometimes fail in the end, though I hope not often. The question is: what happens then? My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood stole my line. I had intended to offer some help to the Minister in his attempt to explain how this proposal would work. I have been provided with a flow chart explaining exactly how it would work. If it is a matter of consensus and unanimity, we can stop at stage six; if not, we can argue about how long the process is and whether it stops at stage 10, when the adjudicator decides, or stage 11 when the adjudicator's decision is accepted. The process is long, difficult and complex; and it will be expensive. But finally, when consensus does not rule, who makes the decision? The Minister has made much of the fact that decisions are to be taken locally. However, as other noble Lords have pointed out, the final decision is not made locally but by the adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State. We do not know how many adjudicators there will be, but the number will certainly be fewer than one for each LEA. Nor will they be appointed locally, or be accountable locally; nor, under the Bill as presently drafted, will there be any right of appeal in relation to their decision.
I have long believed that the Secretary of State has far too much power and is acquiring more and more. If there is to be a right of appeal, the appeal goes to the Secretary of State. However inadequately and indirectly, the Secretary of State is democratically accountable. Ultimately, the Secretary of State can be questioned in Parliament. The adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State, who will probably have no local connection and certainly no local accountability, cannot be questioned by anybody anywhere. How the Government can say that that is in accordance with local democratic decision-making, I really do not know.
Sometimes from these Benches I hear the Government's explanation of their proposals and think, "Yes, I hadn't thought of that; maybe there is something in it". The more I have heard of these proposals, the more convinced I am, not that this amendment should be passed, but that a later one should be passed to get rid of this proposal altogether.
We have talked about a dissenting voice and the unanimity of a school organisation committee. Each group on a committee has one vote. If I remember the consultation papers correctly, the membership of a group could comprise anything from one to seven people. So a situation could arise whereby a group of one exercises a dissenting vote. Some may say that is democratic; I suggest that it is a veto. A group, whether of one, two or seven, will exercise a veto over proposals that have been exhaustively discussed by the LEA and
30
through LEA processes—which were well described by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—and considered by the SOC and so on; and it could be a group of one. It is less likely; however, it is a possibility under this legislation. That is not right.
In moving the amendment I said that the advisory role has some merit. Many LEAs already have some sort of system, some sort of forum, wherein interested parties, such as those proposed for membership of the SOC, have an opportunity for input and discussion. Indeed, many are members of, and represented on, the elected education committee, which is where these decisions ought to be taken.
I am far from convinced by the Government's arguments. In fact, I have become increasingly convinced that, later, in moving that the clause do not stand part I shall be doing the right thing. I will consider further what needs to be done. In the meantime, I shall not press the amendment to a Division. This has been a useful, if alarming, discussion. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 22, line 24, leave out ("includes") and insert ("shall have a majority of members who are members of the local education authority and shall include").
The noble Baroness said: After that long debate, I am wondering whether there is any point in speaking to these amendments. They represent a fall-back position, an attempt to improve the organisation committees. We are not in agreement with them and do not believe they are the correct democratic way forward.
Amendment No. 98 would guarantee that the local education authority had majority control of the school organisation committee. It underwrites the points made earlier by my noble friend Lord Tope. It underwrites the principle that the LEA should have the final say over the recommendations from a school organisation committee. It should be for the LEA to decide whether the nominees were drawn from a range of political groupings, or whether they should represent the controlling group. The important point is that the LEA would remain in control of a school organisation committee. The proposal backs up our first amendment proposing that the SOC should be an advisory body. Amendment No. 99 is consequential on Amendment No. 98.
The purpose of Amendment No. 104 is, again, to make the best of a very bad job. It adds to the categories of representatives who must sit on a school organisation committee. It insists that the committee has members who are on the receiving end. At present, there is an absence of any requirement to include representatives from the schools involved. That highlights the general drift of this legislation; namely, that schools are to be organised by new, mini—or perhaps not even mini—quangos. We have put forward clear arguments today, supported not only by Members on these Benches but by many other noble Lords, and we shall shortly debate whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. I shall

31
therefore not pursue points now that I shall make in that debate. I beg to move Amendment No. 98, also standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Tope.
Lord Rix: On the assumption that there are to be school organisation committees—which seems in some doubt—I wish to speak to my Amendment No. 100; I spoke to Amendments Nos. 58 and 64 in Committee on 19th May. I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth.
Last time, I was alone and loitering in the Stygian gloom of midnight, when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, added to my taedium vitae by turning aside my amendments to secure a clearer place for special educational needs on the face of the Bill. For noble Lords not present on that occasion, he used these words:
"the education action zone will bring together 10 or 20 schools. That could mean the membership of a forum swelling rapidly—if everyone were included—to 50 plus. That is unlikely to constitute an effective decision-making body".
I very much agree with that. Unfortunately, he continued a little later:
"It is therefore, in our view, not sensible to lay down that all these constituent bodies should always be members of an education action forum".—[Official Report, 19/5/98; col. 1585.]
I found that very difficult to understand. If 20 per cent. of all school populations have special educational needs—which is the accepted average—one can be certain that schools involved in education action zones have a percentage much higher than that of pupils with special educational needs—maybe 30, 40 or even 50 per cent. I would have thought that a guaranteed place could have been found for someone with expertise in special educational needs; but, alas, the witching time of night seemed to cause the noble Lord to turn a deaf ear. I am therefore trying again with school organisation committees and hope that, between the dark and the daylight, the Minister will see the need for a person with SEN experience to be on every school organisation committee. To borrow a phrase:
"You know it makes sense".
Baroness Blatch: I wonder whether it would help the Minister if I speak to my Amendment No. 105 with this grouping. It is separately grouped, but I am happy to deal with it now if it saves the time of the Committee.
Like the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, Amendment No. 105 represents a fall-back position. We would rather not have school organisation committees at all. However, if there are to be such committees, we need to address ourselves to the question of composition. Very little is said in the Bill about the composition. The only three categories of membership mentioned are the LEA, the Anglican Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Beyond that, there is nothing definitive at all. Amendments have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, who is not here at present to speak to them. I believe that grant-maintained schools, if they exist, need to be represented. If, as is likely, the Government have their way and they do not exist, they will all become foundation or voluntary-aided schools. It seems to me important that
32
foundation schools, which will be part of the family of schools, should be represented on that committee. I hope that when we come to Amendment No. 105 it will be accepted.
Lord Swinfen: Like the noble Baroness, I do not understand why Amendments Nos. 101, 105 and 105A have not been grouped with the amendments which we are discussing. Perhaps I may speak for a moment on the groupings list. I looked for one this afternoon before the House sat. Eventually I was able to prise a list of the groupings out of the Government Whips' Office at 2.35 p.m., while the House was at Prayers; there had been none before then. I wonder whether the Government could make certain that groupings lists are available at a reasonable hour. Under the previous administration, groupings were supposed to be available at five minutes past two at the latest, which gives an opportunity to prepare for the debate. I know it is not the responsibility of the Ministers on the Front Bench, but it is a matter on which they should chase their friends. There were no lists in the Printed Paper Office, none in the Prince's Chamber and none in the Peers Lobby. Eventually I obtained one that was still hot off the photocopying machine from the Government Whips' Office while the House was at Prayers. I believe that the Government have let the House down in this respect.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, my name is also to Amendment No. 100. I know that there are different areas of special educational needs and I accept that it may not be possible to have someone with expertise in all those areas on a school organisation committee, but I hope that the Minister can give an undertaking that there will be a member of the committee with special educational needs expertise. If the area of special educational need which has to be discussed is not within the member's narrow field, that member will at least know where to obtain the information. In this information age, it is a matter of knowing where to find the information that one requires rather than having it all at one's fingertips.
Lord Addington: I wish to address primarily Amendment No. 100. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, it would be ludicrous not to have direct advice when special educational needs are being dealt with. There are so many areas of special educational needs. If there is a delay in obtaining the right information, there will be a delay in obtaining the right help. Pupils with special educational needs within schools are in the process of catching up. If they do not receive the help they need quickly, they are ultimately doomed to fail, or at least will take far longer over their education. Unless there is someone who knows where to find the assistance needed, these pupils will be almost guaranteed to be failures, at least within their own age group. Unless there is some way of getting the relevant information, we shall fail in an important area—possibly the major area—which has brought this type of organisation into being.
Lord Whitty: These amendments deal with school organisation committees and their membership. I do not

33
wish to stray too far into the debate we had earlier about the role of those committees. The essence of the committees is clearly one of partnership. We wish the membership of the committees to reflect that partnership. As we said earlier, LEAs will retain key responsibilities. Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 provide for majority membership of the committees. Local education authorities may be the major providers of schools, but they are not the only providers, and there is therefore no reason for putting on the face of the Bill that local education authorities should have a built-in majority on the organisation committees.
All decisions have to be unanimous. There is no suggestion that any of the bodies referred to in these amendments should not be consulted, but we make clear on the face of the Bill that in all cases the diocesan authorities should be involved in the committees and we make clear in the note lodged in the Library that we would expect there to be a schools group, which would vary in its composition, authority by authority, and that for certain purposes there should be representation from the Further Education Funding Council.
As far as the schools group is concerned—and this touches in part on the question of special educational needs and on Amendment No. 105—the note sets out:
"The group should include governors from a primary, a secondary, and a special school (and a middle school where appropriate). It should also cover community, foundation and voluntary schools (other than those maintained by the Church of England or Roman Catholic dioceses). But the way in which it does so should vary according to circumstances, including the size of the authority and the proportions of schools within particular categories. We would normally expect community, foundation, and non-diocesan voluntary schools to be represented in the group in proportion to the number of pupils in the LEA that attend their schools."
That will allow for representation of a range of issues and it will be different as regards each authority.
I turn to Amendment No. 100 and the issue of special educational needs. We recognise the important responsibilities that school organisation committees will have in relation to provision for special educational needs both in mainstream and in special schools. Clearly it is important for school organisation committees to have access to appropriate SEN expertise and we are committed to achieving that.
It might be worth pausing to consider for a moment the range of issues that might arise, including the alteration and closure of special schools; the location of SEN special units in mainstream schools; the availability of appropriate facilities, including physical access; the availability of particular expertise in SEN amongst teaching staff; and the impact on transport of the location of SEN facilities, and any changes to their location.
As noble Lords will appreciate, it will be difficult to secure representation of SEN interests on the school organisation committee that can cover that wide range of issues. That is why we want to look at how best to ensure that SEN issues are taken into account as widely as possible in the consideration by the school organisation committee of school organisation plans and of individual proposals. There are a number of ways in which SEN expertise might be provided to school
34
organisation committees. We are clear that SEN providers should be represented in the membership. But we might also want to explore other ways in which SEN expertise can be made available to the committee. That might include the appointment of experienced and expert practitioners as advisers to the committee in respect of specific proposals.
We are committed to getting right both the membership of the committee and the advice that is available to it. We shall seek specific views, when we consult, on how that might be achieved, particularly for special educational issues.
In relation to foundation schools and Amendment No. 105, the statement on school organisation makes it clear that we shall include foundation schools within the schools group and, where there are foundation schools in LEA areas, they will be represented broadly in proportion to the numbers for which they are responsible. We will consult on the detail of how that may be achieved, but it is a level of detail that is more appropriate to regulations than to the Bill. I note the amendments relating to the FEFC and neighbouring authorities which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. They have not been referred to, but they are grouped with this amendment. However, I shall not comment on those at this stage.
The intention is clear. We want not only the major providers but also a range of interests to be represented by the schools group and elsewhere on the organisation committees. Our intentions are clear in the document that is available in the Library and I hope that my words this afternoon will reassure those who are particularly concerned with special educational needs. We shall take fully into account in regulations and in practice the way in which SEN expertise can be brought, authority by authority to school organisation committees. In the light of those remarks, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will consider his position when we reach that stage.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: Before the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, sits down, perhaps I may follow up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. The whole issue of special educational needs is extremely important.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, if I understood him correctly, listed at least six specific difficulties with regard to special schools or parts of mainstream schools which have units for special educational needs. It is true that specific difficulties can arise. However, if one chose to, one could make out specific difficulties for mainstream schools; for instance, those that may specialise in languages. Are those to be considered also?
I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, feels about the response of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. However, it is not satisfactory to leave it as it stands. The committee must have a unanimity of view. If there is a question of closure of a special school when there is no representative on the committee and it has, at best, an adviser, difficulties may arise. This is something which needs to be looked at. The noble Lord,

35
Lord Whitty, may not be able to give an answer today—I shall understand if he cannot—but it would be helpful if he will undertake to bring back an answer to this important point before we leave the Committee stage of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. He can then pick up on all our points and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, wants to respond to his amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to the background paper on the organisation committees that is in the Library. I understood him to say that foundation and community schools would be represented. However, in paragraph 8 of that document the only groups to which the Government refer are those appointed by the LEA elected members, the Church of England diocese, the Roman Catholic diocese, the members of the FEFC nominated by them, reflecting the council's statutory responsibilities, and schools drawn from serving school governors.
There are two omissions relating to the amendment which are inconsistent with the answer the noble Lord gave to Amendment No. 105. First, can we have an assurance that foundation schools, as a category, will be represented on the committee? Secondly, there is no mention anywhere of teachers or head teachers. It is inconceivable that an organisational committee should have only governors, members of the Church and members of the LEA but with no guaranteed member for special needs, no teachers and no mention of foundation schools as a category of school within the local area.
Lord Rix: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for her intervention, which said extremely well what I wanted to say.
I have a further question for the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. It arises from what arose in another place. A note on school organisation was circulated to members of the Standing Committee on the School Standards and Framework Bill in another place. From its discussion of that, the Government anticipate that the governors from primary, secondary and special schools will be represented on school organisation committees. That will be extremely welcome. It goes some way to meeting our concerns. However, we need a commitment on the record of the Government's intention regarding the issue of membership. I should like to consider what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said so far and come back to this matter at Report.
If special educational needs issues are to be represented on school organisation committees by the governor of a special school, clearly such membership needs to be balanced by having the membership of someone with an understanding of special educational needs in mainstream schools. It becomes a vicious circle.
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may respond before the noble Baroness replies to the debate. In relation to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about
36
special schools in a local education authority area, where there is a special school within the area it would be a member of the schools' group. The paragraph to which I referred was not paragraph 8, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred; it was the expansion of paragraph 8 which goes into paragraph 10. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to that.
We indicated that the schools' group would include governors from a primary, secondary and special school where there was one within the education area. We should expect schools to be represented in proportion to the number of pupils that attend them. In relation to special schools, there would be representation. The more complicated area is that to which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred; that is, representation on behalf of special educational needs within mainstream schools where we are looking at different ways of achieving that. It may be through membership of the schools' group or it may be through an adviser. We are prepared to seek further views in relation to that and I hope that that clarifies the position in relation to special educational needs.
I apologise to the noble Baroness for not covering the point relating to head teachers. We have considered the issue and feel that schools are best represented through their governors—the governors being the corporate authority within those schools. In certain circumstances head teachers can be governors. We would certainly not rule out a head teacher as a governor serving as a member of a school's group. In any case, we have no doubt that governors would wish to seek the views of head teachers on school organisation, plans and proposals. We might also seek views as to whether we should consult on the committee welcoming head teacher assessors offering a professional view from the frontline.
As regards the committee itself, we believe that schools are best represented only by governors and not by head teachers working with those governors. That is the position we have taken and it is a clear one. That does not mean that we are excluding the expertise of head teachers. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is looking worried about that. The authoritative position within the schools is represented by the governors. They are the appropriate people to be represented on the school organisation committee. In the light of that answer I hope that for this stage at least the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has already indicated that he might come back to this matter at a later stage in the light of what I have said.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I did not hear the discussion on the first amendment so I did not join in. However, my hair was standing on end in the light of what the noble Lord said on a couple of occasions. I believe that the Government are courting disaster. Members of the Committee should realise that for anyone who has been a councillor and engaged in the business of organising schools, and particularly as regards closures, there are technical aspects which only

37
head teachers understand and they simply cannot be dealt with by governors. It is completely unrealistic to expect that.
It is not a question of being difficult or awkward or trying to undermine the Government in their strengthening of the position of governors: I am all in favour of that. The governors will not like the arrangement. The head teachers will be quite often put in a very difficult position because their point of view will not be understood. Usually, head teachers and governors do not disagree, but there is a different input and one needs both of them simultaneously when decisions are made. The Government should look at these issues and not simply brush them aside out of some macho desire to push through their policies. The Government have the very wise and experienced view of those who have done these things for years. There is a book called How to Close Your School. Everyone is buying it, but because of the Bill it will have to be re-written. It is not very easy to close a school. The adjudicator is just going to make trouble. The Government should look again at the question of head teachers.
Lord Belstead: In terms of the number of members, how large do the Government envisage the typical school organisation committee to be?
Lord Whitty: I am not sure that there is a typical answer. Local education authorities vary dramatically in size and in the number of schools that they cover. Therefore, there is not a typical pattern. As regards the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I am not saying that there should be no head teacher input into the process. Clearly there will be both with the LEA and the school organisation committee. As regards particular schools, there will be the adjudicator as well. Therefore, that expertise will be available and that channel will be open to head teachers and not simply through the governors.
As regards the decision-making body, it is appropriate that the school should be represented by the governors and not by an employee of the school or of the education authority.
Lord Belstead: I admire the way in which the noble Lord has been handling the questions, but he cannot quite get away with the answer that he gave me just now. What do the Government envisage would be the smallest type of school organisation committee and what do they believe could be the largest?
Lord Whitty: Theoretically, I suppose that the smallest could be one representative for each of the groups indicated. That is extremely unlikely but, theoretically, in a very small local education authority that could be the case. We would be talking about five or six people. But in an authority such as Birmingham I would hesitate to say what the size of the school organisation committee would be. Even with the largest authorities we would wish to keep them to a manageable size for taking sensible decisions.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I do not wish to prolong this matter, but does the Minister really mean
38
that in the smallest education authority each of the four groups would have one representative, each with the right to veto, and that there would be no headmaster representation? Does the Minister envisage that happening? My noble friend asked the question and the Minister replied that in a small education authority he could imagine one member for each of the four representative bodies. Surely the Minister would like to correct that?
Lord Peston: I thought my noble friend was making the logical point that on the face of the Bill only three groups are mentioned whereas the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, mentioned four, so I have missed the fourth one.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: There is also higher education.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: Logically, therefore, four is the minimum. I believe that is what my noble friend was saying. He then said that the number would be appropriate to the circumstances, or some such gobbledegook that the civil servants will write for him any minute.
What interests me is the initial position from which the Bill started; namely, the notion that the partners and providers would be getting together to do the job. That seemed to be the philosophy on which the clauses are based. I find the next phase very difficult. My noble friend seems to have accepted that beyond the partners and providers there is a concession, which slightly surprised me, that interest groups and experts come in as well. My original interpretation of the Bill was that they were not included. I thought the whole point was that the Bill would cause the heads of the local partners and providers to be knocked together and that they would have to make up their minds.
The moment my noble friend goes down the path of saying that headmasters should be included and why not this and that, he ends up not only with a large committee, but with one which is different from that which the Government had in mind in the first place. We have a classic case here where the interest groups declare their interests and try to influence the committee. It is by no means obvious to me that there should be interest groups on the committee. Normally, as regards anything which the noble Lord, Lord Rix, et al. say about special educational needs, I say yes to it, but in this case it is not obvious to me that they should be included in running the committee.
This matter goes back to an earlier debate. It depends on how we assume the committee will be run. I understood that the purpose was to concentrate our minds on practical cases. I am indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for mentioning that. What really matters is whether this or that practical case can be sorted out. In considering the needs of special education, if a school is closed, one has to be aware that a tough decision is being taken and that perhaps certain children with such needs will have to go further. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is quite right in that if unanimity is the

39
procedural method then everyone has a veto. Therefore, if a veto is exercised one has to be aware that power is placed in the hands of the adjudicator. All these are practical matters which will emerge. My view is that the committee ought to operate so that it works bearing those matters in mind.
I do not accept at all the view put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the adjudicator has absolute power. He or she will have to operate according to all the rules of due process, reasonableness and all the other things. No adjudicator in any law that we have ever passed in your Lordships' House is in a position to say, "I decide it: it is decided". The matter could certainly be queried if it were portrayed as a frivolous decision. I am less worried about the absolute power of the adjudicator than the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. That does not mean that I am not worried because I am always worried, but that is another matter.
I see why my noble friend Lord Whitty is trying to respond to the interest groups, but it is not obvious to me that the Government should say that the heads of interest groups should be involved. For that matter, why not include professors of economics who know all about finance, choice and decision making? Why are they not represented as an interest group? The answer is that interest groups are endless. We should stick to the philosophy of partners and providers at the centre of the scheme who should really try to come to a conclusion and not exercise what used to be the easy way out of saying that it is a hard decision and the Secretary of State should decide. That is my attempt to be helpful.
Lord Rix: Perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Peston. I am amazed that he dismisses special educational needs as a "special interest group" in a rather derisory tone, making those with special educational needs sound as though they comprise only a small body of people with most obscure objectives in view. Those with special educational needs account for one-fifth of the school population, so the noble Lord cannot possibly call them a "special interest group" and dismiss them as such. I was startled to hear the noble Lord use that term in what I believe to be a derogatory way and I must protest on behalf of children with special educational needs and on behalf of those authorities and schools which deal with their problems. They are, indeed, a special interest group of enormous special interest for government, education authorities, and local authorities. I would be most unhappy to leave the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, hanging in the air without some opposition.
Lord Peston>: It was certainly not my intention to take that view; quite the contrary. However, the fact is that those with special educational needs are a special group. That is why we use that word. They comprise a "special" group which many of us wish to see treated specially. The real point here is whether on the school organisation committee, or any other body, we should automatically say that they must be represented on every occasion. That is not my view, taking on board the obvious point that those elected to serve on a local
40
education authority do not take special educational needs into account. It seems that one is always hearing that the world consists of two groups of people: those who speak up for those with special educational needs and the rest of us, as if the rest of us do not do that. However, many of us have personal experience of such matters and we do speak up, but we do not always take the view that it is necessary to have someone on the committee who can say, "I am the representative who can speak up for special educational needs".
I do not seek to denigrate those with special educational needs; quite the contrary. I have spent a great many years fighting for their interests, and I continue to do so. However, it is not obvious to me that we should approach the school organisation committee in that way. I am not saying that that is obviously wrong; I am saying that it is by no means obviously right. I certainly would not want anybody to believe that I speak of special educational needs in a derisory manner or regard them as unimportant. I do not, as my record proves. However, I do not believe that every decision should be taken on the basis of its impact on special educational needs.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because I understand his point entirely. It seems to me that the school organisation committees are composed of those who are providers. However important special educational needs are, it is not clear to me that that group comprises a "provider" of education. Once one starts to go down that road, one must take other groups into account. One could argue that the special educational needs group is among the most significant groups—or, indeed, that it is the most significant group—but, logically, it is not involved because it is not a provider of education. Those who are members of the committees are there simply because they are education providers. That is what I understand to be the logic of the provision. Once one passes beyond that logic, I am no longer sure what the committees are about. However, if you hold to the logic that you are requiring providers to reach agreement on any plans, it seems to me that there is a proper justification for such committees
Baroness Blatch: I am startled equally by the contributions of the right reverend Prelate and of the noble Lord, Lord Peston. We are talking about "providers". In fact, the providers of education are the teachers in the classroom. Governors are not providers of education; they are managers of their schools. They comprise a school's governing body. Those who provide education are those who do the teaching.
Under the Government's proposals, school organisation committees are representative groups. The Government are not setting up panels of independent people who will collectively take into account all the different interests. The committees will include groups from the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, further education and school governors. The Government have left teachers outside those representative bodies, which are not collective panels simply taking on board collective interests. It seems

41
extraordinary that headteachers will not be represented on school organisation committees although they are major providers of education in their areas. This discussion has become even more extraordinary.
In answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Belstead, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he found it difficult to give us some idea of the composition of a small or large authority. Perhaps I may put the question in a different way which the noble Lord will be able to answer. How many groups? The number of members of each group may change depending on whether the authority is small or large, and reflecting the number of children, the number of schools and the size of the area. However, the number of representative groups will not change—unless, of course, there is no church school (Anglican or Roman Catholic) in an LEA in which case the school organisation committee will not include a member from the church group. It should be possible to say how many groups will be represented on each committee. That would give us some idea of the numbers involved, depending on the area.
Perhaps I may return to the point about teachers, which is the import of my amendment, Amendment No. 105. As I understand it, the FEFC will be a group in its own right on the organisation committee. Almost inevitably, members of that group will comprise lecturers from the further education world. Lecturers serve on its council and boards, so lecturers are likely to form this group. We would understand the position if the Government stipulated that governors of further education colleges are to be involved. However, if they do not, those serving are likely to be lecturers. Are we to have the spectacle of an organisation committee comprising lecturers from further education colleges but not including headteachers or teachers from local schools? If that is the case, it seems rather strange.
Technically, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was right about my reference to the adjudicator having absolute power. Ultimately, the power is not absolute because there is the judicial inquiry system. However, it seems extraordinary that a school or parents would have to go to the extent of invoking a judicial inquiry. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that a judicial inquiry will not make judgments about the quality of the decision taken or about the actual decision taken. A judicial inquiry will consider the procedure by which the adjudicator arrived at his decision—in other words, whether the adjudicator was wilful or vexatious in disregarding certain aspects of the case by, say, not properly listening to the case or by not following properly the procedural path laid out, probably in statute by regulations. However, if the adjudicator makes a decision which local parents believe is deeply unfair and in their view wrong, they have absolutely nowhere to go, so in that sense the power is absolute.
Lord Peston: I agree very much with what the noble Baroness has just said. I suppose that the difference between us is that I hope that recourse to the adjudicator will be rare. I would have to accept, as in the end would the Government, that if more or less every decision went
42
to the adjudicator, the system would have failed. The whole point of the system is that decisions should not be referred to the adjudicator.
I support the Bill as it stands and what the Government are trying to do precisely because I strongly believe that one should try to sort out such matters locally. That was my initial point. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—this follows on from the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—that if, on every single decision, one or other of the partners says, "I am going to the adjudicator", we would all have to accept that, although this was a good idea and a good experiment, it had failed. We would all have to accept that, including the Government.
The difference between us is that I think that for the most part the partners and providers at the local level will be capable of taking such decisions, including those of a very sensitive nature such as those relating to special educational needs. It is really a question of whether we are willing to see whether this will work or whether we are so certain a priori at this stage that it will fail. That is the difference between us. I fully accept the bona fides of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on such matters, but I believe that this is well worth doing as a step forward. The noble Baroness is, however, quite right that if every decision is referred to the adjudicator, the system will have failed. We shall have to wait and see. Some of us may not be around by then, but someone will certainly see.
5 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I rise to try to end this part of the proceedings, bearing in mind that we still have to debate whether this clause stand part of the Bill. We have ranged very wide in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said this afternoon that he had never been elected to a local authority. Given the deftness with which he got to his feet when a note was passed to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, anyone in local government would have been delighted to have had the noble Lord on his benches. What is more, the noble Lord managed to speak for a considerable period which gave me even more time in which to deal with the amendment.
Lord Peston: My point was not that I had not been elected, but that it would never have occurred to me to stand. I did not throw a six to start, if I may use that particular analogy.
Baroness Maddock: I did not realise that. However, the noble Lord would probably have made a very good job of it.
I should like to touch on one or two points raised by the Minister in replying to the amendment. The debate about the composition of the committees demonstrates the muddle and the problem that the Government face with these proposals. We have spent a long time discussing what should be fairly simple amendments. A good number of interesting and useful contributions have been made by members of the Committee this afternoon. Some phrases have been used that frighten some more than others. For example, the Minister said that the Government's intentions were quite clear. It is

43
precisely that which worries noble Lords sitting on these Benches. The intention is to set up a quango that is not democratically accountable. The Minister threw in the remark that of course the Government would take account of what head teachers said. Therefore, the local education authority which is the locally elected and democratically accountable body must defer to a quango but of course head teachers will be involved as well. The Government must have clearer thinking than that on something as important as this.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness rose to her feet more quickly than I did. To respond to my noble friend Lord Peston, we do not suggest that head teachers or other experts should be members of the committee but that their expertise should be available to the committee. I hope that is clear to all Members of the Committee.
Baroness Maddock: That was my understanding. The Government's Benches were very confused about how the decision would be made. All noble Lords agree that partnership in educational matters, or any other matter in the community, is vitally important. We agree that a partnership of interested bodies should be consulted on such controversial issues as school closures and other matters to do with organising schools in particular areas. One of the reasons why we on these Benches were not in favour of grant-maintained schools was precisely that we wanted a true partnership that would enable proper strategic decisions to be made.
The Government propose that the partnership should be at a higher level than the democratically accountable body: the local education authority. That is precisely why we have moved amendments to improve what we consider to be an extremely bad set-up; namely school organisation committees.
This matter will run and run. We shall come back to it at a later stage. The Committee will in a moment consider whether this clause should stand part of the Bill. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 101:
Page 22, line 31, at end insert ("; and
( ) a person nominated by the Free Church Council for an area any part of which is comprised in the authority's area.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I do not move Amendment No. 101. It may be of assistance to the Committee to know that I do not intend to move Amendment No. 105A.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 102 to 105A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Tope: The Committee has spent about two hours demonstrating very effectively why this clause should not stand part of the Bill. The more I hear from the
44
Government the more alarmed I become about these proposals and the clearer it becomes how unclear the Government are as to how they will work. I shall not take up more valuable time by repeating all that has already been said. Perhaps I may briefly summarise what I said when moving my first amendment in explaining why we are so much opposed to statutory school organisation committees. They are cumbersome and bureaucratic and will prove far more costly than the Government believe. That is an unnecessary cost that brings no added value.
The following flow chart demonstrates just how cumbersome and bureaucratic is the proposal. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said earlier, it begins with the LEA preparing a school organisation plan. As a proper part of that process the LEA will consult widely. It will consult all of the governing bodies and undoubtedly hold public meetings, probably attended primarily by parents. In addition, there will be formal and informal discussions. The authority will produce a draft plan. That will go to the education committee which meets in public. There it will be discussed not only by the elected representatives but by those who are co-opted on to the education committee: teachers, the churches and so on.
Eventually, the LEA and local authority will adopt a school organisation plan. That plan will be sent to the school organisation committee. If consensus rules and unanimity applies—I hope that in most cases it will, because I am a consensus politician (which is an approach that has come back into favour)—it will proceed on that basis. I hope that where there are concerns, even disagreements, there can be reconciliation and agreement. But if consensus rules and unanimity can be achieved it does not matter too much what structure one has. One needs a structure to deal with situations where unanimity is not achievable. It is that which concerns us here.
Therefore, the plan goes to the school organisation committee with its many perceived shortcomings in terms of its membership and rather unclear role. That committee will consider the plan. All the partners represented on the school organisation committee—I must not call them interest groups—must reach unanimity. If just one group dissents that is in effect a veto on the plan. If it is agreed unanimously that is fine and there is no problem, but where a group dissents—that is likely to occur in the more controversial cases, which we are concerned about today—the matter goes to the adjudicator.
Thus far, we have reached stage six in the 10 or 11-stage process. The role of the adjudicator is to be discussed next. That is an integral part of the process. However, this afternoon we must consider this matter in two separate parts. For the Minister to say that this is part of taking decision-making down to local level is a nonsense. The adjudicator is appointed by the Secretary of State and is not locally accountable; and he is not even subject to appeal, although the Committee shall debate that matter later on.
Coming as I do from a local authority background, inevitably I draw an analogy with the planning inspector. A planning applicant has the right to appeal to the Secretary of State against a planning decision. Normally, the Secretary of State will appoint an inspector to hear that appeal. But the analogy is not as close as I first thought it

45
was. In that case the inspector is acting in the name of the Secretary of State. The inspector is acting and judging in accordance with planning guidance issued by the Secretary of State, and ultimately the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament. However inadequate that may be, none of that applies to the adjudicator.
I do not understand the argument that this proposal is democratic or seeks to move decision-making down to local level. It is the decisions where there is dissent that matter. If there is consensus and unanimity no one will worry; everyone agrees. But the important decision must be taken where consensus cannot be achieved. What is important is how and where those decisions are taken. The Government's proposals are not that decisions should be taken locally by a democratically elected LEA or even by a local school organisation committee, however inadequate we believe that to be, but that they should be taken by an adjudicator appointed by the Secretary of State.
As I said earlier this afternoon, my principal concern over this is that it further weakens democratic accountability and the role of the LEA. A point on accountability that has not been mentioned this afternoon is the chart which the Audit Commission produced during the time of the previous government about the confused accountability of decision-making in schools now. I cannot remember it precisely, but it was a simple circular chart: the school, the teacher or the head blames the governors; the governors blame the LEA; the LEA blames the Government; the Government blame the LEA; and the LEA says that it is down to the governors. It goes around in a circle. All of that can be right. If we already have confused accountability, that accountability will be even more confused under the proposed system.
We have all these stages to go through. They will all require the production of more paper. They would all require, I hope, good professional advice. I fear that before too long we might be into the use of lawyers as well when we go to the adjudicator. The Government's estimate that the whole process nationwide will cost only £1 million is as optimistic as believing that unanimity in this process will reign. For all those reasons, and all the reasons that have been so well enunciated during the debates this afternoon, I oppose the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: It is rare that I find myself speaking in opposition to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, or to his colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches. It is an even rarer occasion when I find myself speaking on the opposite side to the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I believe that there is some misunderstanding about the intention of the school organisation committees. There was a little exchange a moment ago between myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in which she talked about heads as being providers of education. We are using words in different ways here. By "providers of education", I am referring to providers of schools; that is, those who provide the money which enables schools to operate. Others might be described as deliverers of education—teachers, head teachers, and so on.
46
School organisation committees are a way of enabling those who are providers of education to meet to reach agreed decisions. There has been a great deal of talk this afternoon about quangos and unelected bodies. I think that there are four bodies concerned here: the LEA; the Diocesan Board of Education; those appointed by Roman Catholic bishops; and the FEFC. Diocesan boards of education are not quangos. They are elected bodies. They are elected by a system different from that which will elect an LEA. Each of those bodies is accountable for the way in which it uses the funds to provide schools for education.
The point of the school organisation committee is to enable those providers to meet to reach an agreed decision where there is any possibility of any disagreement. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peston: I do not see that happening too often with those bodies. They will not be open to all and sundry to be influenced by this or that consideration. They are accountable, as I have said, to their particular constituencies which provide the money for education.
A great deal of this afternoon's talk has been a little wide of the mark. I have been confused by it. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, has it right: we have here those who are responsible for providing finances; and we have a structure enabling them to meet to reach decisions in cases where there might be some disagreement. As each of those providers is significant, a unanimous vote is required. If one of them votes against a scheme, that will be regarded as a veto. I have no difficulty with that. Some of the difficulties have been due merely to a misunderstanding of the nature of this committee.
I think that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talk about schools groups. By that I took him to mean groups of people with educational interests which would be advisors to the school organisation committee. That is entirely right. At the end of the day, those decisions lie with those bodies, all of which are accountable, many of which are elected, although not necessarily by the same process. It is a perfectly proper structure.
Baroness Blatch: When we have long debates in this place, at the end we have often cleared up what we understand by the words on the page. The longer this debate has gone on, the more confused I have become. I do not normally take issue with the right reverend Prelate, but I am sorry to say that I take issue with his interpretation of the Bill.
If we say the organisation committee is a group of people who are providers, and that providers are people who provide money, then the FEFC does not provide money for schools. Governors do not provide money or education for schools. So immediately the interpretation that the right reverend Prelate puts on this organisation committee, and his understanding of it, is wrong. They are not providers. The only groups on that body which could genuinely be told to put up money would be the Churches which provide 15 per cent. of the funding for schools and the LEAs which provide for schools.
The people who provide the money for schools come from the local community. The LEA has no money unless it comes from taxpayers at large, nationally, or the local

47
community locally. That is the money that it has to spend. These committees do not have the very teachers for which they pay represented on them. There is nothing in the Bill about the groups which will advise the committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said that the committees will be advised by specialists and special needs people, but there is nothing in the Bill about that. There is no requirement that they should be advised by these interest groups. There is no naming of these interest groups. Head teachers will have no part of this. The people who, in my book, provide education, are those who stand in the classroom and teach the children. I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Tope, at whatever stage of the proceedings he decides to put this issue to the vote. I should prefer to walk through the Lobby on this Motion rather than on the other amendments. This clause has no part in the Bill and in a democratic country.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I do not want to reiterate what we said earlier. The deletion of the clause would remove a substantial part of the Government's strategy to achieve devolution, decision-making, and a new and clear partnership between LEAs and other providers.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for spelling out what, in these terms, providers of education are. They are the bodies that we have designated as members of the school organisation committees. The expertise to which the noble Baroness referred will be available to all of those providers and to the committee itself. We do not normally spell out in any education Bill precisely what expertise would be available. But the central role of the committee is clear.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that we need to be clear about how and where decisions are made. The how of these decisions is that they are made in partnership by consensus by the providers of education in the technical sense. The where is that they are made at the most local level available. Occasionally that will break down. It frequently breaks down at the moment. Appeals will have landed up on the desk of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and other Secretaries of State.
This is an attempt to push down the decision to the providers of education at the local level; to sit them down together in a new institution. It is for the LEA and the other providers to reach, as far as possible, through the stages to which the noble Lord referred, a unanimous position on what is best for the provision of education in their area, taking account of all the interests within that area. It is local; it is devolved; it is by consensus; and it is in partnership.
If the noble Lord wishes to persist with this opposition and delete the clause, we shall be deleting a substantial part of the Government's strategy to achieve those aims. I do not believe that that is what the Liberal Democrat Party wishes to do. It wishes to seek partnership, devolution of decisions and consensus among the public sector and other providers within the education system. Consultation on these proposals has revealed widespread
48
support for devolving decisions. There is widespread support for the involvement of all the providers in a single decision-making process.
Baroness Blatch: Will the Minister tell the Committee what the Local Government Association thinks of the proposals?
Lord Whitty: The Local Government Association has expressed some concerns similar to those of the noble Lord, Lord Tope. There are differing views within local government and the teaching profession, and among those who advise the teaching profession. However, the key position of the Local Government Association and others involved in local education is that they wish to see decisions devolved.
Deletion of the clause would remove the element of partnership. It would reinstate the position that any disputed decision is referred back up to national level. That is not what the Local Government Association wants. It is not what I believe the education system of this country needs. We are instituting formal partnerships which in many cases build on good informal partnerships and consultation. We are building on a system which will require decisions to be made as far as possible at local level.
Clearly any such system will require a fail-safe device. That issue will be debated on a subsequent clause. The key issue on this clause, and the whole strategy of school organisation in the Bill, is that decisions will be devolved. The pressure will be on the providers of education to reach consensus on those decisions, and for the number of appeals above and beyond the local level to be as limited as possible, as my noble friend Lord Peston, indicated. At present there is no pressure to reach agreement. There is only pressure for decisions to be raised with the Secretary of State, often on a political basis.
The proposal is a sensible move. It will require some detailed regulations. It will require further consultation on precisely how it is carried out. But I urge the Committee to reject any move which deletes the clause and thereby deletes the concept of partnership and devolution of decisions on school organisation.
Baroness Byford: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps he will clarify this point for me. At present decisions are made at local level. Although I am a newcomer to this Chamber, and a comparative newcomer to the education field, I understand that at present unless a dispute at local level is sorted out locally the matter comes to the Secretary of State. The Bill proposes another level of bureaucracy over and above that in existence. The issue will not pass to someone who is democratically elected, the Secretary of State, but to an adjudicator. Are my assumptions correct?
Lord Whitty: In practice they are not exactly correct. At present the LEA makes its proposals. Then any interested group, other provider, or substantial element of the community can object, and those objections can be referred to the Secretary of State. In other words,

49
there is no pressure to reach agreement at local level. This proposal institutionalises a pressure to reach agreement at local level. Our assumption is that eventually the number of references beyond that local level will be limited.
Baroness Maddock: I hear with interest what the Minister says. I understand that the majority of local authorities do not simply make decisions about closures of schools. There is considerable consultation. I have been involved in it. It does not matter which side one is on, it is painful. However, at the end of the day if one does not like the decision one can vote out the people who made that decision. That is the point we have been trying to bring home to the Government Benches all afternoon.
Lord Whitty: Clearly local education authorities involve themselves in substantial consultation. As the noble Baroness says, it is often lengthy and painful. That will remain the case. The local education authority and school organisation committee will continue to consult widely. The difference from the pre-existing situation is that the existence of the school organisation committee and the involvement in a structured partnership of all the providers will put the emphasis on reaching agreement at that level, not on appealing to the Secretary of State to take a decision over and above the local education authority and local views.
Baroness Young: What the Minister says is an absolute travesty of what happens in local government today. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lady Blatch, are important. It is an unbelievably muddled clause. We have not had a single straight answer to any of the questions raised. Instead we are given a string of New Labour words which are a substitute for thought—partnership, consultation, co-operation, or getting on well together.
Let us consider a future local authority in which there is a Conservative majority—there are plenty of them, and more will come, mark my words!—and the Labour people are in the minority. The Government Minister will say, "Of course you must all co-operate together and reach an agreement". That will be the day, unless the Labour Government at that stage have changed their minds on yet more issues and agree with everything that the Conservatives say. That of course is quite a possibility.
In the real world of this Bill, we have constitution-making on the hoof. We do not know the cost, the size of the committees, who will sit on those committees or the role of the advisers. We know nothing except that it is another layer of bureaucracy, and another cost which will come off the budgets of the schools. That is one of the matters that has emerged from the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is right to say that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. The Government should think the whole thing through properly and come back with another proposal at a later stage of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may add one small point to those made by my noble friend, with whom I agree. The
50
noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is wrong. The organisation committee does not take on a decision when the local authority cannot reach a decision. As those of us who have served on local authorities know, local authorities come to a view at the end of a long process of consultation, meetings with people eyeball to eyeball, and discussions with a church authority, parents, teachers and head teachers.
The organisation committee, which is comprised of unelected placemen and women, second guesses that decision. If the committee agrees, that is the end of it. The local authority—the elected members—may have come to a view; the organisation committee which is unaccountable to the people affected by the decision may be unanimous and take a different view from the local authority; or one group on that body could disagree and go to the adjudicator.
When we discuss amendments as regards the adjudicator, I hope that the Minister will not do us the discourtesy of talking of local levels. If I were an adjudicator covering just two counties in my part of the country, I could not claim sufficient special knowledge of schools in Suffolk or Norfolk to be able to make judgments about whether they should open, close, merge, be enlarged, or be made smaller. That would not be a local decision. If there were a Norfolk adjudicator on a Cambridgeshire school committee, we would be closer geographically to the Secretary of State in London than to someone in Norwich. The noble Lord cannot use that argument as regards the amendments relating to the adjudicator.
This clause should not stand part of the Bill. It may well be part of government policy, but it has not been thought through.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: It has been made clear that the membership of this committee consists of those people who make a financial contribution to the provision of education in the area. I believe that I am right in saying that those people already sit on the education committee. They do in the county where I was a member of the education committee for several years.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, the local education authority comes to a decision. That decision has involved the people who assist the LEA with the provision of education. That decision is then submitted to a second judgment. The same people sit in judgment upon the decision which has already been made with their co-operation. On the one hand one might ask why we have this clause because the Government's objective is already satisfied by the present construction of administration through the education committees. On the other hand, it may be that one of the parties is not entirely in accord with the decision that went through the normal processes.
In this context let us not talk about school closures, but let us talk about something less controversial: for example, the school plan. If a party is less satisfied than others, or not satisfied but accepts that there is a majority in favour of what they do not like, then the situation is that there is a veto on that decision which has been taken by the majority in the education committee. That introduces something which, to my way of thinking, is most unsatisfactory.

51
The second unsatisfactory point is that at present, even when the decision has been taken by the local representatives and the local providers of education the people to whom the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, who is not present, was referring,—namely, the parents,—still have a say. However, as I understand it, under this system they do not. The adjudicator is adjudicating between a committee which is composed of the LEA and the providers but the two are in different groups. That is a recipe for muddle, disaster and the exclusion of very important interests in the community who, up until now, have been able to challenge the education authority's decision. I include among those interests the ones represented by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other people in this Chamber. That is a rotten substitute for what is now a reasonably well organised system.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I shall reply briefly. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, accuses me of using new Labour phraseology. I am not often accused of that, so if the noble Baroness could put it in writing it could do me some good.
It seems to me that neither the noble Baroness nor the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has understood the concept of partnership between the providers. We keep talking about vetoes and we keep talking about the school organisation committee overriding the local education authority. We are talking about a new system of partnership, a new atmosphere which will prevail at local level so that we can at least have a good chance of reaching consensus.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, seems to think that there will always be somebody among the providers, who are clearly fairly determined, who will try to overturn what has otherwise been a rational decision, taken after consultation with all the parties concerned. That will not normally be the case.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I said clearly that either there will be agreement, in which case the committee is superfluous, or that if there is disagreement then the disagreement can overturn the previously made decision. I thought I had made myself perfectly clear on that point.
Lord Whitty: The disagreement will not overturn a previous position where all the providers have been equal parties. Certainly all the providers may have been consulted and may be represented on the local education committee, but they will not have been treated as equal partners in that decision. We are concerned with partnership, with consensus and with devolving decisions. That is what this clause is about. That is what would be removed from the Bill by the deletion of this clause. I would, therefore, ask the House to reject the noble Lord's Motion to delete this clause unless he is prepared to withdraw it at this point.
Lord Tope: It is clear that consensus and unanimity has not broken out in the Chamber this afternoon. The
52
Minister suggests that to oppose this clause is to oppose partnership and the devolution of power. That is absolute nonsense.
I object also to the suggestion that the concept of partnership is something either new or, even worse, new Labour. For many of us in local government in all parties—making a particular party point—it has been the way that good local government has worked for years and years. It was a central point of my own party's manifesto in 1986. It is not new. It is the way we work. It is essential to the committee basis of local government that it tries to work in that way.
I object strongly to it being suggested that to oppose this clause is to oppose partnership. The opposite is the truth. Here we are talking about an enforced, imposed partnership with statutory powers overriding those of the democratically elected body.
We are suggesting again that there should be devolution of decision making. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, properly recognised, my party has been pre-eminent in proclaiming for years the advantages as regards devolution of decision making. I strongly support that and to be accused of not doing so by somebody who, a moment ago, told us that he was really old Labour and of the old centralist style just about takes the biscuit.
We have been talking about the devolution of the real power. We had an exchange with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about what happens with what will be called school organisation plans. Where agreement has been achieved, where there is consensus, where there is no dissent, it may well be that that plan or that proposal, has to go to the Secretary of State. It is extremely unlikely that the Secretary of State, having received no objections to it, is then going to throw it out or amend it. I doubt that has ever happened. It is extremely unlikely.
We are talking about the situation where consensus and agreement have not been reached and who makes that decision. That decision has not been devolved to anybody. It will be removed to an adjudicator, appointed by the Secretary of State, without even the accountability of a planning appeal inspector. That is not devolution. It is the opposite of devolution.
As the afternoon has worn on, I have become more and more tempted to press the issue to a vote. I shall not do so at this stage because I am aware that we have taken a lot of time. On this occasion, I shall withdraw my objection, but we shall certainly return to it at the next stage.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Nuclear Tests in India and Pakistan
5.37 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement on India/Pakistan nuclear testing which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government of Pakistan have declared that they carried out six nuclear tests—five on Thursday, and a further one on Saturday. We recognise that the Government of Pakistan were under immense pressure to conduct these tests to match those initiated by India. But we are dismayed by the decision to respond in kind and believe that the interests of Pakistan have been badly served by their decision to do so.
"Pakistan's foremost concern is its national security. That security has not been strengthened by these tests. Long-term security for Pakistan can only come from lowering tension with India and building mutual confidence within the region. It cannot be built on the unstable foundation of an arms race, which will only raise tensions. Already it can be seen from news reports from the region that the voices that have been encouraged by the recent confrontation are the voices of extremism.
"But Pakistan's loss is wider than its own reduced security. Pakistan had the chance to win international support and respect for its restraint. That opportunity has now been lost. As with India, the effect of the nuclear tests by Pakistan has been to diminish, not to enhance, the status of that country within the international community.
"We have made clear to the Government of Pakistan our dismay at their decision. The Pakistani High Commissioner was summoned to the Foreign Office the day after the first tests to receive a message for his Government of our concern. I have recalled the British High Commissioner from Islamabad for consultation in London.
"We have already taken a number of measures to bring home to the Government of India the strength of our concern at their nuclear test programme. Last week we cancelled the visit by the Indian Chief of Naval Staff and we have also cancelled a forthcoming visit by their Chief of Army Staff. At the meeting last week of the General Affairs Council of the European Union, we obtained agreement to a Presidency text which invited the Commission to review India's preferential trade treatment. Having taken such steps against India, I would expect comparable measures to be agreed by European partners against Pakistan for similar action by it.
"Britain's aid programme, unlike that of some other countries, is directly targeted on providing help to the poorest people in the poorest regions. We remain convinced that it would be wrong to penalize the most vulnerable citizens in either country by suspending that aid programme.
54
"However no one, least of all governments of both countries, should under-state the economic price that they will pay for isolation within the international community. Already the value of the Indian rupee has fallen. Last week, the Indian Government offered 1 billion dollars of government bonds and got no takers. In May, there was a net outflow of foreign institutional investment. And last week the World Bank deferred three loans to India for energy and highways projects of almost a billion dollars as a result of objections by member states including Britain.
"The adverse impact of these economic developments will make it more difficult for India or Pakistan to reduce poverty. That is why it would be a tragedy if both their governments were to persist in an arms race to acquire the most expensive of weapons, which will do nothing to help the millions of their citizens who live in poverty.
"A regional arms race would also have an impact which would stretch far beyond the region. Other states who have already demonstrated their interest in acquiring nuclear weapon technology will be watching closely how the international community now responds to the precedent set by India and Pakistan. Their nuclear programmes therefore are not merely an internal matter for the two countries, but are a legitimate matter of concern for the world.
"At the suggestion of the United States, the permanent five members of the Security Council will meet on Thursday in Geneva to discuss the security implications of the nuclear test programmes and the heightened tension in the region. As President of the G8, Britain has called a meeting of their Foreign Ministers in London next week. That meeting will co-ordinate the response of the leading economies to the nuclear test programmes and how we can best promote dialogue with India and Pakistan and between India and Pakistan. There must be two strategic objectives in our dialogue with those countries.
"First, we must press India and Pakistan to sign up to the global regime against nuclear proliferation. The best way to reduce tension in the region would be for both India and Pakistan now to sign up to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to join in the negotiations at Geneva without conditions and to halt the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. Neither the interests of Pakistan nor India, nor those of any other country in the world, are served by encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons.
"The second objective must be to tackle the roots of the tension between both countries. There needs to be a meaningful dialogue between India and Pakistan over the issues that at present threaten stability in the region. Their security would be much better promoted by confidence-building measures than by nuclear testing programmes.
"The balance which we must seek in our approach to this issue is to confront firmly the dangers of nuclear proliferation, but without seeking confrontation with the peoples of India or Pakistan.

55
Britain has a long history of close ties with both countries and millions of people in Britain have community links with relatives throughout the sub-continent. Britain therefore does not voice its dismay at the recent nuclear tests out of hostility. On the contrary, it is as a friend of both countries that Britain is appalled at the risks and costs to the peoples of the sub-continent from a nuclear arms race. I ask the whole House to show our united resolve in condemning the nuclear tests and in calling for the Governments of both India and Pakistan to stop testing and to start talking".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.44 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. From these Benches, we share the Government's dismay and disappointment at the nuclear tests conducted last week by the Pakistani Government in a blatant show of disregard for international opinion. We share the sorrow and regret that Pakistan did not heed the international calls for restraint, since these tests fly in the face of worldwide efforts against testing and nuclear proliferation.
Pakistan's decision to conduct its nuclear tests in response to India's tests earlier in May has escalated the already considerable tension in the Indian sub-continent. These tests take Pakistan and India several steps beyond the sabre-rattling enmity that has existed between them for the past 50 years. The world has now openly been brought closer to the spectre of a deadly nuclear arms race in the region which could have grave ramifications for the international community, even though we have suspected this for some time.
Does the Minister believe that sufficient efforts were made by the international community at the G8 summit in Birmingham to induce Pakistan to exercise restraint? What security guarantees were offered to Pakistan in the event of an Indian attack and what assistance was offered to Pakistan? What efforts did the British Government, in particular, make to persuade Pakistan not to conduct its nuclear tests? What further representations do the Government propose to make to the Government of Pakistan following the withdrawal of our High Commissioner there?
From these Benches, we support the Government in their insistence that both Pakistan and India must adhere to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and that both countries must enter into negotiations on a global treaty to stop the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. What immediate action are the Government taking to ensure that these two nations refrain from further tests and from the deployment of nuclear warheads or ballistic missiles and that they abide by the global non-proliferation regime?
Does the Minister accept that if any kind of exception is made for India and Pakistan to become full nuclear powers it sets a precedent for other countries which lack the democratic credentials, but which wish to develop
56
their own nuclear capability? Furthermore, what steps are the Government taking, together with our international partners, to ensure that the examples of India and Pakistan do not give the impression to other Asian and Middle Eastern powers that the possession of a nuclear arsenal is an effective short-cut route to a say at the world's negotiating tables? Does the Minister agree that the long-standing dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir will be a continuing cause of conflict between these two nations? What assessment have the Government made of recent reports in Indian newspapers that the Indian tests were in fact a response to a Chinese-Pakistan attempt to thwart its nuclear weapons programme?
Finally, can the Minister give the House further details about the summit she mentioned due to take place in London on 12th June to co-ordinate efforts to bring nuclear activities in India and Pakistan under international supervision, announced by the Foreign Secretary? What success does the Minister expect this meeting to have, given the failure of the G8 summit to prevent Pakistan's nuclear tests?
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. Perhaps I can echo the words of Secretary Cohen, the US Secretary for Defense, that this may be the most dangerous moment for the world since the Cuban missile crisis. It is important that we recognise how much could be at stake.
In that context, has there been any response to the call for both nations to join the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as soon as possible? Can the Minister comment on further international measures and sanctions which have been taken? I understand that the EBRD, for example, has suspended a loan to India and that the International Monetary Fund is reconsidering the next stage of its assistance to that country. Perhaps the Minister can bring us up to date on the steps which have been taken internationally.
Does she believe that there is a possibility that India and Pakistan might reconsider their unwillingness to discuss the situation in Kashmir, in view of the extreme escalation implied by the fact that they are both now nuclear powers? Does the Commonwealth offer any possible bridge to bring those two nations together with a view to a peaceful settlement?
Finally, perhaps I may ask her two questions with regard to the wider architecture of the world concerning nuclear proliferation and the attempts to try to bring about nuclear disarmament. It is easy for the nuclear powers, in a sense, to dismiss their own responsibility from the day when, in 1970, they first signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Under Article 6 of that treaty a clear responsibility rested upon them. It was a responsibility to seek forms of multilateral disarmament in the nuclear field and to take steps to limit the production of fissile materials, particularly uranium and plutonium. Virtually nothing has happened in the intervening 20 years, for which I certainly do not blame the present Government. But the truth of the matter is that nothing has happened.

57
I wonder whether the Minister can respond to us by saying whether the Security Council permanent members when they meet, followed by the G8 members when they meet, could look again at the possibility of considering a new initiative in the field of international nuclear disarmament and control over fissile materials globally.
I fear that unless we take much more dramatic steps than have so far been discussed, this may be the beginning of a long slide towards a world of nuclear powers where sooner or later nuclear weapons are almost bound to be used.
5.52 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for their support for the Statement which I have made to the House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about sufficient efforts made at the G8. I believe that very considerable efforts were made, not only at the G8 conference itself but by various leaders following up the G8 in the approaches which were made to Pakistan at the highest levels.
We understand, as my right honourable friend's Statement made clear, the pressure under which Pakistan has been working, but we also understand that Pakistan had a considerable opportunity to earn credit over restraint and sadly did not take that opportunity. But no one left any stone unturned with Pakistan in trying to persuade them of the wisdom of that course of action rather than the one which they eventually decided to take.
We have made a démarche with Pakistan to try to persuade them that they should now desist from any further activity in this sphere. The High Commissioner in London was summoned to the Foreign Office and there has been a considerable amount of diplomatic action, as was made clear from my right honourable friend's Statement. We have withdrawn for consultation our High Commissioner in Islamabad.
The noble Baroness then went on to ask me what more was being done. The permanent members of the Security Council are meeting on Thursday of this week. The GAC will be meeting on Monday of next week and the G8 will be meeting on Friday of next week discussing these matters in particular. So I think that in all the arenas open to us at the moment we are making every effort to ensure that the international community is able to co-ordinate its response to the situation which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has rightly described as an extremely serious one and one which is acting against the interests of stability in what we understand is a very fragile part of the world.
Of course, we are also trying to persuade both countries to sign up to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, asked if we have had any indications of whether they might be willing to do so. I have not heard anything through official channels. All I can tell the noble Baroness is probably what she is aware of already, that there have been some reports that the Indians have indicated that
58
they are willing to consider that, but with certain conditions. Of course, it is that conditionality which will probably prove to be extremely difficult. But I say that only as informed opinion at the moment rather than from any particular information that we have directly from the Indian Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, also asked about the continuing conflict in Kashmir. Of course, we know that this is the really neuralgic and difficult point between India and Pakistan. As regards a similar Statement that I made in your Lordships' House the other day we discussed the volatile situation in Kashmir.
The noble Baroness said that India claims that it had itself undergone nuclear tests because of the Chinese/Pakistan axis. She will also know that the Pakistanis have said that they undertook their nuclear tests because they believed that they were about to suffer some sort of attack from India. There can be endless speculation from both sides about who did what first and the reasons for it. But we are left with the inescapable position that, as a result of the nuclear testing in both countries, the stabilisation of that part of the world has been severely undermined. Undoubtedly, the position over Kashmir is one of the potent factors involved in that undermining.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, also asked about what further action was being taken. At the General Affairs Committee on 25th May there was a strong declaration issued. It was agreed that member states would work for deferral of the consideration of IFI loans in India. Partners also agreed to take all necessary measures should India not accede to and move swiftly to ratify the relevant non-proliferation agreements, including the CTBT.
The noble Baroness then went on to ask about what she described as the lack of action in relation to discussions over fissile materials. Her Majesty's Government are taking a leading part in the negotiations on fissile material in Geneva at the moment. We shall, of course, do everything we can to continue to encourage both India and Pakistan to sign up to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. I would remind your Lordships that currently 149 countries around the world have acceded to the test ban treaties and 186 to the non-proliferation treaty. So I think that despite these very considerable difficulties that we are now experiencing as regards the position of India and Pakistan, the position of the major countries of the world is that the nuclear test ban treaties should be supported and we must do everything we can, both bilaterally as a friend of India and Pakistan, and through the multilateral opportunities open to us, to persuade both countries that the wisdom of their position lies in signing those treaties too.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, we must thank my noble friend for repeating the Statement from another place. What she has had to say to us would have been more than adequate had we been discussing any weapon other than the nuclear weapon. I think there is a tendency for us to shudder away from the reality of the nuclear weapon.

59
It is almost a condition of life that no one likes to contemplate his own death. I can remember that being so during the war. No pilot ever got into a cockpit without a firm belief that he would be the one to come back. If that was not so, he would not have been able to take off.
Humanity generally shudders against and refuses to consider the possibility of the elimination of his own species. Therefore, if one is discussing this, as we have been doing, in terms of talking about an ordinary weapon, we ignore the reality. I am not alone in this point of view, of course. The prestigious Oxford Research Group takes a similar view. I shall quote from a statement made by them on this subject.
"The choice is, quite starkly, between arranging for the elimination of nuclear weapons, or anticipating their proliferation to many other countries and sub-state groups".
The Government must have known that that would happen. I say that because, time and again, at the United Nations the Indian representative made the point that, unless the nuclear states were prepared to consider seriously becoming non-nuclear states and moving towards the elimination of such weapons, India would have no alternative but to develop a nuclear weapon.
A noble Lord: What is the question?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, there is very limited time available. Several noble Lords wish to speak and my noble friend should really pose a question on the Statement.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am sorry, my Lords—
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I trust that my noble friend has a question for the Minister.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the question that I intended to ask my noble friend the Minister is this. Why do the Government refuse to take the step of bringing a certain amount of reality into our discussions on the matter? Why do the Government refuse to say that a nuclear conflict spreading throughout the world would probably result in the end of our civilisation and, indeed, in the extinction of humanity?
The Oxford Research Group has said that that is a possibility. Therefore, does not my noble friend the Minister recognise that to refuse to pay attention to the point I raised, actually avoids and fails to respond to the present situation by removing its gravity and its reality? Is that not the view of my noble friend?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am most dismayed to feel that my noble friend does not think that the Government are dealing with the matter with what he described as a certain amount of "reality". Of course, a nuclear conflict in any part of the world would be disastrous. Indeed, when repeating the Statement, I stated that Britain is appalled by the risks and the costs to the people of the sub-Continent from a nuclear arms race. The Statement also said very clearly and unequivocally that this is not just a regional matter
60
for India and Pakistan; it is a matter for the peoples of the whole world. Other countries throughout the world, perhaps some who are thinking about acquiring nuclear weapons, will be watching very closely what we are doing. That is why there is unprecedented diplomatic activity, as I described in detail when responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, which will take place over the next 10 days to ensure that everything that can be done will be done to discourage both countries from continuing down this path.
My noble friend said that the Government have not done enough and that we should condemn what has happened. I should point out to him that I condemned it unequivocally when repeating the Statement. Britain was the first nuclear power to ratify the CTBT in April of this year. We also withdrew our freefall bomb in March of this year. Our ambitions were clearly stated in the election manifesto in relation to eventual nuclear disarmament through a process of verification and balanced nuclear disarmament throughout the nuclear powers.
Our position is an ambitious but practical one. I am extraordinarily dismayed that my noble friend should think that we are in any way not dealing with the matter seriously or that we have not dealt with it in a realistic manner.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her generous words about friendship for both India and Pakistan. In view of that friendship, will the noble Baroness agree that there is a certain amount of hyping-up of the tension rather than actually trying to improve matters? Perhaps I may also take the liberty to say that I was dismayed to hear the Defence Secretary in the United States, Mr. Cohen, say that this was the same as the Bay of Pigs situation. I was in the US in 1961 and, at that time, China attacked India. It was extremely serious. I know that it was a long time ago and that perhaps the noble Baroness will not remember. However, everyone was absolutely immersed in the situation in the Bay of Pigs and no one in the international community was in the least bit interested in what was happening to India vis-à-vis China.
The Minister must accept the fact that India does not expect the international community to jump up and come to its aid if any other aggression takes place from outside—and that does not include Pakistan. Further, does the noble Baroness realise the true position of Pakistan? How could Pakistan not have followed that course of action? It needed to do so because of internal consumption. The Pakistani Government would have found it extremely difficult to cope with a situation where India had undertaken five nuclear tests while Pakistan had undertaken none. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider the internal situations and, indeed, the immediate situations in the surrounding countries and that she will try not to hype-up the situation to the extent that it has been hyped-up by the international community.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in all these issues there is, as the noble Baroness suggests, a fine line to tread between, on the one hand,

61
recognising that there is a grave situation as regards the nuclear testing that has just taken place, and, on the other, going over the top—if I may use a colloquialism—or hyping-up such situations.
The noble Baroness referred to the friendship that the UK has for both India and Pakistan. That means that we are in a position to put forward our views to both countries, but to do so as a friend and not in a spirit of hostility. We must remember that in this country we have large communities of Pakistani-British and Indian-British people with relatives and friends in Pakistan and India who will be most concerned about the heightening of tension between the two countries. The noble Baroness should be in no doubt that that tension has undoubtedly been heightened by the events of the past two or three weeks.
I turn now to whether or not we are overstating the case. It was extremely distressing to read reports of the celebrations which took place in both India and Pakistan in honour of the exploding of their nuclear weapons. The noble Baroness mentioned the comparison that the US Defence Secretary, Mr. Cohen, made, as indeed did the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and said that it was not necessarily helpful. We are where we are today. Therefore, trying to make comparisons with where we have been during the past 10, 20 or 30 years is probably not a very helpful comparison to make.
I can tell the noble Baroness that I do remember the Bay of Pigs incident. I remember it very clearly because I was a very frightened schoolgirl when it happened. In my view, anything that we can do to help lessen the tension between India and Pakistan at present by talking to them and by getting the international fora, which I described earlier, to put forward the views of a number of different nations and, indeed, by persuading them, if we can, to have a dialogue with each other to lessen the tension in that part of the world, will be enormously important.
Lord Paul: My Lords, I, too, should like to welcome the Statement. Any nuclear test by anyone, anywhere, is an event that all peace-loving people profoundly regret. India and Pakistan may have had their policy compulsions—in some ways understandable—but nuclear testing is a defeat for peace, for compassion and for the ethic of goodwill between states and peoples.
Although I welcome the Government's approach—namely, to use diplomacy and not economic threats—can my noble friend the Minister tell me whether they will continue on that path? These situations underline the need for international co-operation and the co-ordination of diplomatic efforts. Economic threats, especially sanctions, achieve little in today's world; indeed, they alienate countries to such an extent that they often impede diplomacy. Sanctions will work only if they are universal, and where can universality be achieved in today's world? Moreover, sanctions give opportunities for various dubious business interests, especially those with shady international connections, to make sneak profits by circumventing the law. No government should encourage that. I hope the Government will make sure that it does not happen.
62
Will the Government sustain their efforts at multilateral diplomacy and work within the framework of the great goodwill that exists towards Britain in both India and Pakistan? That goodwill, which is almost unique in the context of history, must be nurtured. I welcome the Statement and I hope that the Government will pursue their policy of diplomacy.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support. I remind my noble friend that the General Affairs Council of the European Union agreed on 25th May that member states should work for the deferral of consideration of IFI loans to India, and that partners should also agree to take necessary measures should India not accede to and move towards the relevant non-proliferation agreements. It is only fair to remind my noble friend of that point. As I have already indicated, we shall consult with our EU partners on any comparable measures that may have the same impact on Pakistan. Sanctions, of course, take a number of different forms. We must be clear that we are concerned that we do not start to undermine the aid effort to the poorest people in both countries. I hope that my right honourable friend's Statement made that clear. There are over 300 million desperately poor people in India who live on less than 1 US dollar a day. Cutting off aid would hurt them and not impair India's nuclear programme.
We are concerned that in both India and Pakistan the consequences of any renewed arms race may divert scarce resources from vital productive development and their efforts to reduce poverty and to improve their education provision. I can give my noble friend the assurance, at least in part, not necessarily that there will be no sanctions of any economic nature against either country, but that we shall do everything we can to sustain the diplomatic effort. We are enormously conscious of the importance of trying to sustain aid programmes which help the poorest people in those countries.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I apologise that I was not present to hear the beginning of the Statement. I recognise the dangers in this situation. However, like my noble friend Lady Flather, I wonder whether this is the best time to talk of threats, sanctions and lectures and to indulge in handwringing. Have we all completely forgotten that the best outcome of the events in the region is the mutual deterrent effect and the stabilising effect, as we learnt in the cold war? Have we now forgotten that reality that we had to face in the past? Does the present situation not pose an opportunity as much as a danger; namely, for us to press ahead to put the whole non-proliferation regime on a far more effective, less disguised and covert basis? We must understand the position of both Islamabad and Delhi and try to bring them into the regime in an effort to establish a much better basis for non-proliferation in the future, and ultimately a test ban and a reduction in nuclear weapons worldwide.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course we want to bring both countries into the regime

63
of the non-proliferation treaty and to persuade them to sign the test ban treaty. However, Her Majesty's Government would find it difficult to agree with the noble Lord's remarks on mutual deterrence. If that policy were pursued, it is inevitable that other countries, perhaps in the Middle East, may decide that they will develop their nuclear deterrence on the basis that it will constitute mutual deterrence between two countries. I believe that is the policy of despair as regards nuclear disarmament. I hope it is not a policy that commands a great deal of support in your Lordships' House.
However, I agree strongly with the noble Lord's remarks about not indulging in threats and handwringing. I hope that the Statement did not indulge in either threats or handwringing. I believe the Statement is rather well balanced, but then, "I would say that, wouldn't I?" I hope that if the noble Lord has the opportunity to read it in full, he will agree with me. We must do everything we can to persuade both countries that their best interests lie—now that they both have a nuclear deterrent—in not proceeding with their nuclear programmes and in considering the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. We must try to persuade them to sign the test ban treaty as quickly as possible.
Lord Desai: My Lords, is not the situation much more urgent than the noble Baroness has indicated? We cannot wait until the test ban treaty is signed or until the sanctions become effective. Would it not be better to work towards a "no first use" agreement by both sides? Perhaps non-nuclear powers such as Canada and the Scandinavian countries should give a lead in this matter, as both India and Pakistan do not trust the nuclear powers to deal fairly with them.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course the situation can be described as urgent although I take the point made earlier about not "hyping-up" the situation to a point where we become more excited than the situation merits at present. The noble Lord is correct to say that we must do what we can to persuade both countries not to adopt a first strike position. I am reminded that Argentina and Brazil, for example, both stopped their nuclear programmes mutually at the same time through the agreement of both countries. There is also the example of the South African programme which was stopped. When countries decide that they are prepared to take a step away from developing nuclear weapons, there are encouraging examples of what can be achieved. We also have the encouraging examples of those countries which have already decided to sign the non-proliferation treaty and the test ban treaty.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I have two brief questions for the Minister. First, will she inform the House whether it is the United States or Britain which has convened the G8 foreign ministers' conference and what is the objective of that conference? Will it be in the interests of the people of India and Pakistan not to develop any sanctions policies because, as the Minister rightly pointed out, that will affect the very people one wants to help? Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady
64
Williams, asked about the role of the Commonwealth countries. Will the Minister take into account the role that the Commonwealth Secretariat can perform in trying to establish some kind of rapport between those two countries? India and Pakistan are more likely to listen to other Commonwealth countries than to the United States and Britain. Anyone who knows of the resolve of India and Pakistan at the time of independence will realise that sanctions or force will have no effect whatever on those countries.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as president of the G8, Britain proposed a meeting in London on Friday of next week to discuss these matters. The United States proposed that the permanent five members of the Security Council should meet on Thursday of this week in Geneva. As I said, we hold the presidency of the G8 at the moment. Your Lordships may be interested to know that this matter is being discussed in the United Nations. Britain is doing everything it can to try to ensure that the discussion in the United Nations has some impact on both the countries concerned.
The noble Lord also asked about the position vis-à-vis the Commonwealth. I am sure that any international forum that can be used will be used in this situation. It is always a matter of striking a balance between what was described by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, as "hand-wringing" on the one hand, and being able to say something practical and useful on the other. I am sure that if there is any practical role that the Commonwealth can play it will be willing to do so.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we have had the prescribed 20 minutes for Back-Bench questions on this Statement. I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, with respect, a noble Lord on the other side of the Chamber took five minutes on one question. Perhaps I may briefly ask one simple question—with permission—I am the only one who has been here for all—
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think noble Lords are aware that 20 minutes is the tight timetable on a Statement. I believe that we should observe the normal convention. I therefore move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

School Standards and Framework Bill
6.20 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Schedule 4 [School organisation committees]:
[Amendment No. 106 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 117, line 11, at end insert ("of those voting").
The noble Lord said: These amendments clarify some points of detail in relation to the voting arrangements for school organisation committees. They are all government amendments. Amendment No. 106A would put beyond doubt the ability of a school organisation committee to reach a unanimous decision in the absence from a particular meeting of one or more groups or if one or more groups abstains. The Bill as drafted left the matter in some doubt. For the avoidance of paranoia, we shall also specify in regulations that there should be a minimum period of notice which those convening meetings of the committee should give to members so that they are not excluded through lack of notice. The amendment also clarifies that, where a group on a school organisation committee has reservations about a proposal, it may express them by abstaining. That is a third option for groups on the committee.
I shall also speak to Amendment No. 106B and the remaining government amendments in this group. Amendment No. 106B follows from discussions that took place between my noble friend the Minister and her ministerial colleagues and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, who originally tabled Amendment No. 106 for this group.
It has always been our intention that there should be two Church groups on each school organisation committee, one representing the Church of England and one the Roman Catholic Church. We have always intended, too, that decisions on school organisation plans should require the unanimous vote of the school organisation committee. We had intended that those points of detail would be set out in regulations; however, we have no intention of drawing back on the commitments that we have already made in relation to the Churches. On that basis, and following discussion with the right reverend Prelate, we propose that the provision should now be on the face of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 107A and 109A make important statements about maintaining equal opportunities in the organisation of school places and admissions. They secure that decisions taken by school organisation committees or adjudicators take full account of the non-discrimination duties placed on schools and local education authorities under the Sex Discrimination Act or the Race Relations Act. The Equal Opportunities Commission has argued strongly for such a specific duty in the Bill. We share the commission's view that it is important to draw particular attention to the vital need to avoid discrimination in this way. These amendments therefore provide an important safeguard to ensure equal opportunities in practice. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: In the previous debate we heard much about unanimous decisions. We now understand that a decision does not in fact have to be unanimous, but unanimous only in relation to those attending the meeting. In other words, if there is a group who for some unavoidable reason cannot be present, even given the minimum period of notice—which is not that long—that group's views can be disregarded for the purposes
66
of reaching what is technically now called a unanimous decision. Will the noble Lord confirm my understanding?
I did not understand the noble Lord's remarks about abstaining. If a decision—short of referring it to an adjudicator—has to be unanimous, and if one of the groups around the table abstains, my understanding is that the decision is not unanimous. However, in the light of the noble Lord's remarks, I do not now understand the intention.
Thirdly, in relation to equal opportunities and discrimination on grounds of either sex or race, this is not the first time that I have objected to these provisions appearing on the face of a Bill—not on the ground that I believe they are not necessary, but on the ground that they are Acts of law with which we are all obliged to conform: if we do not conform, we are in breach of the law. It seems extraordinary that we continue to have to repeat the provision and place specific duties in statute—which is a double positive, not a double negative. Knowing that the committee will have to act in compliance with the law of the land, whatever that law is (certainly both measures referred to are approved statutes), why should this specific duty have to be included in this Bill when the committee or the adjudicator has no option but to obey the law? I should be grateful for clarification of my understanding in regard to the absent group, for some clarification as to what is meant by "abstaining" in relation to whether or not there is a consensus, and clarification as to why the amendments are necessary in relation to discrimination on grounds of sex and/or race.
Lord Whitty: On the second point, it is true that all such bodies would be subject to the general provisions of the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. However, those two Acts place specific duties on local education authorities and governing bodies of schools not to discriminate. These amendments would ensure that the decisions of an organisation committee or an adjudicator would not have the effect of placing local authorities or schools in default of those duties. In other words, the provision squares the circle. It is so that schools, governing bodies or local education authorities are not placed in jeopardy as the result of a decision by a body not explicitly covered by the Race Relations Act or the Sex Discrimination Act.
In relation to the question of abstention, the noble Baroness is right. We are, in effect, by these clauses defining "unanimous" to include nem. con. That is a usual procedure. Indeed, if any one of the groups wishes to oppose a proposal and therefore trigger a reference to an adjudicator, that group has the right to do so. As regards absence from a particular meeting, the absence would follow an adequate period of notice. If that adequate period of notice were not observed, or if in any other way the absence had been contrived, then there would be redress. However, if the group were simply not there, or decided to abstain, then the decision of the rest would stand as a unanimous decision. I hope that provides clarification.
Baroness Blatch: No, it does not. Will the noble Lord explain why the Health and Safety Act is not

67
included? It is equally an obligation on the part of local authorities. They have a specific obligation under the law in relation to health and safety matters. I imagine that, dealing with provision in schools and with the safety of children, if one accepts the reasoning put forward by the noble Lord, that Act ought also to be included in the Bill. This illustrates the nonsense of having chosen two statutes to be placed on the face of the Bill. I have singled out only one other; there are many more to which local government is specifically obliged to conform, and yet they are not on the face of the Bill. I find the reasoning extraordinary.
My understanding of the Bill now becomes quite alarmist. Is the noble Lord saying that if—after all its deliberations and the pursuit of healthy partnerships with all those with whom it enjoys relationships—a local authority comes to a view which is agreed by the local council within which that local education authority resides, the local authority decision passes to the organisation committee, from which one group or more could be absent for avoidable or unavoidable reasons, or one group or more could abstain, and the remaining groups could vote for a decision that was different from that of the local authority, the decision would be deemed unanimous and thereby overrule that of the local authority? Is that right?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I assume that that would be right only in the case where the local authority were absent. In that case, the situation is no different from the position where a unanimous decision is reached. Clearly, the organisation committee can take a different decision from that taken by the local authority, whatever its voting mechanism.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord misunderstands my point. The local authority may be the group that is present. I wish to go through my hypothesis again. If the noble Lord is saying that the groups which are absent have no sway one way or the other and the groups present which choose to abstain have no sway one way or the other, is my hypothesis correct that a local education authority could come to a view about a proposal and pass it to the organisation committee at a time when one or more groups, although properly notified of the meeting, are, for avoidable or unavoidable reasons, absent, when one or more groups could abstain, when the remaining groups could vote for a proposal which was different from that arrived at by the local authority, and when, in order to make sure that my hypothesis works and to remove the argument that the noble Lord was trying to deploy, the LEA could be one of the local groups remaining? Is the noble Lord saying that those voting, whether or not they include the local authority, give rise to a so-called unanimous decision?
Lord Whitty: I suppose the short answer to the noble Baroness is yes because the organisation committee can take a different view from that of the local education authority. Clearly, if people choose not to cast their vote
68
and a decision is therefore deemed unanimous, there could be a decision different from that of the local authority. In cases of unavoidable absence, the committee must be held to have acted irresponsibly in going ahead with the meeting in the absence of one of the parties. However, subject to that, the noble Baroness is right.
Baroness Blatch: Is substitution allowed? If so, can the noble Lord point me to the part of the Bill that allows for substitution? I am thinking now, in a practical way, about a grouping which may, as the noble Lord said earlier to my noble friend Lord Belstead, be as small as one person—in other words, members could be ill on the day of the meeting or simply not be present—or it could be as large as several people. Does the noble Lord still argue that, if one of the groupings is not present, that is the situation that pertains and a substitution would not be allowed?
Lord Whitty: There is no part of the Bill where substitution is allowed, but I suspect that it would be the intention to cover the question of substitution in reasonable circumstances in regulations.
Baroness Blatch: It is important that we know whether or not substitution is allowed. Will it be covered in regulations?
Lord Whitty: I fully suspect that it will be covered by regulations. If the noble Baroness wishes further clarification, I undertake to write to her.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I apologise for not being in my place when the Minister introduced the amendment. Amendments Nos. 106A and 106B replace an amendment in my name and result from conversations we have had. In the light of the earlier debate about the place of school organisation committees, perhaps I may again make the point about why the Churches regard the committees as being so important. There was a good deal of talk, when we were considering Clause 23, about the place of the local education authority and the fact that those authorities have power to make decisions. That is not the case at the moment. In relation to voluntary aided schools, whether we are talking about closure or major changes which might include enlargement or the provision of nursery places, the local education authority has no power to make a decision. It is the Secretary of State to whom that decision has to go. At the moment, therefore, it is not a question of disagreement. What normally happens is that the appropriate Church body will reach agreement with the local education authority that, for example, nursery provision is right. That then has to go to the Secretary of State.
The school organisation committee is in place of the former arrangement. No longer will such a decision go to the Secretary of State. It is not that he was regarded as a court of appeal but that he should be required to give his consent to any such provision. There was inevitably a delay on proposals brought forward by voluntary aided schools. Sometimes that could put us in

69
a position of disadvantage. For instance, in relation to nursery classes, a long delay could mean that by the time the decision was made, the financial year was over and the finance was no longer available. This provision for local decision-making is of considerable importance to the voluntary aided sector. The major providers in that sector are the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, for both of whom I speak. We welcome the proposal but feel that it is necessary that the regulations should specify the issue of unanimity. We take unanimity to mean nemine contradicente; that is to say, that those who are voting vote in favour and those who abstain and those who are not present are not regarded as voting against. We are happy with that arrangement.
Perhaps I may clarify a point which arose in an earlier debate. I made reference to providers and the reasons why I believe that providers are the proper people to be represented on school organisation committees. By "providers" we mean the group of those who provide finance. I made reference to the Further Education Funding Council. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, picked me up on that. I still believe that I was right in making that comment. I am aware that the Further Education Funding Council does not appear on the face of the Bill, but my understanding is that normally it will be part of the school organisation committee. It is, of course, a provider of education for those in the sixth-form age group. Sixth forms may be provided through schools but may also be provided through the further education sector. It therefore seems to me proper that the council should be regarded as a provider and should be represented on the committee.
I make this point because I feel that there has been much misunderstanding about the place of school organisation committees. I repeat that the Churches welcome the proposals. We stress that we believe the proposals to require the regulations to specify unanimity are right. I am very grateful to the Government for listening to our concerns and for putting forward this amendment, which I am delighted to support.
Baroness Blatch: The right reverend Prelate rightly takes me to task on a point I made earlier about the FEFC. Although that council does not directly provide for schools, it does provide for some schoolchildren who are not statutory aged, who are post-16. Therefore I concede that point. May I ask the right reverend Prelate, through the normal conventions of the House, what part governors play in that? Governors are neither providers of education nor funders of schools. They have a management role but are not providers in the sense that FEFC would be and/or the LEA. How consistent is that with the points made by the right reverend Prelate?
I join with the right reverend Prelate in saying that we are pleased that diocesan authorities, both for the Anglican Church and the Church authorities for the Catholic schools, are to be represented on the committees. If there are to be such committees, that must be right. If they had not been included, we would have argued vigorously that they should be.
70
I should also like to support the noble Lord, Lord Rix, in that teachers, in some form or other, should be represented. It seems extraordinary that governors should be represented. They are not providers; they are not even deliverers of education and do not fall into the interpretation that the right reverend Prelate puts on the committee. Nevertheless, they will have a place over and above that of the very people in the classroom who provide education for children.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: The noble Baroness and I have already had this conversation. I was using the language of "delivery" in relation to heads and teachers; that is, those who actually deliver the education. I used the term "provider" in the technical sense of those who provide the financial resources. That is a clarification of language.
The point of the school organisation committees is that those who provide the financial resources shall be those who are involved in the taking of decisions. Of course, they must listen to all kinds of other people and that is why it is important that there are others who can give them advice. Those others will include governors, teachers and all sorts of other groups, including those for whom the noble Lord, Lord Rix, is concerned. However, the decision is properly taken by those groups named on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Governors are to be part of this body and they are neither providers nor deliverers.
Lord Whitty: The debate between the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate could go on for some time. However, at this time we are not discussing membership of the committee, but the voting procedures.
The right reverend Prelate is right in relation to our use of the term "provider" and as to why they should be members of the committee. Governors have the corporate responsibility for the management of schools and, to a degree to which we shall come later, for managing the funds of the schools. That is why they or their representatives will be members of the committees.
The amendments deal with two issues. First, they deal with the voting procedure. The right reverend Prelate clearly indicated his support for our position that a nem. Con. position should account for these purposes; that is, unanimity. Secondly, they deal with the question of equality and the duties on the adjudicators and school organisation committees in that respect.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 106B:
Page 117, line 11, at end insert—
("(3) Regulations under this paragraph must, however, include provision—

(a) for the members within each category of members of a committee to have collectively a single vote in relation to any decision to which this sub-paragraph applies;

(b) requiring any such decision which is taken by a committee to be a unanimous decision of those voting.

(4) Sub-paragraph (3) applies to any decision of a committee as to whether or not—

(a) to give any approval under section 25(4) or to prepare such a plan as is mentioned in section 25(5)(d)(ii);

(b) to give any approval under paragraph 3 of Schedule 6 or to—

(i) modify any proposals,

(ii) specify any date, or

(iii) make any determination,

under paragraph 5(2)(a) or (b) or (3) of that Schedule;

(c) to make, vary or revoke a transitional exemption order under paragraph 21 of that Schedule or paragraph 16 of Schedule 7;

(d) to give any approval under paragraph 8 of Schedule 7;

(e) to make any decision authorised by or by virtue of paragraph 6 of Schedule 23.

(5) Where regulations under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 8 provide for either of the following provisions, namely paragraph 3 or 5(2)(a) of Schedule 6, to have effect in relation to proposals published under paragraph 2 or 2A of Schedule 8, the reference to that provision in sub-paragraph (4) above shall include a reference to it as it so has effect.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 107 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 107A:
Page 117, line 15, at end insert—
(" . When taking any decision a committee shall have regard (so far as relevant) to the obligations which, by virtue of—

(a) Part III of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, or

(b) Part III of the Race Relations Act 1976,

are owed by any local education authority or governing body which will be affected by the decision.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Adjudicators]:
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Maddock: I am afraid that my noble friend Lord Tope cannot be with us for the rest of the evening, though I still have friends on the Bench here with me.
The Minister will recognise that we have already had the majority of this debate this afternoon. We are unhappy with the undemocratic nature of the school organisation committees and, for similar reasons, with the role of the adjudicators. We are extremely unhappy—putting it mildly—given what we said earlier, that important local decisions over schools organisations can pass to a single, unelected, non-accountable individual who represents the Secretary of State.
It is clear from our debates earlier and those in another place that the Government wish to appoint around 20 adjudicators. It may be more; we are not sure. There were questions about this earlier this afternoon both here and in another place. We are also not sure what the cost will be. We understand that the adjudicators will be local, but we are told that they will
72
not be local. They will be partly local, but there will not be enough for there to be one who understands each local area.
The adjudicators will be appointed by the Secretary of State after open advertisement. We understand that they will be salaried and will also be paid on a daily rate. There was a great deal of discussion in this regard some time ago and I remember reading with horror in the newspaper that it was estimated that adjudicators may be paid £90,000 a year. I wondered whether I would be eligible for such a post; £90,000 would be helpful to someone in my position.
We still do not know how much the Government intend to pay and how much it will cost. We do not know from where exactly the adjudicators will be drawn. We are told that a background in education will be welcome, but not necessarily a requirement. We feel that the requirement that school organisation committees should make unanimous decisions will lead to many decisions being referred to the adjudicator.
Many of us know that trying to make decisions, particularly in relation to school closures, is not an easy job and often takes a great deal of time. Questions were asked in another place about how long committees would have to make a decision and the response was that they will be asked to reach a conclusion within two months. However, I worry about how the system will operate; how the adjudicators will deal with what will be a heavy workload.
We have heard arguments about how this is devolution; that the Secretary of State is devolving power locally. Many of us do not recognise it as devolution because it will not be to a democratic body. We believe that democratically-elected local authorities should make those decisions. My noble friend Lord Tope made that point clear this afternoon.
An issue we have discussed in this Chamber on other occasions is how local people do not turn out in local elections. We are now doing something which takes away even more power from local education authorities and locally-elected councillors, yet we continue to wonder why people do not want to vote. The reason is that decisions as to whether or not a school will remain open will not be made by local people; they will be made by an unelected body and an adjudicator.
For all those reasons we are not happy that the clause should stand part of the Bill. I take this opportunity to say that a schedule goes with this, which raises serious questions about the role of the adjudicator. For example, the adjudicator can be dismissed by the Minister for misbehaviour. What does that mean? Does it mean when he disagrees with the Minister? Does it mean that he is not on message? We do not know how much adjudicators will be paid. We do not know what level of staff support they will receive.
I suggest that there are people working in local authorities who already do very much the job that an adjudicator will be required to carry out, particularly when we are talking of school closures. I have been in a situation where the people working for the local

73
education authority go out and consult with parents, going through the pros and cons of why they want to close a school and what the local authority want to do.
I suspect that we shall not divide on Clause 24 tonight which is why I have spoken about Schedule 5 at this point. There is no point in talking about it if the clause is still in the Bill. Mentioning the schedule also raises very serious questions about the role of the adjudicator and it is important in this debate as we are looking to see whether we need the adjudicator. We have made it quite clear that we do not want to have the school organisation committee and therefore we do not want the adjudicator.
We have made it clear also that we understand what the Government are trying to do. We believe in devolution and recognise that there is a problem with decisions being made at the centre. But the method that has been put forward is undemocratic and does not answer the problem. I and many others believe that it will only make matters worse. We have almost begged the Government to take this matter away and come back with something better. We want partnership and decisions to be made locally, but we want that done democratically and, above all, we want a system that will work. We have heard not just from these Benches but from around the Committee the views of people who have experience of how this measure will work in local government and how local government works now. We were not in favour of the committee and the adjudicator. The way in which the scheme is being set up is deeply flawed. For that reason, we do not wish to see this clause stand part of the Bill.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: We have discussed this matter at some length so I shall be brief and direct. The argument is that the adjudicator will play very little part because agreements will be reached in the school organisation committee. That raises great alarm in my mind because as many noble Lords who have served as Ministers in the department have said, in the past there has been a large number of appeals to the Secretary of State regarding the closure of schools and other matters.
Therefore one must ask with some suspicion why it is that the school organisation committee is going to succeed where the local authority has conspicuously failed so that the adjudicator will not be used so much. I gain some suspicion from what the right reverend Prelate said. The professionals, who are the men from the diocesan boards, the picked local authority people, the Higher Education Funding Council and the governors—I say "picked", although I gather that the governors may be elected—are more likely, in smoke-filled rooms, as at an American convention, to reach agreement than will be the case in the more democratic forum of a local authority. So I believe that sometimes unanimous decisions might be suspect.
I am more optimistic about human nature than that. Therefore I assume that the school organisation committees will not be as I described, but that there will be disagreement and that the adjudicator will play a part. In other words, I do not accept that only at the most dismal level the school organisation committee, if it
74
performs properly, will reach unanimous agreement. That said, I agree with the noble Baroness in saying that I have great worries about the adjudicator.
Perhaps I may begin at a very practical level. I believe that the workload will be enormous. I served on the Parole Board and I was also chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Committee. I realise the workload that falls on anybody who deals with appeals and makes such decisions. It has already emerged in this debate that in some cases, in the documents setting forth their powers, it may be necessary to hold an inquiry in public. Judgments will have to be submitted on paper. That is a time-consuming task and it will demand staff. We do not know how many adjudicators there will be, but one assumes from some of the things that were said in the other place that there will be 20 or so. I cannot say offhand at the moment how many local authorities there will be. I believe that there were 31 when the shire counties were responsible, but now we have the London boroughs and so much more. The number may well be 31 to 40 or possibly more.
Many of the adjudicators will have to deal with two local authorities. I believe that they will find the workload very large. I also have some doubts as to whether £1 million will cover the cost. One is dealing with 20 people and staff. If the sum is insufficient then one is not going to have the right decisions and the scheme is not going to work.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out the problem of judicial review. Having served on the Parole Board and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, I can tell the Committee that for these kinds of bodies which hear appeals the judicial review is a hazard of life. It is expensive and also for the Government which will have to defend the case.
I am saying that there is an element of doubt and uncertainty which has emerged in this debate. Unless the school organisation committee is going to be a government poodle, there will be disagreements. I do not believe that any Members of the Committee will want it to be a poodle and therefore the present situation may continue, if not in full, at least in part. The adjudicators will not be sufficient; they will be subject to judicial review; they will not be local; and there will be no appeal from their decisions. It is a flawed scheme and one which the Government will later regret. Therefore I and my friends on this side of the Committee are prepared to give considerable support to the Motion that this clause shall not stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister replies perhaps I may ask one or two questions. I shall be grateful to have some information as to how this body will work vis-à-vis action zone schools and with what are now called grant-maintained schools and what will be foundation schools. Do they all have the same powers? In that case, are they all subject to this undemocratic body of placemen and women?
I put it on record that not only do I believe that partnership is the only way to operate in local government. It has certainly been a feature of my local

75
authority in Cambridgeshire; it has also been a practical feature of my role as a Minister in government. It was my government that instituted a raft of policies which involved partnership at local level. The single regeneration budget exists because partnerships come together with a common aim. As the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, knows, I was concerned with the North-East and Teesside. It has a very great deal to teach the rest of the country about fruitful partnerships. Partnerships have been developed there to an extensive degree. The fruits of those partnerships can be seen right across Teesside. There was the Save the City programme; the City Action programme and the City Challenge programme. They all relied on partnerships. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will not join with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in saying that we are against partnership as a way forward. That would be a great travesty because we believe that partnerships works best. I also believe quite fervently that partnership on a voluntary basis works even better because it works from the bottom up. It is an organic partnership and not one made by regulation which I find deeply offensive.
The Secretary of State and Ministers are better known to the population of this country than will be an adjudicator. I hope that the noble Baroness will give us some idea or confirm what we believe through rumour and odd comments, that there are likely to be about 20 adjudicators. Plans are now so advanced that there should be some view in the department about the number of adjudicators.
Let us say that there will be about 20. That means that there will be at least two or three local education authorities to each adjudicator. I go back to a point that I made during a previous debate when talking about organisation committees. If there were one adjudicator covering Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire or Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire or Cambridgeshire and Suffolk or Cambridgeshire and Norfolk or Lincolnshire and Cambridgeshire, with the tremendous powers as set out in this Bill, that adjudicator will not be known. It is quite difficult to find in the market square people who know the local Lord Lieutenant or the local High Sheriff. They are key figures in the area.
The Government cannot have it both ways. If the Government say that the adjudicators will hardly be used because we shall have great harmony at the level of the local education authority and in the school organisation committee, that means that they will be even less known. The adjudicator will be brought into play when there is disagreement and that is the whole point of having an adjudicator. The argument that has been deployed so far in this debate that the rationale for what the Government are doing in setting up school organisation committees and adjudicators, is that they want to devolve decision-making to a local level, but in the case of an adjudicator that simply will not work.
The adjudicators will not be local. I referred earlier to Cambridgeshire and Norfolk. In that area, we shall not only be closer geographically to the Secretary of State and his Ministers in London than to the adjudicator—if he or she is based in Norfolk, he or she
76
will be very distant from Cambridgeshire—but we shall also know them. We know the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The populace of the country know the Ministers. They can take views of the Ministers and the quality of their judgments. Accountability is therefore much sharper.
Much has been made of the argument that there will not be too much work for the committees to do. Using round figures, there are about 25,000 schools in the country, half a million teachers and goodness knows how many million pupils. Decisions are taken daily in local education authorities on reorganisation, on matters relating to demographic change, such as the establishment of new schools, changing the category of schools, enlarging, closing or merging schools. All of those are bread-and-butter decisions for most local authorities. They happen all the time. In my local authority we had what we called a "medium-term plan". Each year, we rolled it forward, constantly trying to match provision to the number of children in the area and their needs. It is wrong to say that the committees will not be working hard.
As I understand it, an organisation committee will receive every single local organisation plan. When that plan is developed, all of the smaller decisions flowing from it will go before the committee. Whenever there is a disagreement among the members of the committee—however small, whether involving one group or more—the matter will be passed to the adjudicator. Matters as painful as school closures, school mergers, the loss of a sixth form or the closing of a Church school will be passed without objection only very seldom—that is, unless the Government have it in mind to approve the sort of committee which will reach consensus decisions. That would mean that the will of those at the end of the decision—I refer to the parents of children attending small schools or city schools which may be merged and to parents whose children are being sent to a distant school not of their choice—would be overruled by the harmonious organisation committee of which we have heard so much.
The adjudicator argument is as strong as that on organisation committees. The adjudicators will have absolutely unprecedented powers. They will be unaccountable placemen or women. They will be appointed by the Secretary of State and can be removed or replaced by the Secretary of State. However, they will have more powers than any elected councillors. Indeed, in this instance they will have more powers than the Secretary of State. This is a real buck-passing measure as far as the Secretary of State and the Department for Education and Employment are concerned.
For that reason I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will not seek to press this Motion this evening. However, she has our fullest support. If we return to this matter on another occasion, we shall certainly support such a Motion.
7 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall not go back over the same ground as was covered in the debate on school organisation committees. We had quite a discussion of

77
adjudicators in our earlier debate. I shall try to stick to issues relating to adjudicators, which is what the clause is all about.
Clause 24 provides that the Secretary of State shall appoint a number of adjudicators for England. I can confirm that the intention is to appoint about 20. Their job will be to take decisions where the school organisation committee has been unable to reach agreement on school organisation proposals and the school organisation plan to be established within each LEA, and to resolve certain admissions disputes.
We have placed in the Library a statement on the adjudicators which describes in a little more detail our view on the functions, operation and appointment of adjudicators. That statement will provide a basis for consultation.
I believe that it is understood that the adjudicators will be called into play only where it has not been possible to reach agreement at local level, either on school organisation or on admissions cases. The adjudicators will look again at the issues and concerns raised, taking account of proposals, comments and objections. The adjudicators will consider all cases in the light of principles set out in guidance from the Secretary of State and, as appropriate, in a school organisation plan and the code of practice on school admissions. The adjudicators will make an independent judgment on the relative merits of each case, based on the facts and against those principles.
It is important that the adjudicators should be demonstrably independent, both from the Secretary of State and from the local authorities and other bodies. Their credibility will derive from their experience, independence and impartiality. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that we shall advertise the posts widely. We shall do so in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Adjudicators will be part time. They will be called upon as cases are referred, and they will be paid on a daily basis. Perhaps I may advise the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, not to believe what she reads in the newspapers about salaries of £90,00 a year. So much in the newspapers is absolute nonsense and that is just another example. The exact amount of their daily rate is currently under review, so I cannot give a precise answer to that question yet.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, referred to the Higher Education Funding Council. Perhaps that was a slip of the tongue. It is, of course, the Further Education Funding Council—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Yes, the Further Education Funding Council.
Baroness Blackstone: I just wanted to be sure that we were clear about that.
The noble Lord said that he was optimistic. I am glad that he is optimistic because the last time that we had a debate about optimism and pessimism, the noble Lord said that I was over-optimistic and that he was a pessimist. However, my optimism about this leads me to
78
different conclusions from him. I believe that the school organisation committees will for the most part be able to reach agreement. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate said earlier. I very much hope that the number of occasions involving adjudicators will be relatively small because there will already have been a great deal of local discussion.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, perhaps I may say that consensus will have been reached at local level. That is exactly what we hope will become commonplace once the new arrangements have been implemented. For those reasons, I hope that adjudicators will not have an enormous workload. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, is right that they will have to be careful in their judgments and to put them in writing.
I also hope that judicial review will be used only rarely. I hope that once the system is established people will accept the impartiality of the adjudicators and the fact that their procedures are totally above board. That is what is expected.
I cannot remember which noble Lord referred to misbehaviour, but perhaps I may rebut any suggestion that this provision is all about being on-message. It is nothing like that. This is clearly about undertaking a job properly and having a decision-making process which can be seen to be fair and in which the right procedures are used. I hope that instances of dismissals among adjudicators will be extremely rare.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to education action zone schools and foundation schools. Schools in education action zones will be treated in exactly the same way as any other schools where the issue of closure arises. As to foundation schools, they will be subject to exactly the same system, and proposals in respect of foundation schools which are not decided by the school organisation committee will go to the adjudicator if necessary.
The clause also introduces Schedule 5. That gives practical detail as to how the adjudicator will operate. It also gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations about further details of the adjudicator's functions. This clause provides a vital mechanism to resolve school organisation and admission cases while safeguarding the interests of a range of local players. The noble Baroness indicated that she will not press her opposition to Clause 24 standing part of the Bill.
I should like to deal with one other issue raised by more than one speaker, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I was a little confused by the contribution of the noble Baroness. At one point she said that adjudicators would not be local but at another point she suggested that possibly they would have to cover two areas. She spoke about her own part of the country: Cambridgeshire and Norfolk or Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the adjudicators will not be local; they will be nationally-appointed people. They will be appointed on the basis that they are the best people for the job rather than that they represent a particular area. I believe that it would be wrong for them to represent a particular area because in that event it is very likely that they would be parti pris in some respects. We want to have people

79
of experience who will be impartial and independent in arriving at their judgment. I hope that I have answered all the points raised. I hope that the Committee accepts that this is a fundamental part of the new system and that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for replying to a number of points. We shall not press the issue any further this evening but we hope to return to it at a later stage in the light of other proposals that may come from the Government on school organisation committees. A good number of questions have been asked today. The role of the adjudicator is very much tied up with what happens on the school organisation committees. The Minister was intent on driving home the independence of the adjudicators. I do not know whether it means that at the moment, when the Secretary of State makes a decision about a school closure, it is less than independent. There have been times in my life when I have believed that to be the case when dealing with school closures. That seems to be one of the main arguments in trying to convince the Committee that adjudicators are the correct way to go.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that adjudicators would not receive fat cat salaries. We shall see what happens. I am slightly confused. The Minister also said that adjudicators would be paid on a daily basis. In view of the comment of the Minister, Estelle Morris, in another place that it was likely they would be salaried, appointed on a part-time basis and paid a daily rate, is it the case that the decision has now been made that they will be paid only a daily rate? Perhaps the Minister can deal with that before we proceed further with the matter.
We on these Benches believe that as many decisions as possible should be made locally by democratically elected local authorities. We are deeply concerned, knowing the kind of issues that will come forward, that adjudicators will have to make a good number of decisions. I hope that the Minister is right. If not, even more money will come off the education budget. Our main worry is that this bureaucracy will cost money and that the education budget will be top sliced. Some of us fear that given the number of decisions that adjudicators will have to make the amounts that they will be paid and the length of time that committees sit will go up. I do not believe that we have received a satisfactory answer to that.
We shall not press the matter tonight. However, can the Minister clarify how exactly the adjudicators will be paid? Further, in light of the very serious concerns about how the system will operate, can the Minister give a commitment that should all of this go ahead there will be a review of what is happening and if our worst predictions turn out to be true the Government will do something about it? If the worst predictions happen it will not be in the interests of schools. We are all concerned about what happens in schools and want to ensure that the highest standards are achieved. We are not being party political about this; we are genuinely worried about what will happen. I hope that the Minister
80
will take that into account and give a commitment that the Government will also be concerned if this turns out to be a huge bureaucracy that does not work properly.
Baroness Young: Before the noble Baroness replies, perhaps I may put two questions. The first, which I should have asked in the earlier debate, is whether the school committee is to meet in public so that all of its discussions can be heard by everyone. Will those discussions be fully recorded? Almost all of the decisions will be difficult and I suspect controversial. That will make a great deal of difference to the number of cases that go to the adjudicator.
Secondly, I should like to deal with the question of cost. Earlier, we were informed that the scheme was expected to cost £1 million. If there are 20 adjudicators that will not leave much per adjudicator. We know from Schedule 5 that inevitably the adjudicator will require some staff if he or she is to consider the papers and write reports. The adjudicator will require an office, a secretary and so on. We are all aware of the add-on costs. I believe that £1 million is a complete under-estimate of the cost of this whole organisation. I hope that before we reach the next stage of the Bill noble Lords can be given a much clearer idea of the cost of the exercise.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to add to the questions. I ask the Minister to whom the adjudicator is accountable. As to cost, I understand that the figure to set up the system is £1.2 million and that revenue costs per annum thereafter will be £1 million. I also understand that the capital costs—the buildings where adjudicators sit, equipment and all the rest of it—will be additional to those figures and therefore will fall on the LEA. This appears to be an open-ended cheque for the LEAs. Allied to that, what is the mechanism for funding this money? Will it be top-sliced from the LEA budget or will it be a precept on the LEA or individual schools? The question was asked earlier but not answered. This is probably one cost that individual schools will not be able to opt out of. They will all be subject to the services of the organisation committee and adjudicator.
Next, will the organisation committee and the adjudicator have a role to play over admissions to foundation schools? I understand that the foundation schools will be their own admissions authority. If that is the case, what is the relationship between admissions policy and admission issues vis-à-vis the organisation committee and adjudicator and foundation schools? That is quite an important point.
On the point about the adjudicators not being local, I was not being inconsistent or trying to have my cake and eat it. I was trying to understand the arguments that were put forward strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Every time he came to the Dispatch Box he said that the whole rationale of what the Government were doing was to see that decisions were taken locally. The argument that I, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and my colleagues on these Benches are putting forward is that the adjudicator will not be local to many people. He will not be known by many people. Confidence in the

81
people who take the decisions will be important. I shall be interested to hear the answer to my noble friend Lady Young as to whether the meetings will be in public. Given that there is no other accountability, that would at least be some form of accountability.
I understand that the Minister cannot give us the salary figures at the moment, although it sounds as if there will be a daily rate for the job. The Minister has said that she does not know that at the moment because it is under review. Can we have a promise that when it is known we shall hear it. I hope that it will be before the Bill goes through Parliament, so that we will understand what it will be.
Which body in government will determine the daily rate? Who thereafter will review it? Where will the responsibility for reviewing the salary lie? Will the members of the committee receive a fee per diem or expenses? What will be the form of recompense for disrupting the lives of the people who will serve on those committee? I do not believe it, but the Government say that the adjudicator will not have to do very much work. The organisation committee will have to do quite a deal of work. How will those people be reimbursed? Presumably LEA members will just receive their normal LEA expenses. They are already busy people, especially if they are on the education committee. It would be helpful to know what they will receive.
It seems that the budget total is £50,000. There will be 20 committees covering wide areas. I have already asked about the capital costs. I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on that.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall begin with the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I can confirm that the adjudicators will be paid on the basis of a daily rate. They will be part time. They will not receive a salary. The noble Baroness asked about a review. There have been a number of gloomy predictions about the impact of this new system. It has been suggested that it will not work, that it will be incredibly expensive, and that there will be huge numbers of disagreements which will lead to the involvement of adjudicators. It would be reasonable to monitor and review the system as we go along. Of course if Members opposite turn out to be right in their gloom and pessimism about all this, the Government would naturally want to look at ways of improving the way in which the system operates. I have no difficulty in confirming that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked whether the school organisation committees would meet in public. The answer is that they will. In that sense, there will be local accountability. People will have access to the way in which the decision was made and how the arguments were played out. I accept that that is important. So I am grateful to her for asking that question. I am pleased to clarify that point.
The noble Baroness asked also about the cost of the system. Perhaps I may clarify something which may not have been sufficiently clear earlier. The system will cost £1 million over and above the cost of the existing
82
system. There will obviously be substantial savings in the number of civil servants employed to deal with the 300 or 400 cases that come up to the Secretary of State at present.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked a number of questions. She asked about the mechanisms of funding and whether the schools would have their budgets reduced. The answer is that the schools will not have their budgets reduced, the costs will have to come out of the local authority's budget.
The noble Baroness asked who will review the adjudicator's daily rate. It will obviously be reviewed from time to time by the Secretary of State. Where inflation requires the daily rate to be increased, it will obviously have to be increased by central government. She asked also about the adjudicators' accountability. Adjudicators will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Once they have been appointed, they will be independent. Any decisions that they make will of course be subject to judicial review. That is the sense in which they will be accountable. They will be accountable to the courts for the way in which they make their decisions.
We must remember that the Secretary of State currently considers each year 300 to 400 proposals for changes of one kind or another, where they have not been sorted out satisfactorily at local authority level. The existing system leads to a large number of referrals back to central government. Our hope is that we can avoid that kind of referral. Everyone knows that the existing system is far from perfect. It often, but not always, takes a long time. People in local government feel that it is not transparent. I hope that the way in which the adjudicators will operate will make the system rather more transparent, that there will be clarity about the way in which decisions are made, and that in the end we will have an improved system. The noble Baroness shakes her head.
Baroness Blatch: It is unbelievable to say that it takes a long time, and that it will take less time. There is nothing in the Bill to cut down the amount of time and trouble that local authorities will go through to come to a decision. That stays. It will take even longer, because once they have gone through all the procedures to come to a decision, they will be gone through all over again by the organisation committee. If there is one dissenting voice on the organisation committee, it then goes on to the adjudicator. The idea that it will take less time is absolutely absurd.
Baroness Blackstone: Once again, I may not have made myself clear enough. The noble Baroness has misinterpreted what I was saying. I was suggesting that the system of going to the Secretary of State when agreement cannot be reached can often take a long time. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Blatch, may have been involved. When there is a large number of referrals to officials who have to advise the Secretary of State, it often takes a long time. The hope is that with the new system, through the 20 adjudicators who will be appointed, we shall be able rather more quickly to reach decisions where there has been disagreement.

83
I have already said that if the Government are proved to be wrong about this, we will have to review the system. It is important that it is streamlined and that people are not kept waiting for months and months before a decision is made. In the light of what I have said, I hope that it will be accepted—
Baroness Blatch: The Minister has missed the point about admissions and foundation schools.
Baroness Blackstone: As I understand it, foundation schools and their admissions will be subject to the agreement of school organisation committees.
In the light of what we have discussed, I hope that we can now move on. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that she does not wish to press that the clause should not stand part of the Bill, but that she may wish to come back to the matter at the next stage of the Bill. I look forward to further debate when we reach that stage.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving the Motion, perhaps I may suggest that Committee stage begins again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Building Regulations (Energy Rating Information) (Amendment) Bill
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to make more effective use of the existing requirement for all new and substantially converted homes to have an energy efficiency rating.
The benefits of energy efficiency are well understood. Apart from the immediate benefit to the consumer there are significant benefits to the environment. As a Government, we are committed to a reduction in greenhouse gases, a commitment recently renewed at the Kyoto conference, and well insulated homes can make a significant contribution to our targets. A good energy rating could also influence the prospective purchaser of a property and it is important that this information should be available when the decision is made. That is the objective of the Bill.
Energy rating for new homes was introduced by the previous administration in response to a Select Committee report recommendation. The scheme established a standard assessment procedure which rated houses on a scale of from 1 to 100 for energy efficiency. This SAP was introduced by way of the Building Regulations (Amendment) Regulations of 1994 and required that, among other things, all new homes created by building or by a material change of use, should be the subject of a calculation of their energy rating and
84
that notice of that rating should be certified to the local authority. But, surprisingly, there was no requirement to give the information to prospective purchasers.
Clause 1 of the Bill inserts new paragraphs (3A) and (3B) in the relevant building regulations, namely regulation 14A of the 1991 regulations which was itself inserted by the 1994 regulations. I am sorry if that sounds complicated, but regulations often do.
New paragraph (3A) requires the energy rating to be, first, displayed in the building so that it can be easily seen by the prospective occupant; secondly, given to any agent who has been instructed to sell the home; and, thirdly, given to any prospective occupier.
New paragraph (3B) specifies that the person on whom the duty is placed is the person carrying out the work or, if different, the person for whom the work is carried out. This is important as it puts the duty on the developer rather than on each individual builder.
Subsection (2) inserts identical new provisions in the Building (Approved Inspectors etc.) Regulations. This covers the situation where the role of building inspector is being carried out by an "approved inspector" rather than by a local authority inspector. Clause 2 provides a defence of "reasonable steps" having been taken to carry out the duties imposed by the Bill.
Clause 3 contains the title, commencement and extent. It will be seen that the Bill does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland as the law is different there. However, it is hoped that the Bill can be extended to those countries as soon as possible. The honourable Member for Swindon South tried recently to introduce a similar Bill in another place, but it fell foul of a government review in progress in the department and would have complicated the issue of the review. This is a similar Bill to the one which the honourable Member sought to introduce. It is a simple attempt to give house purchasers what is for them important information on energy rating. I hope that my noble friends on the Front Bench will indicate that the Government support the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Nicol.)
7.35 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to support the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in moving this Private Member's Bill. In another place I had the fortune to come top of the private Members' ballot, moving successfully all stages of the home energy conservation legislation. This Bill complements everything that we sought to do. If we are to succeed with energy efficiency, we need, first, to give people information and to educate them on the importance of energy conservation and energy efficient buildings. Secondly, we need to give them the facts and figures to be able to make decisions on how to achieve that.
The Bill is ideal. As the noble Baroness said, it seems strange that when the measure was introduced for new buildings, it did not cover all buildings. I half understand that because for older buildings there are housing programmes to improve properties that are not up to a certain standard. That may partly be why the

85
measure was not introduced for all buildings: the Government might have seen it as a noose around their neck with people asking for extra money not just for home improvements but for energy efficiency measures. That is an enormous task and governments like to target their money effectively.
However, the Government should not be worried about that aspect. The Bill merely gives people information. It may be used as a stick with which to beat the Government, but so be it. They do not have to respond, although many of us would be pleased if they did so.
Energy efficiency makes sense not only as regards the environment and sustainability but also health. I understand that the Government are looking at building regulations in a wider sense. I understand the Government's problems regarding fitness standards. They are undertaking research on the issue, and research is also being undertaken outside government on the relationship between health and the state of energy efficiency in buildings. Programmes have been put into practice. If energy efficiency is improved in high-rise flats where many people are on low incomes, the greatest benefit for those people is in the quality of health. I hope that the Government will consider seriously all the research in this area. I hope that they will look favourably on this Private Member's Bill.
Bills have been introduced which have sought to enable purchasers of property people to obtain an SAP rating. A Private Member's Bill sought to require an SAP rating to be given when mortgages are taken out. I sought to persuade building societies of that when I was in another place. I was disappointed that the societies were unable to see that it was in their interest to encourage people to have lower heating bills through greater energy efficiency, in particular at a time when people were falling behind in payments on their mortgages.
We need to push for energy efficiency measures on all fronts. We need people to understand why those measures are necessary, and to be given the information on how to achieve them. That is why I am happy to support this Private Member's Bill today. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, every success.
7.39 p.m.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, for the introduction of the Bill and her explanation. I wish I had spoken to her before this evening rather than wading through the regulations to find out precisely what it meant. The noble Baroness was able to explain it to your Lordships' House in a much shorter time than it took me to research it.
It seems to be a relatively straightforward matter and one which, I am sure, is worthy of support from all Members of your Lordships' House. My understanding is that it still only applies to new build and conversions of buildings into dwellings. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I read with some concern about the difficulties that the Government have had in persuading building societies to incorporate these ratings into their mortgage valuations, although I am bound to say that
86
before we take steps to insist upon that we need to ensure that this will not add in any way to the cost or delay involved in getting a mortgage and consequently purchasing a property. This seems to me to be a modest measure and one which we should support.
7.41 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Baroness Nicol for the introduction that she has given this debate. As my noble friend has explained, the Bill defines "responsible person" and requires that person to have a written notice of the SAP rating displayed in the dwelling for certain defined periods, given to the selling or letting agent at the time of instruction, and given to the purchaser or occupier. It would provide in the Building Act 1984 that evidence of having taken reasonable steps to comply with these requirements would be a defence against prosecution for failure to comply.
First, we are encouraged by the strong interest in energy conservation and carbon dioxide abatement that the history of this Bill exemplifies. Julia Drown, MP, introduced, as my noble friend said, similar proposals earlier this year in another place and here we see an improvement. I congratulate my noble friend and her Bill's sponsors. Similar determination by others involved in the construction industry and elsewhere will be helpful in meeting the targets for abating carbon dioxide emission that we set ourselves in our manifesto and those to which we are now committed following the Kyoto Summit.
The proposed changes to the regulations would help to make prospective purchasers and tenants more aware of the energy efficiency of dwellings. We are persuaded of the merits here and support the Bill's aims in principle. Therefore, I am very grateful to my noble friend and her sponsors for putting forward ways in which this wider availability of information might possibly be brought about.
However, we have some reservations. These have ultimately led us to conclude that the Government cannot support this Bill's further progress. We are concerned about the proposal to amend the primary legislation in this way because it might jeopardise the use of this defence against other alleged contraventions. We have misgivings about the proposal to define "the responsible person" for the specific purposes of this Bill, again because of the wider implications for the regulations of assigning responsibility for building work. We also think that there are drafting anomalies in the definitions of the proposed periods for displaying, or otherwise making available, the SAP rating that might make them impractical in some cases.
Although these issues may perhaps turn out to be merely drafting points, we think they are too complex to be resolved in the remaining time for Private Members' Bills in this Session. We have a further important reservation. It is common practice for the Government, when proposing amendments to the building regulations, to subject them to wider consultation before finally deciding on how to proceed.

87
However, we, therefore, propose a different course. We propose to work with the Bill's promoters to resolve the difficulties that I have mentioned. Our intention will be to make amending regulations introducing new provisions into the building regulations. These will have similar aims of increasing accessibility to the SAP rating information. Following the appropriate consultation we would aim to make amendment regulations in the first half of next year.
I have listened to the debate so far and will listen to the further debate in your Lordships' House with interest, and as I have said, the Government will be receptive to further approaches on these matters. As I have also made clear, we believe that it would be unwise to proceed with this Bill.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. I am a little disappointed in my noble friend's response from the Front Bench. I find it difficult to understand how such a simple matter should require wider consultation, and I am also puzzled by the reference to the complications that might be caused by the defence mechanism that we offer.
However, I feel sure that the sponsors of the Bill, the Association for the Conservation of Energy, will be very pleased that the Government are prepared to take a more positive line on the requirements of the Bill, even if it is not going to be exactly what they wanted.
As my noble friend gave a long and fairly complicated answer, I would like the opportunity to study what my noble friend has said and, therefore, I hope that I can ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading so that we may return to it on another occasion.
Before I do that, I wonder whether my noble friend can give any indication of how long she would expect this consultation process to last before we can move to what is after all a fairly simple result.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is usual practice to allow a three month period for such consultations, and legislative processes are not generally rapid. As I indicated in my earlier statement, we hope that the consultation will not add, as a result of the legislative processes, to the timescale involved, and we would aim to make amendment regulations in the first half of next year.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I find that encouraging but, nevertheless, I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading so that we may all study what has been said and perhaps return to it later.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.46 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a very short Bill which seeks to amend the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967.
The Bill will enable Ministers to authorise on a case by case basis, the use of non-damaging types of fishing gear, such as creels, in several fishery order areas by fishermen as well as by the grantee of the order.
Currently, the 1967 Act is inflexible in this respect. This Bill promises a win-win situation and, therefore, comes before the House with the full support of all interested parties.
In addition, this proposal has enjoyed support from both sectors of the fish industry since a public meeting in Inverness in May 1993. That meeting was chaired by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish who was then chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority. The meeting unanimously identified the introduction of flexibility as the key to removing the adversarial element of the current situation.
In addition, this Bill will contribute to sustainable development. It will help enterprises in some of our most remote and rural costal communities. It also promises conservation benefits through making several orders less objectionable. Research shows that several orders enhance recruitment to the natural fisheries.
This Bill is the result of extended and extensive consultation and has attracted wide approval. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.— (The Earl of Lindsay.)
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I rise to congratulate my noble friend Lord Lindsay on introducing this Bill to amend the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 in respect of several fisheries.
I know that the Scottish fishermen have been opposed to several orders as they saw them curbing their rights to creel in those areas where several orders would apply. As we have heard from the noble Earl, this Bill enables the orders that introduce a several fishery to exclude certain types of fishing only, allowing creeling to continue.
I am from the west country fishery where circumstances are somewhat different, but there several orders have worked very well indeed for many years. I support this Bill because I can see a new flexibility resulting that will be useful all around our coastline. As we have heard from my noble friend, Lord Lindsay, my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who was chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority, would have been supportive tonight if he could have been here. Unfortunately, he has another engagement so I speak for him.

89
The Sea Fish Industry Authority carried out a great deal of work on scallops. Using several orders to lay down young scallops will be better than the lantern cages currently used. Not only will we have marketable scallops, but the laid down ones will go through at least one breeding cycle and in that way reseed in the world much to the benefit of all the fishermen.
It is most important to keep vigilant and up to date in all our fishing regulations as technology advances and monitoring our maritime environment shows an ever-changing picture as we approach 2002 and prorogation. I can see nothing to stop this short and sweet Bill receiving a fair wind in its passage through both Houses to Royal Assent. Our British fishermen need all the help and support they can get. This Bill will allay the fears of many in Scotland. I am happy to support it and I wish my noble friend Lord Lindsay every success.
7.50 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for his compelling and succinct explanation of this short but important Bill. I am delighted to confirm that we on these Benches welcome it and will give it as fair a wind as possible. We do so not least because my honourable friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland will be sponsoring it in another place but also because it is a clear and sensible piece of legislation. As chairman of Scrabster Harbour Trust—if that is an interest I declare it—I am well aware of the importance of the Bill to shellfish growers and fishermen alike. I therefore welcome it personally.
I will not detain your Lordships for long, but I wish to make three brief points. First, the Bill is simple and deserves to succeed for that reason if for no other. Secondly, the powers it grants are clearly needed and desirable. Thirdly, the consultation has been extensive, even exhaustive, and it is clear that the whole industry supports the Bill. I hope that the shellfish growers and fishermen, for whom the oyster is their world, once the Bill is passed will be able to say that the world is their oyster!
7.52 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for introducing the Bill. I hope he will be pleased to hear that we share his enthusiasm for several fishery orders and I am delighted to be able to say that the Government welcome this amendment Bill and can support it.
With that in mind, I shall be brief and confine my remarks to the importance which the Government attach to several orders and to achieving a better balance between the interests of the applicant and the shellfish farming sector on the one hand and the inshore fishermen on the other.
As already alluded to, several orders are designed to encourage the establishment of, or indeed enhance, shellfisheries and provide protection for stock within the designated areas. There are currently 21 several orders in operation; 16 around the coastline of England and Wales but only five in Scotland.
90
The Government are disappointed that greater use of several orders in Scotland has thus far not been possible. They make sound economic sense: they offer employment opportunities for those living and working in rural and remote areas; and they can provide the basis for a sustainable shellfishery and a means whereby production can be increased to meet consumer demand for top quality shellfish.
As matters stand, once a several order has been granted the 1967 Act then provides protection for the shellfish stocks and the owner's rights within the designated area. As the noble Earl explained, all other fishing activities are prohibited except where pelagic trawl nets or hook and line are used. Therein lies the problem. The 1967 Act places too great a restriction on fishing within several order sites. On this there is no dispute between shellfish interests and the fishermen. Both are agreed greater flexibility is needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, has played her part in extending the Act. I was pleased to learn, and I am sure she was pleased to know, that some use is being made of the powers provided by her 1997 amendment Act.
The noble Earl's amendment will provide flexibility by removing the current prohibition and giving Ministers discretion, on a case by case basis, over the types of fishing which may be permitted within a several order area. I can assure your Lordships that such decisions would be exercised with great care, after full consultation with applicants and interested parties, and founded, I hope, on consensus.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward the Bill. I am confident that the amendment, if enacted, will help to resolve some of the difficulties surrounding the granting of several orders in Scotland and should, as a result of greater uptake, stimulate shellfish farming production. I commend the Bill to the House.
7.55 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I am grateful for the support of all those who have spoken. I am grateful for the support expressed by the Minister on behalf of the Government. She helpfully explained several aspects of the Bill which in my efforts to be brief I had edited.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Wilcox. Her description of the Bill as being short and sweet is accurate. My gratitude goes to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, not only for his support and that of his party but for managing to work some humour into a Bill. I had thought that impossible.
My noble friend Lady Wilcox mentioned that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish would have supported the Bill had he been able to he here tonight. He regrets being unable to be present but has had a long interest and involvement in several fishery orders. As long ago as 1993 he attempted to deliver just this solution.
The proposal represents a much needed answer to an inflexible element of the 1967 Act. It meets the modern requirements for all concerned and will contribute to the sustainable development of marine resources and our coastal communities. I hope that the sectoral support

91
across coastal and fishing interests outside the House and the cross-party support inside the House bodes well for the Bill's remaining stages. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.57 to 8.30 p.m.]

School Standards and Framework Bill
House again in Committee.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—

RIGHT OF APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF ADJUDICATOR
(". The governing body of any school or the parents of pupils at any school affected by decisions of the adjudicator with respect to matters referred to him concerning or in connection with—

(a) school organisation plans under section 25 below;

(b) directions given under Schedule 7 concerning rationalisation of school places; or

(c) admission arrangements under sections 84 and 85 below, shall, in all cases, have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.").

The noble Lord said: Optimism and pessimism have been thrown around in this Chamber but this is a lovely, kind amendment, and it is nice to begin after dinner with this.
As the noble Baroness knows, there has been enormous controversy throughout the whole of the afternoon about organisation committees and adjudicators. I somehow thought that that would occur and I thought of a nice democratic way out. I therefore propose this amendment which allows the structures of the organisation committee and the adjudicator to continue, but allows an appeal to a Secretary of State who is responsible to Parliament.
I do not wish to dwell on history but in these Chambers we have always fought for parliamentary responsibility. We have always avoided the official who makes decisions without responsibility. The reason for that is mainly related to those who have not the power nor resources to resort to judicial review.
I assure noble Lords that resorting to judicial review is an expensive and exhausting process. I mentioned earlier this afternoon my experience as chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission. None of the plaintiffs ever resorted to judicial review, only the rather rich corporations.
In this situation relating to the school organisation committee and the adjudicator, there will be, without a doubt, some aggrieved parents, people who possibly do not understand the processes of law. At the moment,
92
they have no appeal. It is true that they could seek a judicial review and it is certainly true that some organisations which have the money—and it is very expensive—will resort to lawyers and seek judicial review. But this amendment is primarily designed for the parents of children who have found that their school is being closed; they object; and they have not found any satisfaction from the organisation committee or their representations to the adjudicator.
I suggest that following English constitutional tradition, there should be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State who can answer questions in Parliament about such a matter.
In a sense, this amendment sums up the whole of the debate this afternoon. I hope that as an optimist, and a smiling optimist like myself, and also, I know, a supporter of the constitutional traditions of our country, the noble Baroness might even find it in her heart to accept this amendment.
Lord Newby: Our initial response to this amendment is rather similar to that of my younger son when, as sometimes happens, he is asked to choose between two green vegetables. His answer is always "neither". He has an aversion to green vegetables and so it is that we have an aversion to the adjudicator. Therefore, whether or not his decisions are appealable to the Secretary of State is a decision with which, in principle, we should rather not face.
However, given that if the Bill passes there will be adjudicators, as the mover of the amendment has made clear, the question is whether they should be given virtually unappealable powers. It is undoubtedly the case, as the noble Lord has already said, that judicial review is an expensive and cumbersome process and, frankly, one that is ill understood by many of the people who could conceivably use it. To the extent that they understand it, it is worrying and too expensive for them to wish to proceed.
The question then is simply, if one wants to have the adjudicator's decisions appealable at all, in reality, should one be able to refer back to the Secretary of State?
We have looked in detail at the amendment and I think it is fair to say that we are not wholly happy with it. We do not regard it as ideally drafted. For example, there is a failure to define what constitutes "parents of pupils". Moreover, there is no suggestion of whether one is talking about a majority of pupils in a school and how such a situation would be balloted. That is a shortcoming.
Equally, paragraph (b) of the amendment concerns directions given under Schedule 7. In a sense, those directions will flow from directions given by the Minister. Therefore, one will be appealing to the Minister against decisions that flowed from the Minister in the first place. That clearly is not a satisfactory appeal procedure.
However, even with those shortcomings, on balance, we are concerned that the adjudicator should not, in effect, have carte blanche to take a decision and that

93
there should be no right of appeal against that decision except in exceptional circumstances. That leads us to support the principle behind the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Following on from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, there is another issue here. Under the present system, at the end of this very long process, a local authority reaches a decision. Parents do not argue that the decision was not arrived at properly and was not procedurally correct. They simply do not like the decision and they think it is the wrong decision for their school. They then take their case to the Secretary of State. So they do not need procedural grounds. It would help them if they had procedural grounds but they can go to the Secretary of State and say, "Our local authority has taken this case into account. This is the view that it has reached but we want, once more, to put our case before the Secretary of State".
The trouble with judicial review is that it is not only expensive—a point that has already been made—but it is not possible for the kind of judgment to be made that a Secretary of State can presently make. In other words the Secretary of State can look afresh at the decision and can come to a different view. If the adjudicator takes a decision, that is the end of it. Unless he has made a procedural "howler" along the way, there is nothing anybody can do about it. Parents can, if they do not like the decision, go through the process of judicial review but the judicial review is free to make a judgment only about the way in which the decision has been arrived at as opposed to the actual decision made.
Therefore, under this provision, parents and governors and children attending those schools that are the subject of those decisions lose a part of a process. It is on those grounds that I believe an appeal is very important. If the adjudicator makes a decision that is against the interests of the local people, the local people in any particular school should have the long-stop opportunity to take their case to the Secretary of State.
Baroness Blackstone: I am intrigued by the proposed new clause as I believe it represents a departure from the Opposition's usual criticism of any proposal to give powers to the Secretary of State.
The objective of the new arrangements that we are introducing, both for school organisation and for admissions, is to secure that decisions are taken at a local level. In the case of school organisation, we are requiring the establishment in each LEA area of a school organisation committee to bring together the partners, as we have already discussed. In the case of admissions, we shall require consultation on admissions arrangements at local level, and suggest that the establishment of a local admissions forum may be helpful. However, we shall deal with that aspect later when we debate the admissions part of the Bill. We recognise that in some circumstances local agreement will not be reached. As I said earlier, we hope that those will be rather rare occasions; indeed, the adjudicator exists for just such cases.
The adjudicator will review all the issues, taking full account of all objections and comments made, before reaching a decision. The adjudicator's decision will be
94
final. As I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, recognised, any challenge to the adjudicator will be by judicial review.
Perhaps I may point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the new system is one based on the principle that the adjudicator will undertake a review as regards any dispute which is taking place. Therefore, to add the Secretary of State to that process would further extend the whole system thus rendering it more time consuming. Moreover, it would also duplicate what the adjudicator was doing.
The amendment would re-introduce the Secretary of State as a further source of appeal. That would have two effects. First, it would involve the Secretary of State in decisions which are properly taken elsewhere; and, secondly, it would prolong consideration of the issues. We believe that the arrangements that we have put in place provide proper opportunities for schools and parents to make their views known. Where cases are referred to the adjudicator, he or she would be bound to take those views into account in a proper and reasonable consideration of the issues. Therefore, they will have every opportunity to put their case, as clearly as they are able, to the adjudicator.
I note with interest the inclusion of proposals flowing from a direction given under Schedule 7 in the proposed clause. Any such direction would have been given by the Secretary of State where he was of the opinion that the provision of places in any part of an LEA area was either excessive or insufficient. Schedule 7 also provides for the Secretary of State to bring forward his own proposals where he is not persuaded by those brought forward in response to the direction. In such a case, unless the school organisation committee approves the proposals, the adjudicator will be obliged to hold a local inquiry. That reflects arrangements introduced in the 1993 Act in which the Secretary of State was obliged to take account of the findings of a local inquiry in reaching a decision on his own proposals.
To provide for appeal to the Secretary of State in such cases seems particularly inappropriate when the adjudicator has already held a local inquiry. We believe that there are sufficient opportunities within the arrangements we propose for schools and parents to make their views known. I accept that that is important. Indeed, they should be able to make their views known and they will be able to do so under the system that we propose to introduce. Both school organisation committees and adjudicators will have to take full account of any comments and objections made in reaching reasonable decisions. We shall ensure that our guidance covers the procedures that both the committees and the adjudicators should be following.
I am afraid therefore that I shall have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, who was optimistic that the Government might be able to accept his amendment. On this occasion, I believe that pessimism might perhaps have been the right emotion for him to express. Our objective is to ensure that these decisions are taken at a local level as far as is possible and not by the Secretary of State. We are introducing a system of adjudicators. If we were then to have an appeal process

95
to the Secretary of State, it would really make the adjudicators redundant. So, against that background, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I should point out to the Committee that the Minister's new elegant hairstyle does not represent a change in generosity of spirit. I have two comments to make. I shall deal, first, with the position as regards our objection to the Secretary of State taking powers. Basically, on this side of the Committee, we hold the constitutional principle that when you make a law you ought to put on the face of the legislation the powers that are given to the executive. We have—and I acknowledge this fact—objected strongly to the Secretary of State taking such powers and the scrutiny committee supported us in that view. I am pleased, as indeed are all our noble friends, that the Minister has taken our views to heart and has introduced legislation accordingly. Therefore, when she said that we objected to the Secretary of State in such circumstances, that is quite true. We certainly objected to him taking arbitrary powers.
It has been a fundamental principle of the English constitution that we do not hand to unelected officials powers without appeal. I acknowledge that you give an appeal to a judicial review. But I can only endorse what noble Lords opposite have said; namely, that this is not a redress. Judicial review is only available to the wealthy. Therefore, our objection is that the executive has taken power to avoid its responsibilities without allowing for proper redress.
The Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament and has to answer to it. He also has to face people demonstrating outside his office. However, more importantly, in such a case he has to answer to the local MPs for the constituencies where the schools are situated. We therefore propose that the appeals procedure should enter into the long 200-year tradition of English democracy, from the Wilkes case onwards, and that the Secretary of State should be answerable to Parliament for his decisions which should be subject to appeal.
Secondly, it has been said that the adjudicator is local. However, he is not local; he is an official. The noble Baroness said earlier that he is official and that his virtue is that he should not be local. I accept that. It is like being a member of the Parole Board or chairman of the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, and so on. I do not understand how the Minister can now contradict what she said earlier today. She now says that he is local, but that is not so. As I said, he is an official who is going to judge such matters, but he is an official without appeal except to judicial review. I am sorry to repeat myself, but judicial review is not available to the poor.
We have been debating this matter since three o'clock this afternoon. I believe that the opinion of the Committee has been against these proposals. On
96
this side of the Committee, we feel that it was most unfortunate that Members of the other opposition party did not press their amendment to a Division. I regret that fact. Therefore, at this point and late in the evening, I should like to test the opinion of the Committee.
8.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 108) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 51.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Aldington, L.

McNair, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Maddock, B.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Newby, L.

Biddulph, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Blackwell, L.

Northesk, E.

Blatch, B.

Norton, L.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Palmer, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Carnock, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Chesham, L.

Renton, L .

Chesham, L.

Rowallan, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Cox, B.

Seccombe, B.

Dholakia, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Strange, B.

Fookes, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Gray of Contin, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Leigh, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lucas, L.

Thurso, V.

Luke, L.

Wise, L.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Lockwood, B.

Burlison, L.

McCarthy, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Orme, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Fitt, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B. [Teller.]

Gallacher, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Grenfell, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hoyle, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Islwyn, L.

Whitty, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.55 p.m.
Schedule 5 [Adjudicators]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 118, line 8, at end insert—
("Training
The Secretary of State shall make provision for ensuring that persons appointed as adjudicators receive appropriate training.").
The noble and learned Lord said: While the Chamber is thinning I should say that I come to this Committee as a johnny-come-lately. I was not able to participate at Second Reading. Had I done so, I should have been broadly supportive of my noble friend's proposals in this Bill. Certainly I should have been duly deferential because I have no qualifications as an educationist and I have never been a member of an LEA. The nearest I can approach such a qualification is as the husband of a former school governor.
The purpose of these amendments is to reflect the concern of the Council on Tribunals which I am privileged to chair. I am grateful to my noble friend for providing that the Council on Tribunals will exercise a supervisory role over adjudicators. This amendment reflects a long-standing concern of the council that those entrusted with the task of adjudication should be trained properly for that purpose. Those who are appointed adjudicators—whatever the method of appointment—are not likely to find themselves the beneficiaries of a sinecure. My noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lord Peston said they hoped there would not be many appeals to the adjudicator. They may be right about that. They frequently are right on these matters. At that moment the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was in a less optimistic mode. I do not know who is right on that issue. However, I know that appeals are likely to arise when local objections are strongest, where controversy is most virulent and where those concerned are least open to conciliation.
It has been said that the adjudicator will be invited to reconsider decisions of LEAs and of governing bodies; those most immediately accountable to local communities. That is not totally unique in our constitution. He will exercise a judicial role. I imagine it is hoped he will be in a position to review the situation dispassionately; to hear the arguments objectively; and to apply his knowledge of educational principles so as to produce a coherent result. Perhaps that is not always so simple for LEAs or governing bodies which are more immediately subjected to pressure from those who are most concerned in the matter. One of the problems of any democracy is that accountability is not always easy to reconcile with objectivity.
I understand that the adjudicator will not be particularly knowledgeable about local conditions. I am bound to say that I never heard any of my noble friends in the course of these debates say anything to the contrary. Clearly, one of the virtues being claimed for the system of adjudicators is that they will be able to be rather more objective. They will not be so concerned with all the local political and social currents, and for that reason may be able to produce a more objective report.
My concern in tabling this amendment is not to pass judgment on the merits of a system of adjudicators but, if there are to be adjudicators, to ensure that the system will work properly and fairly. I can testify from my own experience as a constituency MP that few issues evoke such outbursts of feeling as admission to a school which the parents see as their preference.
Of this I am certain. The adjudicator will need a high level of skill, not only in controlling procedures, weighing arguments and reaching a reasoned conclusion; he will need to know how to defuse a very emotive situation, how to convince desperate parents that they have received a fair and proper hearing—and if, as I assume, at least some of the procedures are to be by way of a public hearing, how to retain control of a crowded hall when tempers are hot and insults fly.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, who for reasons which I understand is not in his place, pointed out that there is not a complete analogy with planning inspectors. There are some similarities. The inspector who has to conduct a public inquiry into a proposed ring-road or a cutting through a stretch of woodland is sometimes faced with an outbreak of passionate emotion. By comparison with the adjudicator, his job is a doddle. This is a subject likely to strike much nearer to people's hearts.
Inspectors appointed to conduct local inquiries are now afforded proper training. I hope that no less a provision is intended for the adjudicators. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: This is another amendment that I should prefer not to be supporting because, as the noble Lord knows, I do not agree with this appointment. Nevertheless, if there is to be an adjudicator—and our judgment is that, given the kind of vote in the other place, even if we vote successfully on this side of the Chamber, there will be an adjudicator—I support all the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. This is an important post. It will be a very exposed post. The noble Lord's comparisons between the operations of the adjudicator and the way in which a planning inspector operates, are points well made and I support them.
While the noble and learned Lord was speaking to the amendment, a question occurred to me in relation to a point made earlier by the noble Baroness about one of the advantages of the adjudicator not being of or familiar with the local area being to dispel any notion of his or her being parti pris. I therefore need to ask formally: will it be a condition of appointment that the adjudicator should not operate in the area in which he or she lives, or in an area in which he or she is familiar with the locality or with the key players in the education service such as schools, teachers, head teachers or the LEA?
The noble and learned Lord made another important point. My understanding is that when a planning inspector takes evidence and goes into local communities to hear both sides of the case, those meetings are held in public. One can go along, sit in the building and hear what is going on. We have heard during our debates today that the routine meetings of the

99
organisation committee will be held in public. Will the deliberations of the adjudicator also be heard in public? For example. it is my understanding that an adjudicator will normally carry out his or her duties on paper. That is stated in the background information that we have received on this measure. However, it is also possible for an adjudicator to call for evidence and to see the protagonists and antagonists in a case. It would be helpful to hear from the noble Baroness whether that process will also take place in public.
Lord Baker of Dorking: It will be interesting to hear from the Minister exactly what adjudicators are to be trained in. As the situation has developed over the past few hours and we have learnt more about this system, it is clear that the close analogy is with the post of planning inspector. The Government are inserting into a system that has stood the test of many, many years a system of planning inspection in relation to the question of school closures.
The Government have sought to defend that approach on the grounds that it is somehow an improvement in local control. That argument has been used by both Ministers during the course of today's debates. The word "devolution" was heard. Any word that came to hand which is approved by the latest Demos pamphlet was used to demonstrate the impeccability of these proposals. The reference is to local devolution. But the one thing in which an adjudicator must not be trained is local geography. So if a school closure comes up in Lincolnshire, appoint a man from Birmingham—or, even better, from Devon! He has not got to know about Lincolnshire. So the Member of Parliament for Lincolnshire will have the fate of his school decided by a chap from Devon. That will go down very well with the Member for Lincolnshire, who has addressed a huge packed meeting in his school hall the night before, with people marching and holding up banners saying, "Save our school". No, the chap from Devon is going to do it. He is going to be immaculately trained. He will know tribunal procedure. He will be like an inspector—pure. That is the system we are being asked to approve.
The other phrase used by the Government is "democratic control". There is now a form of democratic control, as several noble Lords who have spoken today know perfectly well because they have been Members of Parliament and Ministers. When the question of school closures arises, the local Member of Parliament turns up and demands to see the Minister of the day. I dare say that the noble Baroness has received delegations involving people from the other place. I am sure that she has found time for that. She will know that that is a form of democratic accountability. That has totally gone out of the window with this proposal.
If I or my party had dared to introduce this proposal when in government, we should have been blown out of the water by the party opposite. It is a most bizarre and extraordinary proposal, to insert a form of planning
100
inquiry procedure into an area so politically sensitive as the closure of schools. I wait with bated breath to know exactly what the adjudicators will be trained in.
Baroness Maddock: Those who have followed the debate this evening will know that I and my noble friends, like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would rather not be discussing this amendment because we do not believe in the system of adjudicators. It is rare that I find myself in virtually complete agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, but on this occasion I do.
Analogy has been made with a planning inspector. I wonder whether the Minister can let us know whether, as is the case with a planning inspector, the adjudicator will make a written report—"findings of fact", I believe it is called—which explains how the inspector reached his decision. If we are to have a system of adjudicators, they need to be trained; and one way to make them at least marginally accountable would be for there to be findings of fact as to the reason for the adjudicator's decision.
Baroness Blackstone: My noble and learned friend Lord Archer speaks from a position of considerable knowledge, in spite of his modesty, as chairman of the Council on Tribunals. I am delighted to have this opportunity to thank him and the council for agreeing that there should be provisions in the Bill which would put adjudicators under the supervision of the council. I emphasise that we take the supervision of the Council on Tribunals very seriously. The council's guidance and its recommendations as to best practice will inform the procedures that adjudicators will follow. That provides a considerable degree of assurance for those who will be affected by decisions made by adjudicators.
I thought that the somewhat sarcastic comments of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, were extraordinarily misplaced. I am sure that when my noble and learned friend replies to the debate he will put the noble Lord right and explain why it is that the Council on Tribunals will want to be involved in the training of adjudicators and what that training will involve. I acknowledge the concern that the council has, and which my noble and learned friend described very clearly, to ensure that there is appropriate training for adjudicators. We are committed to ensuring that all those appointed will be given appropriate guidance and training, both before they begin to consider cases and as part of a process of continuing development. I entirely agree with my noble friend that the job is certainly not a sinecure and that adjudicators will have to make judgments about complex matters dispassionately and objectively and ensure that locally people believe that they have had a fair hearing. That is extremely important.
However, we do not believe that a requirement for training is appropriate to the face of the Bill. We believe that provision for supervision by the Council on Tribunals provides a sufficient safeguard and will ensure that adjudicators have sound and fair procedures. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked whether it will be a condition of appointment that adjudicators will not operate in an area where they have worked in the education system or have been involved in it in some

101
way. It would be a little rigid to make that a condition of appointment. At the same time, just as in the case when a complaint is made about the police it is sometimes desirable to involve a police force from another authority to investigate the complaint, I believe, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, that it makes a lot of sense for someone in a judicial role who is to look at a dispute of this kind dispassionately and objectively to come from outside the area. Chairmen of many different kinds of tribunals have to learn about the details of local areas. It is rather strange to suggest that intelligent people who are carefully selected to do this job after national advertisement are not able to acquire sufficient knowledge to make sensible judgments.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the adjudicator will sit in public. He has the power to call a public inquiry, if he wishes, but he will do his work by examining evidence that is sent to him and by looking at all the papers. There will be a written report in which he will set out the reasons for his decision.
The department's officials will consult with the secretariat to the Council of Tribunals about the detail of the training programme and on guidance to adjudicators. In making that clear, and in the light of that reassurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Baroness sits down and following on from what my noble friend Lord Baker said—the noble Baroness easily brushed that aside—I pointed out that this is not a matter for the Council of Tribunals; it is a matter for the Government. Can the Minister say what are the criteria against which the decisions of adjudicators will be made? For example, in relation to a school closure the problem may well be the local authority's view on finance, educational opportunity or the preference and convenience of parents. What will be the criteria in such a case against which an adjudicator will judge? The adjudicator will need to know about such things before learning how to handle large meetings or quasi-judicial issues, which require a lot of training and are extremely difficult issues—I agree with everything the noble and learned Lord said. Have the Government decided what the criteria are? Perhaps I should know.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I can ask one further question because it is very relevant. The noble Baroness said that the adjudicator would not hold hearings in public, but that his decisions would be based on written representations. Is she saying that individuals, the authority or other interested parties cannot put their views to the adjudicator in an open session and that it must all be done in writing behind closed doors?
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I can deal with the second question first. It will be up to the adjudicator, depending on the nature of the dispute and who is involved, to decide how he or she wishes to reach their judgment. It will be open to the adjudicator to hold a
102
public inquiry and receive evidence in public. But it will also be open to them to do that on the basis of written evidence from those objecting to the original plan.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, adjudicators will need to take into account a whole range of criteria. For example, they will look at demography and projections of numbers of children in any one area; they will consider the views of parents as expressed and look at the viable alternatives. They will also consider the different cost of different approaches. There is a whole variety of such factors that an adjudicator will want to take into account in reaching a decision.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in the course of responding to amendments throughout the day, have been saying conflicting things. The emphasis earlier was about the rationale for what the Government are doing; that is, devolving decision making locally. We now know that the decisions that go to the adjudicator will not be local.
The noble Baroness screws up her nose at that statement. The Minister should now stop hedging one way or the other. Is the noble Baroness prepared to give an assurance to the Committee—I believe she has already done this—that it will not be a condition of appointment that the person must not operate in an area in which they are familiar with the schools, the demography, the local people involved, the head teachers and LEA members?
Earlier the noble Baroness said that it would be of benefit if an adjudicator was not familiar with the area because that would dispel any notion of somebody being parti pris. That myth would be dispelled. Is the noble Baroness saying that somebody could be appointed in an area local to where they live, where they understand the demography, the geography and the local characters involved, but it may be a good thing if they are not? Surely by now the Department for Education and Employment has made up its mind about what are the criteria for making the appointments. Is the notion that it is better for everybody concerned—for those who may think adjudicators are parti pris—that they should not be familiar with the area in which they operate?
Another side effect of appointing somebody arises. Is the adjudicator to be responsible for one, two or three local education authority areas? If so, they may be familiar with one of them but not the other two. I have already given examples of how very different one county is from another and the vast differences that there are within counties. The distance between north Lincolnshire and south Cambridgeshire is very great indeed. So it is possible to have someone from one local education authority appointed responsible for that area plus the adjacent one or two areas. In that case they are familiar with one part of their area and not another. It is absolutely essential that the Government make up their mind whether the person should be familiar or unfamiliar with the area in which they are to operate or whether they believe it important in policy terms that they should not be familiar with an area or that it does not matter.

103
As regards local decision-making, we should have some consistency. Either the view of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, prevails or that of the noble Baroness that at the end of the day, it is possible that the little school in Devon will have its decision made by someone from another county. It is very difficult to convince the people concerned that the decision was made in the name of bringing decision-making closer to the people. Nothing could be closer to them than their own local authority. But if it is to be taken by the third or fourth bodies that makes the situation very difficult.
Perhaps I may now return to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour who referred to the closing of a school. There is a philosophical and political bias against sixth forms in schools existing in many parts of the country. Many further education colleges are hungry to take the sixth-formers in schools. The decision to lose a sixth form in a school becomes very painful indeed. Where do such people go?
I link that point to one that was made by my noble friend Lady Young. We asked questions as to whether the adjudicator will operate in public, which arose in points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, when referring to the analogy with the planning inspector. I am not talking about formal inquiries rather along the lines on which the planning inspector operates. In this context we have to remember that the planning inspector is acting in the name of the Secretary of State. A very detailed report is produced which then goes to the Secretary of State and the decision is made by that Minister. I am referring to an adjudicator who makes a decision.
There are two questions about that. Will the report produced by the adjudicator be as detailed, full and public as the report produced by a planning inspector? When the adjudicator decides to take oral evidence from a body of parents, the local education authority or interested parties in the community and which falls short of a public inquiry, will those occasions be made public? Is it to be an ad hoc decision for the adjudicator so that those meetings can be made public where one side wishes to put an argument and have closed meetings for the other side which wishes to put its points orally to the adjudicator and where the adjudicator deems that to be appropriate? If at the end of the day we end up with an adjudicator, it is important that we know in some detail how the adjudicator will operate.
Baroness Blackstone: We have reached group number seven of the amendments on the Marshalled List and we have over 30 groups to go through this evening. It is now 25 minutes past nine. One of the reasons for this situation is that the noble Baroness speaks about four times on each amendment including those tabled by her fellow Front Bench spokespersons. She also asks a whole range of questions which have absolutely nothing to do with the amendment on the Marshalled List. The amendment we are dealing with is about training of adjudicators. I am happy to try to answer some of the noble Baroness's questions, but I hope that Members of the Committee will agree with me that we must make progress with the Committee stage of the
104
Bill. On an amendment about training, we have had 15 different questions which have absolutely nothing to do with it and which could have been asked earlier when we were discussing other amendments; or if they were not asked then, they could be asked on Report.
The noble Baroness suggested that there is a difference between what my noble friend Lord Whitty and I are saying. She is completely wrong. She has totally neglected the fact that earlier my noble friend was talking about school organisation committees, not about adjudicators. School organisation committees are part of the Government's new procedure for devolving decision-making locally. The adjudicator system is a national system that is to be set up to resolve disputes where issues cannot be settled locally. Nothing that either my noble friend Lord Whitty or I have said suggests any difference between us.
The noble Baroness seems to misunderstand the system of adjudicators. They will not be attached to one, two or three local authorities. There will be about 20 adjudicators to cover the whole country. That is the purpose of the system. It would be over-rigid to make it a condition of appointment that, whatever the case, they would never operate in an area of which they have some knowledge. In fact, that would be patently ludicrous. At the same time, it is important, as I have said more than once, that they should not be parti pris but should make their judgments as dispassionately as possible. There may be many advantages in doing so if they come from a different part of the country.
The noble Baroness also asked whether the adjudicator's report will be as full as that undertaken by the Secretary of State with regard to his decisions. The answer is yes; they must be just as full.
We really must move on. In the light of what I have said on the issue of training, which is what this amendment is about, I ask my noble and learned friend whether he feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I take personal offence at the remarks made by the noble Baroness. In Committee we are in the business of doing two things. We seek to solicit from the Government information which is not part of the Bill or part of the background papers. We are asking questions where we have a gap in our knowledge. This is most important when we reach the next stage.
The noble Baroness said that my questions were not pertinent to the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. My noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking asked a question about training. We are anxious to know whether there will be reports and whether that will form part of the training. We are anxious to know whether evidence will be taken in public and whether that will form part of the training. We are anxious to know whether or not adjudicators will act locally. Those are very important questions, all of which are relevant to the issue of training.
One of the hazards of being in government—I have been there myself—is that the Opposition have only these stages of the Bill in which to solicit such information. All of the points I have made have been

105
entirely pertinent to the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord. In the event of there being an adjudicator system, I support the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: The questions which the noble Baroness has just asked about training are completely different from the questions she asked earlier. I am happy to respond to her questions; I want to be helpful. I also want us to make progress. I am sure that everybody in the Chamber would like us to make progress. I do not believe that we shall be able to do so if we continue as we have for the past four or five hours.
Those who will take on the role of adjudicators will have to be trained in exactly the matters which the noble Baroness has just identified. They are all extremely important. The Government endorse what has been said about the need for training. Indeed, as I said, our officials will consult the secretariat to the Council on Tribunals about the details of the training programme. I think—the Government think—that it is right that expert advice should be sought on a matter as important as this. That is what we intend to do.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for concentrating on the merits of the amendment. I confess that the debate has ranged rather more widely than I envisaged. I fully appreciate the position of the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Maddock. They would prefer not to have a system of adjudicators. However, given that there is to be a system of adjudicators they both believe it is better that it operates well than badly. I do not believe that there is any great issue between us on that matter.
I was invited to respond to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Baker. I hope he will forgive me if I resist the temptation, save to observe that although a planning inspector reports to the Minister, an adjudicator will make the decision for himself. I do not believe that that distinction should be reflected in whether or not he has local knowledge. Local knowledge is just as good or bad if one is reporting to the Secretary of State as if one is making the decision for oneself. But if we are talking about people who make decisions for themselves perhaps when a High Court judge whose home is in Devon next goes to Norwich Crown Court to try cases the noble Lord will address the same arguments to him and see what kind of reaction he receives.
Turning to the merits of the amendment, I hope that the adjudicators will receive training in all the skills that are necessary for them to undertake their work. It will consist not only of analysing issues and controlling procedures, but matters such as taking evidence in public and formulating reasons for a decision when it is given. If there is to be training at all it is pointless if it does not include those issues. I am grateful to my noble friend for indicating that the Council on Tribunals will be consulted about that matter.
I hesitate in relation only to one matter. My noble friend and I are entirely at one on what we should like to see happen. My noble friend did not say that she
106
wanted this to be written into the Bill, which is the purpose of my amendment. However, it may be that we should both consider what has been said this evening and reconsider the issue at a later stage. For the moment, I am grateful for the indication that she has given and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 109A:
Page 118, line 32, at end insert—
(" . When taking any decision an adjudicator shall have regard (so far as relevant) to the obligations which, by virtue of—

(a) Part III of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, or

(b) Part III of the Race Relations Act 1976,

are owed by any local education authority or governing body which will be affected by the decision.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Maddock: As I indicated earlier, I believe that we have already had this debate. I do not intend to pursue this matter any further tonight.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [School organisation plans]:
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 109B:
Page 23, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) No school organisation plan prepared under this section shall include proposals to—

(a) discontinue sixth form provision at a particular school;

(b) introduce pupils of the opposite sex into any age group or teaching group in a particular school in which that school currently offers single sex education; or

(c) eliminate selection by ability, in part or in whole,

unless the proposals submitted within the school organisation plan have previously been accepted by the governing body and parents of the school concerned.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment owes itself to the advice given to me by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Out of pure generosity of heart, he advised me that I had tabled the amendment in the wrong place. I thought that in all honesty I should table it in the right place. No doubt the noble Lord will be able to assure me with the same conviction that he showed over the education development plan that this does not present any problem to Her Majesty's Government.
I shall not dwell on these points. These matters are very precious to schools. If one discontinues sixth form provision one destroys the school. Single sex schools are very valuable. The way in which they select is of enormous value given the nature of the schools and their appointments. As a former headmaster presiding over schools, this amendment is close to my heart and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for helping me to table it. This is a headmaster's amendment which hope the Government will be able to accept, given that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, assured me that there were no problems as regards the education development plan. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord must listen a little more carefully, if I may say that to a former headmaster. On 19th May, after explaining that there was no question of education development plans dealing with the matter in the amendment, I said:
"If the noble Lord cares to put down an amendment to Clause 25 or a later clause, we shall consider it. But it is hardly for me to anticipate what will happen in the debate on those later clauses".—[Official Report, 19/5/98; col. 1506.]
The noble Lord has, as is entirely his right, chosen to put down this amendment in relation to Clause 25. I shall seek to persuade him that it is in the wrong place. It may be helpful if I, first, emphasise the purpose of the school organisation plan. It is to provide a context against which subsequent proposals for change may be brought forward by proposers and considered by school organisation committees. I say that with due deliberation, because from what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, it seemed that there was some confusion about what a school organisation plan does.
A number of noble Lords on the Opposition Benches seemed to think that a school organisation plan sets out those matters which have in the past been matters for statutory proposals considered by the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who was helpfully in his place on the previous occasion, reminded the Committee that changes such as those suggested by noble Lords opposite required, and still require, the publication of individual proposals.
While under current legislation such proposals might be required for changes to selective admissions arrangements, the Bill's provisions handle that separately and we shall come on to them when we consider Clauses 94 and 98, for partial selection, and Clauses 100 to 102 for grammar schools. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that I said that on 19th May.
We shall come shortly to discuss those clauses that deal with individual proposals. Under Clause 27, schools must publish proposals to make prescribed alterations to their schools. Among the changes that will be prescribed are changes of a year or more to the age range of a school and changing from providing single sex to providing co-educational education or vice-versa. Those are all matters brought forward again in the amendment.
That means that it will not be possible to discontinue sixth form provision at a school, or to make a single sex school co-educational, without having proposals to do so approved through the new decision-making system. That is the local decision-making process.
The new system will continue the current arrangements for publishing statutory proposals—in other words, the proposed change would have to be consulted on, and then published, with notices made publicly available, and various interested parties informed, including the governing bodies of any school affected. There will then be wide opportunities for comment and objection over a statutory two-month period before the proposals are put to the committee for consideration.
108
The committee will consider the proposals in the light of any comments and objections, and take into account all views expressed in reaching its decision. It is not our intention that the school organisation plan should replace the arrangements for proposals for change to individual schools. That is the error in the placing of the amendment. The plan should supplement that process, and, in the way that we have already discussed, make more transparent the demographic and policy considerations that underpin such proposals.
I hope that I can put the noble Lord's mind at rest about the extent to which the school organisation plan might deal with those issues. The local education authority will consult upon and publish a draft plan. There will be widespread opportunities to comment and to object. If there were to be any suggestion in a draft plan that, for example, school sixth forms should be removed, local schools and parents would have ample opportunity to comment and object, and the school organisation committee would have those objections before it.
As to the admission of pupils of the opposite sex to a single sex school, I would expect the interests of particular religious communities also to be reflected at local level and that both LEAs and school organisation committees would take their wishes fully into account in reaching decisions. That is the point of local decision-making. Our aim is that there should be a local consensus, reflecting the wishes and needs of all parties, not that we should impose constraints. Individual schools have enough opportunities to make their views and wishes known.
I hope that the noble Lord will not be too disappointed and will accept that the process of local decision-making infuses our thinking throughout the Bill and that his amendment is not appropriate at this place.
Lord Blackwell: I have not had the opportunity to hear all the debate today. However, I believe that the amendment strikes at the heart of the Bill. The noble Lord makes the point that the proposals should not be commented on by parents but that parents should accept the proposals put forward. Whether or not the amendment is in the right place, it seems helpful to have such words inserted in the Bill.
Clause after clause takes powers away from parents and puts them in the hands of either appointed officials, LEAs or the Secretary of State. I have done a tally which no doubt the Minister can correct. There are 65 new powers and duties for LEAs, 71 new powers and duties for the Secretary of State, and 52 new regulatory powers for the Secretary of State. The noble Lord would be hard pressed to point to any new rights for parents of the children in the schools.
On this side of the Chamber, we have fought for some time for the principle that the best people to protect the interests of children and educational standards are the parents of those children. It should be clear in the Bill—at either this point or at any other point in the Bill that the Government may decide—that no measures reducing the diversity of choice of schools available to

109
parents should be enacted without the parents of the children of that school approving them. It is an important principle that we support.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry that we have not had the benefit of the opinions of the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, in our debates until now. If I had heard those comments before, I should have been able to say something more definitive about them, perhaps at a time when there would be more Members of the Committee present. It could have been raised at Second Reading. These are clearly important points. They deserve, and will receive from me, a considered answer in response to the statistics that he raises. He will understand that I am unable to respond to them off the cuff.
However, the noble Lord gives expression to a profound misunderstanding about what the Government seek to do in this legislation. It is not that we are taking rights away from parents. On the contrary, the search for a local consensus involved in the school organisation committee has to be considered in the light of the composition of the school organisation committee. If we had been simply returning power to local education authorities, we would not have had a school organisation committee with an elaborate procedure for consensus, for blocking votes from religious communities, and with membership from governing bodies including parent governors. We would not have had any of the difficulties that have taken up so much time in drafting changes in the past few hours.
What is fundamentally different is that the decision shall be taken at local level, as far as possible on a consensus basis, including parents, parent governors and other governors in that decision process, rather than by the Secretary of State. I long to join in the wider debate raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell. However, I have to return to my point: that this is not what school organisation plans are. The protection of the process of proposals, consultation and decision-making still exists for the issues raised in the amendment.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I admire the noble Lord's honeyed words. They managed to perplex a large number of my colleagues when I put forward the amendment. I have had to run seminars to tell them what the noble Lord was saying.
The fundamental point of the amendment is to give parents the right to decide over sensitive issues. As the Minister knows, we on this side of the Chamber have considerable doubts about school organisation committees and adjudicators. We therefore want written on the face of the Bill support for certain sensitive areas such as sixth forms, the style of the school decided by admission and single sex. The noble Lord has not submitted grammar schools and similar matters to the local authority. The Government have established balance, which we shall discuss later. The parents of the county or the area will decide. We are suggesting that in certain other areas parents decide. This is not a Bill that removes parental choice. It allows it over grammar schools, and we are extending it to other areas.
110
I am not satisfied with the noble Lord's answer, as I was not previously. He knows as well as I do that if it goes on the surface of the Bill, the school organisation committee, the adjudicator, can do nothing about it. It is safe. It is set in tablets of stone. Therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
9.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 109B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 43.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Blackwell, L.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B.

Northesk, E.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Rowallan, L.

Carnock, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Chesham, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Wise, L.

Leigh, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Berkeley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

McCarthy, L.

Burlison, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Carter, L.

David, B.

Maddock, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Donoughue, L.

Monkswell, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Newby, L.

Dubs, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Nicol, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Orme, L.

Gallacher, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gilbert, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grenfell, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hoyle, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Islwyn, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Whitty, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 23, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) A school organisation plan must set out the ways in which diversity in the style and type of education offered by the schools in the area will be maintained or increased, and the ways in which parents and pupils will be enabled to take greater advantage of such diversity.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 110, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 110A. These are clearly probing amendments. The issues which they cover are dealt with specifically in Clause 25(3). I do not expect the Minister to accept the idea that any alteration should be made to the Bill at this stage.

111
However, I hope that he will take the opportunity to expand on Clause 25(3) and to explain in particular how it covers the points raised by the amendments.
Amendment No. 110 addresses the question of diversity. Any school organisation committee, local bureaucracy or local organisation of this sort will tend towards simplicity and towards things which are easily comprehensible and controllable. In the past when LEAs have had control over this sort of thing they have tended to be against diversity. Since they will not have quite the control over diversity which they used to, they will control ways in which parents can make use of that diversity.
Jumping ahead, a later amendment, Amendment No. 241, deals with school transport. That is one of the main mechanisms which LEAs use to control access to schools. I shall take the concrete example of schools around Winchester, which I happen to know. Hampshire is not a bad LEA and pursues relatively benign policies. But within Winchester there are three good secondary schools, all, I would say, on a par academically, all with very different characters. Different children will do better in different schools, and parents who take the trouble to look at all three will develop a strong preference for one or the other. They are all within half a mile of each other but, depending on where you live, you can get a bus to only one of them. No effort is made by the local education authority to enable parents to send their child to the secondary school of their choice. If they choose a different secondary school from the one they are allocated they have to do the entire school run themselves. So it is only those parents who can afford to do that—and there are plenty of those around Winchester—who can take advantage of the diversity.
I do not want the Government to spell out any specific nostrums in the Bill, or indeed in the regulations, but I should like them to encourage local authorities to enable parents, where possible, and where it can be done without undue inconvenience, to take advantage of the existing diversity.
In Amendment No. 110A, at the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, earlier, I turn to the question of the consideration which should be given to expanding popular schools. I do not have any difficulty with what Hampshire has done in this regard. But in the case of some of the excellent state secondary schools, particularly around North London, there has been a long history of the local education authorities not putting money into those schools and expanding them but insisting instead that the money should go into the schools that the parents do not want to use. Parents can like it or lump it, there should be only so many allowed in Camden Girls and that is it.
I detect from what the noble Baroness said on Second Reading that there is an understanding in government that support for popular schools, enabling them to expand where that is what the schools want and what local parents want, is an admirable objective. Even if it may mean that other schools shrink, that is not necessarily a bad thing. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will feel able to give me some comfort that
112
LEAs and school organisation committees, in particular, will be signed in this direction by what the Government choose to put in the regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: As we stagger on, oh so slowly, from school organisation committees to school organisation plans, and as it seems that a member of a local education authority, a person nominated by the Diocesan Board of Education by any diocese of the Church of England, and a person nominated by the Bishop of any Roman Catholic Church are the only people guaranteed a place on such committees. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 111 in the forlorn hope of securing some reference to special educational needs in these new arrangements for organisation of schools.
This amendment would have the effect of ensuring that alongside the draft school organisation plan that is submitted to the school organisation committee—if they eventually exist—there would be an explicit assessment of the impact of the draft plan on provision for children with special educational needs. Excellence for all children—it is such a little thing to ask.
10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am glad to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on this amendment, especially as I felt compelled to oppose an amendment which he moved on a previous occasion. It seems to me to be entirely right that, at this point in the Bill, there should be specific reference to special educational needs in relation to the draft plan. We are all aware that it is always easy to overlook children who have special educational needs in these days when so much emphasis is laid on the meeting of high targets and the establishment of high standards.
It is perfectly possible to have high standards in relation to children with special educational needs. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, may be interested to know that a society of which I am chairman—the National Society—which originally founded many of the schools that have become church schools, has just set up a fellowship to study the whole area of the spiritual and moral development of children with special educational needs. The Churches have a strong concern in that respect. I would personally be very glad to see this particular amendment on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I should like, first, to support Amendment No. 111 as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. We had a long argument some time ago—it seems like six months ago, but it was not actually as long ago as that—on the inclusion of the word "all" to emphasise the Government's stated commitment to the welfare of children with special educational needs.
It seems to me that this is an absolutely perfect place for us to make that commitment plain on the face of the Bill. It would satisfy many people who have been trying to amend various parts of the legislation if we were to get that commitment clarified on the face of this Bill. Therefore, on those grounds, I appeal to the Government to at least give the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and all those who are concerned about such matters, some comfort by

113
saying that they will at least take the matter away and consider it as being a potential way of satisfying that demand. Indeed, it would be most useful if local authorities had to show how their proposals would affect that very vulnerable group of people. Of course, not all of them are vulnerable; some of them are just difficult and they also have to be coped with.
Secondly, I turn to Amendment No. 110, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. At the end of the noble Lord's opening remarks, I was quite uncertain as to whether he was talking about the possibility of having a large number of different sorts of schools or whether he was talking about being able to have the same sort of school, organisationally speaking, delivering different nuances of education. In other words, I am not quite certain as to whether the noble Lord's proposal would enable more schools of a different kind to be developed or whether his amendment addresses the question of educational diversity—that is, diversity in the classroom. If it is the latter, then I believe the noble Lord has made an important point.
One of the tragedies that is taking place today because of the demand for high standards, and their measurement by examination results throughout the system, is that diversity of provision which, after all, has to respond to a wide range of different sorts of pupil—for example, those who develop at different speeds, and so on—is in danger of disappearing. We need to pay more attention to the diversity of education within our existing schools. I am really not interested in a huge organisational change regarding whether or not such schools are of one sort or another. However, I am interested in maintaining diversity of provision. If that is what the noble Lord is talking about, I believe that he has made an interesting and important point.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I should like briefly to support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. As the Minister knows, special educational needs have occupied the education authorities of this country for a considerable amount of time this century. We are entering into a difficult area, but I felt on Second Reading that perhaps the Government had not given enough attention to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I am sure that that is unintentional, but I believe that considerable thought should be given to what the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has said. It is a very sensitive and delicate area. There has been much controversy about how one copes with this.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is right to say that the matter should be mentioned on the face of the Bill. I said at Second Reading that I felt that not enough attention was given to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I hope that the Government will be able to address the issue.
Lord Swinfen: I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, said in support of Amendment No. 110 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas. I shall not go further into that as it is getting late. I also support Amendment No. 111 to which my name has been added. As already mentioned, one-fifth
114
of school pupils have special educational needs, a surprisingly large number. It is absolutely essential that school organisation plans take that into consideration. It should be made plain to schools how they are to deal with the matter. The Green Paper on excellence for all children indicated that regional plans may be drawn up with regard to special educational needs. How will schools take those regional plans into consideration? Will they have a duty to do so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am happy to respond to all three amendments. I recognise the good intentions of all of them. I do not wish to repeat what has been said about school organisation plans. However, I must say once again that they are an important part of the new arrangements for local decision making on school organisation, not because they replace the proposals for change for individual schools but because they provide a context in which those proposals can be submitted and considered. The preparation of a school organisation plan will be subject to consultation. It will be published and there will be opportunities to object to any of its content. In that way we can reflect the developing consensus and partnership at local level which is at the core of our policy. It is therefore at the core of my response to each of these amendments.
The essential point is that we intend the school organisation plans to be drawn up at local level. The more these plans comprise concessions and even agreement with particular interest groups such as special educational needs—"interest group" is far too narrow a description for a movement which permeates all our views on education—and the more we agree further elements to a school organisation plan in addition to what is prescribed on the face of the Bill, the more we move away from the fundamentally local character of the school organisation plan. We have said that we do not intend to be over-prescriptive. We expect a school organisation plan to include demographic information and statements of policy relevant to the provision of places as the basis for reaching conclusions on the need to add or to remove places within an authority's area. We expect the plan to make a specific link between the organisation of school places and raising standards. Beyond that the plan should cover those issues which seem to LEAs and to school organisation committees to be relevant to the provision of places in their area. It should reflect local concerns and the views of local partners on the provision of school places.
I now turn to Amendment No. 110 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I refer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. Diversity can mean two things. It can mean diversity as regards different kinds of organisation of schools or as regards the educational ethos of a school. The previous government used diversity as a cover-up for an attempt to get schools away from local authorities into the grant-maintained sector and under the direct control of the Secretary of State and the Funding Agency for Schools. Therefore "diversity" has to be a dubious word so far as we are concerned.

115
However, leaving that on one side, of course we agree with the noble Lord. We want a system in which schools, as autonomous institutions, whatever their organisation or category, can develop their own strengths within a framework that treats all schools equitably. There is no place for arrangements under which schools compete with each other to cream off certain groups of pupils.
The school organisation plan will provide an opportunity for an agreed local vision in relation to the provision of school places. The procedures for consulting on and agreeing to the plan will provide an opportunity for individual schools to say whether the plan is consistent with the way in which they want to develop. That is the only way in which I can see diversity being achieved. The plan itself, in particular the material on demographic change, will contribute to the schools' own planning. I suggest to the noble Lord that that is a step forward. It reflects the fact that these are issues that should be resolved locally. We propose not to be too prescriptive.
On the matter of popular schools, the same argument applies. Yes, of course there are advantages and difficulties in expanding popular schools. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, it is not always a bad thing that that will result in falling rolls in other schools—although it could be a bad thing, as I think the noble Lord will recognise. We expect local education authorities to balance supply and demand in relation to school places in so far as that is possible. This is nothing new. It has been happening in education authorities since they began in the last century. Supply and demand in school places has always been a difficult balance to strike. The key must be that the local authority, the schools and the parents in an area should decide how far the school organisation plans cover that issue, rather than having it placed on the face of the Bill.
I now turn to the question of special educational needs. I was glad to have confirmation from the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that he recognises the importance of the Green Paper, Excellence for all children. As I think the noble Lord will know, the department is working with representatives from local education authorities and other organisations to set up regional pilot projects which will explore how to take that forward.
I can say to the noble Lord, if it helps him at all, that regulations will provide the broad framework for the content of school organisation plans. However, we believe that the place to cover the content in any detail is in guidance that we intend to give to local education authorities, including advice on how the plan should reflect provision for pupils with special educational needs. But again, it is guidance rather than regulations, and even more so, rather than by accretions onto the face of the Bill. We believe that that will provide an opportunity to build on the work that is about to start in the pilot areas. We are open-minded about it: we know that these are pilots. Although we think that guidance is the best approach, if in the future it appears that school organisation plans do not satisfactorily reflect proposed
116
provision for pupils with special educational needs, we can make further regulations governing the content of plans.
However, the over-arching arguments for agreeing the plan locally are also important. I hope that we can reassure noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment that this is the way in which special educational needs concerns can best be addressed. There will be a draft plan with wide opportunities to comment and object. At that stage, if not before, there will be opportunities for special educational needs groups to offer explicit views on the impact of special educational needs provision on the authority plan. The authority will be obliged to pass any such comments on to the school organisation committee when it comes to the school organisation plan.
In the interests of maintaining local responsibility, while recognising the virtue of the thinking behind these amendments, I urge Members of the Committee not to press them.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would like to reconsider a statement he made in response to the important amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, when I think he described special educational needs and those representing them as an accretion on the face of the Bill. I wonder whether that is how he views pupils with special educational needs. Most of us who take education seriously would not describe pupils who fall into that category in that way. I do not think it helps the Government's case to do so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think the noble Baroness detected that I realised that my wording was unfortunate as I was speaking. I sought not to cause offence to anyone concerned, as all noble Lords are, with special educational needs. The noble Baroness is right. The thinking about special educational needs must permeate our educational thinking. If I used any words which went against that, I apologise to her and to the Committee. I do not apologise for using the word "accretion", which is an objective word; it describes putting something else on the face of the Bill. I would rather not do that, for the reasons I explained.
Lord Rix: First, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and other noble Lords for their wholehearted support of Amendment No. 111 to place special educational needs at long last in an important part of the Bill. Unfortunately, the response of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is once more disappointing.
The noble Lord said that after due consideration it might be necessary to bring in special regulations because the Government are open-minded. I think that that holds out only a crumb of hope. The special educational needs consortium, which I have the honour to represent, is composed of many important national charities, education authorities, local authorities and teaching unions, all of whom subscribe to the

117
amendments that I have put forward, together with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth.
The Government seem to regard special educational needs as a local difficulty. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, selected special interest groups with rather more care than did another noble Lord on the government Benches earlier today. But he said that it was important to keep the local character of school organisation plans in place. I would have thought that special educational needs locally were of the utmost importance. I cannot believe that they can be thought of as not being local. If they are not local, where do they belong? In outer space? Are those with special educational needs to be once more proscribed in regard to education as they were until 1971? I find the Government's resistance to putting the special educational needs problem on the face of the Bill extraordinary. Whatever the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says now, whatever any other noble Lord on the Front Bench may say, it gives the impression to those of us who are trying to work with children with special educational needs that such children are somehow still regarded as second-rate citizens. I shall return to this matter at Report stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, did not formally move his amendment; it is being considered with others in the group and perhaps therefore I can say a word in relation to his remarks. Of course, special educational needs is an issue which occurs locally and in every locality. I was not in any way seeking to deny that. I was saying that solutions may vary and the solutions should be determined locally.
Lord Swinfen: When the Minister first replied, he mentioned that pilot schemes either had started or are about to start. There must therefore be draft guidance available for those schemes. Is it possible for those of us who have taken part in the debate to be given a copy of that draft guidance?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: All information about pilot schemes will be made available. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen—since he raised this specific point—with copies to all other Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate and I will place a copy in the Library.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his remarks, particularly the last one. I look forward to reading it and, if necessary, returning to the matter on Report. I understand what the noble Lord said about preserving local character. The emphasis of my interest therefore changes to what the mechanisms are for groups of local people to make representations in order that their views can be considered. As I understand the Bill as it stands, it is necessary to wait until a local education authority
118
produces its plan; there is then a once-round of ideas coming into the committee and out. I see the noble Lord shaking his head.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Local views will be welcomed at all stages in the preparation of the school organisational plan.
Lord Lucas: In that case, all I want to hear from the noble Lord—either now or later—is how that will be organised, asked for or done. Are we to have guidance or regulations for the local authority? It is not on the face of the Bill that there should be consultation or input before the LEA produces its plans. Is that something to which I shall need to return on Report?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My immediate reaction is how a local authority or schools organisation committee could stop local people expressing their views at any stage.
Lord Lucas: Of course, they could not. But unless the committee invites it, such representations are likely to be disjointed in time and disorganised in form. It would be much better if there was a period during which representations were invited. I do not see provision for that on the face of the Bill. However, I shall not press the matter tonight and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 110A and 111 not moved.]
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 23, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) requiring that the draft plan shall not be approved by the school organisation committee, or referred to the adjudicator, if the representatives of the relevant diocese or dioceses of the Church of England for the area of the local education authority, or the equivalent representative of the Bishop of the Roman Catholic church concerned, are opposed to the proposal;").
The noble Lord said: This is a non-political amendment though it has considerable sensitivity.
I am assuming, in the case of this amendment, that in view of the large majority Her Majesty's Government have in the other place, and in light of the action they have taken this afternoon, they will carry the Bill through the other place almost intact. I cannot speak for what we will do, but for the sake of the amendment let us assume that the Bill goes through as it stands.
As the Minister and her colleagues know, denominational schools in England have always been a sensitive issue. When Mr. Gladstone first introduced the education Bill in 1870 he preserved the position absolutely of denominational schools. That was continued in the 1944 Act.
Denominational schools provide particularly for Roman Catholics, but also for many Anglicans. For Anglicans—I speak as an Anglican clergyman—they provide a community role in rural areas, but in urban

119
areas they provide a specific focus for those who want to go to schools where that faith is established, as I recognise in the part of London where I work.
As Members of the Committee know from the long and arduous discussions this afternoon, the schools organisation committee consists of four colleges of which one is a representative of the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches. If they are not unanimous—in other words, if the denominational schools object—they do not have a right of veto; the decision goes to the adjudicator.
As Members of the Committee know, Scotland is outside the scope of the Bill. This measure has caused considerable worry to the Roman Catholic Church in that Cardinal Winning is resisting the closure of schools in certain parts of Glasgow. I hardly need point out to Members of the Committee opposite that this is an area of sensitivity.
I realise that on page four of the adjudicator's instructions there is the possibility of individuals having the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, but they do not refer to the closure of schools or similar matters. My amendment restores the tradition of English education from, as far as I know, every educational Act that gives denominational schools the right of veto. In other words, if the closure of a faith school is involved then that does not go to the adjudicator.
I put forward the amendment in the spirit of 150 years of education during which, in contrast to the Continent, we have avoided conflict between Church and state over such issues. I recommend the amendment to the Committee. The right reverend Prelate will speak with more authority. I have discussed it both with Roman Catholics and members of my own Church. I believe that it meets with their approval. I hope that the Government will accept it. I believe that it will not cause problems. The issues will arise very rarely. The Minister would be following the tradition of Mr. Gladstone. It is a noble tradition which I am sure the Minister would wish to follow. She may get wreaths on her own grave later on. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I welcome the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington of Oxenford, for moving it. I thank other noble Lords opposite for giving it support by putting their names to it. I have already argued the importance of school organisation committees and of the significance of both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church having a strong voice and indeed having the power of veto on those committees.
I should perhaps comment that, as I understand it, the amendment is a permissive one—that is to say, the regulations are those under subsection (5) which may make provision requiring certain things to happen. So the amendment as it stands simply empowers regulations to say that this may be the case. Amendment No. 106B, to which we have already agreed, makes it mandatory for all bodies on a school organisation committee to reach a unanimous decision. That is mandatory whereas this amendment is permissive.
120
However, it provides a further protection for denominational schools as the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, made clear.
Plans would not be referred to an adjudicator if either of the Church bodies objected to that happening. That raises the whole matter of the role of the adjudicator. What powers is he to have? I believe I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, put that question earlier. It seems to me that this is a proper place for that question to be put. To what issues or to what representations will the adjudicator be required to have regard? It is perfectly possible that the future of Church schools in the neighbourhood could be in the hands of such a person. The Churches need to be assured of the way in which those powers are to be exercised.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will be reassured to know that on this occasion I speak on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church as well as on behalf of the Church of England. I spoke with a representative of the Catholic Education Service this morning who in turn has spoken with the cardinal. I also speak on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London who is not in his place this evening. He had hoped to make a contribution to this amendment. He has written to me and with your Lordships' permission I will read what he says:
"The Churches are keen to continue the real partnership which exists between faith communities and other providers of educational services. Our intention is to serve local communities by co-operating in the drive for educational excellence and by developing an explicitly Christian ethos in our schools as a contribution to genuine pluralism. As the Bill is currently drafted, the new post of adjudicator will have very wide powers. These may be restricted on a temporary basis by regulation, but could it not be the case that the powers of the adjudicator might be used to force changes in admissions policies without further primary legislation? Whilst there is confidence that the present administration intends no such thing, there is always the problem of the new Pharaoh who knows not Joseph. This is a cause of concern to the faith communities. Although we would anticipate that the proposed veto on references to the adjudicator would only be very infrequently used, we would support Amendment 112 as a safeguard to the continuation of the current genuine partnership in education".
That letter sums up the concerns of the Churches, to which I have already given expression. I shall be most interested to hear how the Government respond.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As we have already made clear, the focus of the arrangements for deciding school organisation plans and proposals at local level is to support local partnerships. The arrangements that we propose, in particular requiring unanimity within the school organisation committee, reflect the balance between providers. They give each provider, including the Churches, the same ability to ensure that an individual proposal or a school organisation plan is referred to an adjudicator in the case of disagreement. The objective is to reach consensus. We believe that in most cases that will be achieved within the school organisation committee through discussion reflecting the views of local people in response to the draft plan. We are appointing the adjudicator to address those cases where the school organisation committee is unable to agree.

121
However, it would not be appropriate to give two particular groups within the school organisation committee the ability to prevent the agreement of school organisation plans. The Church representatives will have as much power as any other group in the committee to secure that plans are passed to the adjudicator. They will each have opportunities to offer the adjudicator options with which they are content, but there must be a genuine opportunity to decide a plan that balances the views of all partners and in the agreement of which each of the partners has been treated in the same way.
The right reverend Prelate rightly referred to the fact that regulations under subsection (4), which are set out in subsection (5), are permissive in the sense that the Secretary of State is not required to issue such regulations, but Clause 25 is not about Church or denominational schools; it is about all schools. The amendment would give two groups (of all those which comprise the school organisation committee) representing the denominational interest a veto on all aspects of the school organisation plan, irrespective of whether it relates to denominational schools. I am afraid that the amendment would unbalance the partnership which is at the heart of our proposals and I invite the noble Lord not to press it.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I press him on the powers of adjudicators and on how the issues with which they will have to deal and the representations to which they shall have to pay attention will be spelt out? Where will that appear?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We considered the powers of the adjudicator on Clause 24 and I do not think that at this time of night the Committee will be grateful if I go over that ground again. However, if I think that I can helpfully say anything new to the right reverend Prelate, I shall gladly write to him on that point.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I agree with the noble Lord that this is not permissive; it is direct. I accept that it would give a right of veto to denominations. This is well within the tradition of English education. It has been done on many occasions before. In not allowing it, Her Majesty's Government are making quite a departure. Historically, the Churches have not used their considerable power to question state plans. For example, when comprehensive education began, the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches accepted it as state policy. They believed their task to be to maintain their denominational schools. They are not just one group among many. The Roman Catholic Church both here and in America has always regarded parochial, denominational schools as a very important part of its work. The Anglican Church is somewhat different but in many areas it takes the same view. I do not believe that the noble Lord has addressed the problem. It was one that Mr. Butler addressed in 1944 with greater sensitivity. Unless we have particular regard to church schools, this is a secularising measure.
122
I do not press the amendment now but shall return to it with some force at Report stage. Like the right reverend Prelate, I have spoken to both Roman Catholic and Anglican authorities. I do not speak here as a Tory Front Bench spokesman. I never wear my dog collar in this House because I do not feel that I can attach the Almighty to many of the policies that I espouse, unlike some other people. However, on this issue I am metaphorically wearing my dog collar. I feel quite strongly about this and believe that many noble friends support me. This issue falls well within the history of English education. I hope that the noble Lord will rethink his rather secular approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No.113:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause—

REVIEW BY SECRETARY OF STATE
(" . The Secretary of State shall keep under review all aspects of the new framework for maintained schools established by this Part of this Act, and shall report annually to Parliament on the new arrangements for the supply of school places and admission arrangements, with a view to bringing forward revised arrangements should it be found that the new framework unfairly discriminates against any category of school.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a very simple amendment which draws attention to the desirability of a parliamentary annual review of the new framework for maintained schools established by this part of the Bill. It is undeniable that there has been considerable unease in your Lordships' House about these new measures. I do not intend to refer to any of the arguments that have been deployed. I hope that no one else will use this particular amendment to go through those arguments all over again. However, there was considerable unease. The amendment would require Parliament to review whether the arrangements were acceptable, and any significant trend in the closure or amalgamation of church schools, special schools, grammar schools and so on could be challenged or prevented through revised arrangements.
I hope that the noble Lord will consider the amendment and will be willing to return to it at a later stage. I am particularly encouraged in that hope as a result of the reply of the noble Baroness to my noble friend Lady Maddock during the debate on whether Clause 24 should stand part of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I understand correctly that the issue is parliamentary scrutiny, I believe that the amendment is unnecessary since the Government will monitor how the new framework is bedding down as part of the normal evaluation process of any major policy. It is always open to any noble Lord to ask a Parliamentary Question about any aspect of government policy. I see no need for an annual report to Parliament on these specific aspects of the Bill. I give the noble Baroness, and Opposition spokesmen

123
generally, credit when I say that they will get a lot more mileage in parliamentary terms other than through an annual report.
The new categories of school will be different, with distinctive characteristics to match the aspirations of schools. There is no question of unfair discrimination in favour of or against any particular category, if that is the thrust of the amendment. The new arrangements on school places, planning and admissions will contain safeguards to ensure that all categories of school are treated fairly.
Each school organisation committee and adjudicator must behave reasonably and lawfully. Every case must be considered on its merits. While members of the school organisation committee will be organised in and will vote as groups, all members must be able to show that cases have been considered properly. Reasons for decisions must be related clearly to the case put and the view expressed upon it. There can be no question of a school organisation committee taking a policy decision to treat a particular category of school differently from others.
Those are more effective safeguards than that intended by the mover of the amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that with those inbuilt safeguards there will be no need for the Secretary of State to police the new framework for cases of unfairness. On that basis, I hope that she will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I must confess to being not entirely satisfied with that response. There is a great deal of difference between relying upon an individual Member in the other place to ask a Question and requiring the Government to make a report to the other place. The two things are completely different. I shall consult my noble friends. I shall read Hansard. I may well write to the Minister on this subject. I do not preclude bringing it back again at the next stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Proposals for establishment or alteration of community, foundation or voluntary school]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 25, line 27, at end insert ("and—
(ii) to the requirements of schools with a different character").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 141. The amendments are grouped together as they both concern pluralism, but two different kinds of pluralism. One is the pluralism of individual schools, and the second—a more familiar theme of mine—is the pluralism of the governance of the countries and nations of these islands. I shall not speak at any length on that, because that is a subject that will entertain us tomorrow and Wednesday.
With the first amendment we are dealing with the whole issue, which was debated in another place, of the Government's attitude towards schools which have a different form of curriculum. It is important to raise this issue in the Bill, because we need to state a case that
124
schools that deliver the equivalent of the standards of the national curriculum in other forms of schooling can, indeed, form part of the maintained system.
In the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship they have established over 75 years 26 autonomous schools in the UK; 44 kindergartens; 730 schools worldwide; 1,500 kindergartens; and 60 teacher training institutes. They have an impressive track record of educational performance. It is educational performance which is dedicated to international principles and to a specific and proven form and method of teaching.
The pursuit of an international curriculum by these schools is at least the equivalent of what is pursued in terms of the national curriculum in the UK. As someone who was involved in various stages of the Education Reform Act 1988 which introduced the national curriculum, I have always been unhappy about the adjective "national" as applied to school curricula, because school curricula should be about the development of pupils; it should not be about the imposition of state standards, to use the national parlance.
The whole methodology of the Waldorf schools, with the extended teacher/pupil relationship over many school years, and, in particular, the emphasis on the greater integration of curricula which has always been a feature of those school, is now becoming more accepted throughout the school system. We realise the weaknesses of the artificial boundaries between the humanities, language, mathematical skills and science that we have imposed within the existing national curriculum.
For those reasons, it is important to recognise that there should be a method by which such schools can find their way into the maintained sector. Such issues as the integrated curriculum approach, the emphasis on different forms of pedagogical approach to educational provision in schools are relevant. They are issues which the Government addressed when in Opposition, and should address in the context of the Bill.
I do not make a special case for those schools. I emphasise the importance of breadth of curriculum. We need to move away from the forms of national curriculum which are prescriptive into a form which provides for the greater breadth for the development of concepts, attitudes, values, experiences and skills within the educational provision. In debating those issues, we wish to emphasise that the Government have an obligation to indicate to schools which provide for a different curriculum, and are pluralistic schools in themselves within the education provision, how they can progress their position.
We have debated, and will debate again in the Bill, the categories that the Government propose. What ways are open to schools which have a different form of provision within a pluralist education? In what ways can they progress their position within the maintained sector? That is what I seek to discover in moving the amendment.
I refer again to guidelines and the provisions on the face of the Bill. I am concerned that they will be set out in terms of the criteria for the provision of schools

125
within the maintained sector. Those guidelines should be flexible enough to ensure that schools which achieve the equivalent of national curriculum standards by other means should be recognised as equally valid. The department will be aware of the recent statement on the aims, methods and curriculum of the Steiner Waldorf foundation edited by Martin Rawson. The document sets out clearly the way in which that specific curriculum attains the standards of the national curriculum in different ways. I emphasise that the Government should take seriously the issue of pluralism of school provision. Pluralism and the related issue of diversity are not just about religious provision; and I speak as a Welsh Anglican. They are also about the alternative forms of curriculum presentation which is not on a selected basis, but provides a genuine pluralistic structure within the school system.
The second amendment is simpler. If the Minister can give me a satisfactory answer on this amendment, he will have disposed of Amendments Nos. 161, 163, 167, 176 and perhaps a few others. That should provide the noble Lord with a little inspiration. The amendment relates to the role of the Secretary of State in relation to the Bill. I understand that for the words "Secretary of State" in the Bill, I shall read the words "national assembly" when those wonderful transfer orders, of which we have recently had the second draft, are implemented. With the exception of Clause 76 on employment law, everything else relating to the Secretary of State in this Bill relates to the national assembly. If the Minister agrees that that is correct, he will satisfy me. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I support the noble Lord on Amendment No. 114 for several reasons. The amendment has been put forward by the Steiner Waldorf group. No doubt the group hopes that it will open the door to its schools which have a specific character. It would like the opportunity for such schools to become part of the state system. Perhaps there should be some possibility for schools with a different philosophical framework to come into the state sector where local authorities feel that this would enhance their local provision.
The amendment is presumably proposed within this clause because this clause deals with local determination. Although the county would actually have to have this imposed on it, it just extends their possibility to choose to include schools with a different character.
When I was a Member in another place I had in one corner of my constituency Steiner Waldorf schools and also a community that looked after children who had extreme special needs. I know what wonderful communities they are and what a terrific quality of life children have in those communities. I remember going along with perhaps not a positive view of the organisations, and I came away changed by the experience of the whole approach that they have to the human person.
126
It is interesting that in a country that I left because I found conformity too great—Sweden—for some time there has been the opportunity for pluralism within its schools. It seems to work well, and it has been a great incentive to teachers to give of their best in schools. It is worth looking at and I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about it.
I conclude by saying that in other areas of life we are looking at alternatives and looking at a more pluralistic approach. We do this in the health service, and perhaps we should look at whether this is the right time, given the nature of this Bill, to look at the possibility of having a more pluralistic approach to the different types of education available. I look forward to hearing what the Government say. There is something behind this that we should not dismiss too lightly. I hope that the Government will not do that.
Baroness Blatch: I rise to suggest what might cheer the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, because I believe my understanding of the letter that I received from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in terms of the reserve powers to the Welsh assembly, is that the amendments are not needed, and that almost everything that the noble Lord wants is achievable.
I say that for two or three reasons. First, under the law as it stands, even without this Bill, and which will not be invalidated by this Bill, there are powers to disapply the national curriculum. Cases need to be put to the Secretary of State, but it is possible to do that. That would allow for disapplication and for something else to take its place.
Secondly, there is provision within this Bill for those schools that are in action zones to disapply the national curriculum and disapply all sorts of other things, so clearly some other diversary provision will take place within those schools, irrespective of the structure of the schools.
The third reason, which, rather sadly, has not been raised in the course of our deliberations, is the Welsh dimension in this Bill. It seems to me, reading the letter that came to me from the noble Baroness in relation to Wales, that the Welsh Secretary, or indeed the Welsh assembly as it will become, has the powers to turn this Bill into something completely different. It could look completely different from that in England because the secondary legislative powers that will pass to the assembly are couched in such a way inside this Bill that they will, not technically, but in effect be equivalent to primary legislation. It will be possible for the Welsh assembly to do their own thing. For example, they do not have to have adjudicators; they do not have to have organisation committees. The Welsh assembly or the Welsh Secretary will, in fact, take on the role of what, in England, is the Secretary of State.
My understanding of both the Bill and the statute as it prevails at the moment, and will continue to prevail following the passing of this Bill, and indeed the effect of the devolved powers to the assembly, is that I do not believe these amendments are necessary.
Lord Monkswell: In speaking very briefly in support of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, perhaps I may say

127
a word in support of England. There is a recognition that the situation in Scotland and Wales may be different in the future. However, for the vast majority of people in this country, the situation in England will be the basis on which we deliberate.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, mentioned that the object of the national curriculum enshrined originally in the 1988 Act was to improve school standards. We would all agree that that is a laudable aim.
We also need to bring to bear the recognition of experience. Perhaps I may give a couple of examples. The first is the experience of Summerhill School between the wars. Four members of my father's generation went to Summerhill. One became a doctor, one became an electrical engineer, one became a teacher and the fourth became a potter. In terms of the positive, successful outcomes, which is the important essence of what we are seeking to achieve in education, one cannot gainsay that Summerhill was successful.
The other example is the flexibility which pertained within the Rab Butler Act of 1944. It enabled the Conservative administration in Leicestershire County Council to introduce the concept of comprehensive education. That has had amazingly beneficial results in education in the past 40 years.
Diversity in education can produce significant positive outcomes. I believe that it was a little ingenuous of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to suggest that such flexibility is already enshrined within the law. That has not been the experience of practitioners in education. I hope that the Government will respond positively to this probing amendment and say that they are minded to believe that pluralism is important.
I was advised tonight that in Holland, which has one of the most successful education systems in Europe, there are seven different educational characteristics. Six, as well as its own national curriculum, are supported by the state and are beneficial to the education of the people of Holland. I hope that the Government will respond positively to the advantage of pluralism and to state support of it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If I begin by saying some discouraging things about the wording and effect of both amendments, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will not think that I am taking them lightly. I will address the issues which lie behind them.
Amendment No. 114 would not work because it is attached to a part of Clause 27 which enables proposals to specify the establishment of a middle school by extending the age ranges which may be considered as the admission ages for a particular school. If we were to put the provision in there rather than in a more general part of the Bill it would be incoherent and would not achieve what the noble Lord seeks.
As regards what he is seeking to achieve, I am sympathetic to what has been said about pluralism in education. During the chaotic period immediately before and during the early years of the war I attended a number of progressive schools. Noble Lords opposite may think that it shows and that my character has been deeply
128
damaged as a result. I do not regret it, although the disturbance to my family was great. On two occasions I ran away from one school, taking a group of other seven year-olds with me. I did not get very far. However, as a result of connections with central Europe I am sympathetic to various progressive movements in education. Let me say from this Bench that the conditions in which we encourage schools to be maintained schools within the state system are rather different. We are of the view—and I think this has been the view on all Benches—that in order to maintain and increase school standards, there has to be a national curriculum, and, in general, teachers in maintained schools should have qualified teacher status. The Steiner Waldorf schools have chosen not to conform in those ways, and good luck to them. I am not saying anything against the work that they do, but the thrust of this Bill is the improvement of school standards by the means that I have been suggesting. I believe that that view is shared across the political spectrum.
So although one is sympathetic to pluralism in education, we hope that it will continue. It is not necessarily the case that for it to continue successfully there should be a change in the requirement for maintained status and for membership in the state system.
The second amendment has an unfortunate literal effect in the sense that it would enable the Secretary of State to act, as it were, by decree rather than by making regulations, whereas the Bill as drafted would enable him to act in the way that the noble Lord wishes, by regulation in the normal way.
The fundamental answer I can give to the noble Lord—and I am glad to hear that it affects so many subsequent amendments—is that, yes, in the Bill "Secretary of State" will, in due course, mean the national assembly, with the exception that he himself referred to. It is the intention that these powers should be devolved to the Welsh assembly in due course. On that basis, reflecting the seriousness with which the amendments have been proposed, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke on Amendment No. 114. It is important that we signal that we should like to return to this matter at a later stage. I feel that the Minister, despite his generosity in describing some of his personal experience, did not respond to the issues that were raised.
We deployed the argument that excellence in the attainment of the equivalent of the national curriculum, as mentioned in the report I quoted, should be recognised and that there is a difference between decreeing certain standards in the national curriculum and being able to deliver the equivalent in pluralistic alternative forms. That is the argument that we deployed and to which there has been no response, either in this Chamber or in another place. We may well want to return to that matter.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part and I am grateful to see that there is a wonderful consensus, for once this evening, between both Front Benches about the meaning of the Bill, at least so far as concerns the National assembly for Wales. It may be that the Steiner

129
Waldorf School will have to turn to the national assembly for Wales for some kind of recognition within the United Kingdom.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Notice by governing body to discontinue foundation or voluntary school]:
[Amendment No. 114A not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Proposals for establishment, alteration or discontinuance of community or foundation special school]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 114B:
Page 29, line 14, leave out ("special school or a new") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: These amendments are the batch which survived the late night barrage by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the other night and which I withdrew at that point. I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and to the two opposition Front Benches at some length explaining the whole batch of amendments that we tabled at that point. I shall have to return to some of the others on Report.
I shall quickly explain the nature of these amendments, which are technical and consequential. Amendment No. 114B, together with Amendments Nos. 122A, 129A, 156A, 256B and 257E, deals with the question of clarifying the expressions "community" or "foundation special school". Amendment No. 256B is really substantive and is an addition to Clause 130, which defines expressions used in the Bill. That amendment makes it clear that such references should be read as meaning a community special school or a foundation special school. The rest of the amendments to which I have just alluded are in fact consequential on Amendment No. 256B.
Amendment No. 145A deals with the clarification of property transfers when schools change category. The amendment makes it clear that the regulations under the schedule will govern all property transfers, including transfers to and from group foundations, where a school changes category. Moreover, rights and liabilities associated with property will transfer with the property itself. The term "property" on its own would not cover the full range of rights and liabilities that might be associated with the premises; for example, it would not necessarily cover third party user rights which would, in that sense, be a liability associated with the premises. That is why it is necessary to make those explicit regulations under Schedule 8.
Amendment No. 206B deals with stamp duty. It is an amendment which has had to be approved by the Inland Revenue; and, indeed, it has been. It exempts transfers to local education authorities from payment of stamp duty. That is because transfers to charities do not attract stamp duty, so there is no need to exempt transfers to foundation, voluntary and foundation special schools or foundation bodies. Those are the technical and consequential amendments that I am putting forward tonight. As I said, some of the others which appeared in the rather longer list
130
the other night will, I am afraid, now reappear at a later stage in the Bill's proceedings. I therefore commend those amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: I most grateful to the Minister for the long letter of clarification which I found to be very clear. It answered all the questions that I had at that stage admirably. However, I have one further question for the noble Lord regarding the question of stamp duty. I quite understand his explanation but, if it is the intention of these amendments to make transfers from foundation schools to local authorities exempt from stamp duty, why are transfers under paragraph 1(3)(a) of Schedule 22 not included in the list of exemptions?
Lord Whitty: I have to hand it to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I must confess to the Committee that I am not entirely clear as to whether that paragraph relates to the same form of transfers, although I believe that that is probably the case. Therefore, that is something to which we will have to pay attention. So, once again—and, it is to be hoped in a rather shorter letter—I shall clarify the matter for the noble Lord.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to thank the noble Lord most profusely for the letter; indeed, it has been hugely helpful. I certainly do not have anything like the queries that I had when I heard the partial explanation which was given during the previous stage of the Bill. I understand that the amendments which preceded the amendment moved by the noble Lord tonight will be re-presented on Report. Therefore, it might be helpful if I mentioned one reservation about Amendment No. 90G so that I may perhaps be written to in the meantime, thus saving time as regards discussions at the next stage. I should also like to ask a question on Amendment No. 91C.
As regards Amendment No. 90G, I am concerned about yet more accretion of powers to the organisation committees. I should like to know more about why that power is necessary and why it is that the Secretary of State is off-loading yet another power relating to foundation groups.
Where the governing body will be the charity, as opposed to the school being the charity, I am rather anxious on behalf of governors to know what liabilities they will accept in that transfer of power. School governors will take on the responsibility of being the charity for the purposes of the exemption and it is important that they know the extent of their liabilities. I do not ask for an answer now but I hope the noble Lord will be able to supply it at the next stage.
I am rather pleased that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is in the Chamber. When I was a government Minister and my government produced large batches of technical amendments I found that it was helpful and also saved time if I wrote to the Opposition with copies of the amendments and with an explanatory memorandum in advance of discussing the amendments in the Chamber. The Opposition then had an opportunity to study the technicalities of the amendments. Usually I added an apology to the explanatory memorandum as I was often upbraided by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for submitting large batches of technical amendments at a late

131
stage of a Bill. I make no criticism of the Government in this regard, but it would be enormously helpful to have the information as we are about to discuss yet more batches of technical amendments. I have pored over the Bill and the amendments over the past week but I am still at a loss to know exactly what they mean. As I said, it would be hugely helpful at further stages of the Bill to be sent a copy of the amendments with an explanatory memorandum.
Lord Whitty: Of course some of the technical amendments arise out of debate in the Chamber. However, we shall consider the possibility of providing the information in the form the noble Baroness requests. As regards the points she made on Amendment No. 90G and the other amendments that will be resubmitted at the Report stage, I would rather deal with them at that stage.
As regards the charitable status of governing bodies, we shall propose government amendments at Report stage which will make clear that it is the governing body of a foundation, voluntary and foundation special school which is the exempt charity and not the school itself. That point will be clearer at that stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 29, line 30, at end insert ("and to the education development plan, the school organisation plan and any proposals for the regional coordination of services for children with special educational needs").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 115 stands in my name, that of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and that of my noble friend Lady Darcy de Knayth. I am conscious that this is the last amendment I shall move and no doubt it will receive the same short shrift as the previous four. I can see I shall be busy at Report stage but I would welcome the possibility of a meeting with the department before that stage. Perhaps I should send the amendments to the putative Welsh assembly.
I wish to stress that special schools are part of an increasingly complex network of provision for children with special educational needs. If the Government pursue their intentions as set out in the Green Paper Excellence for all Children, special schools will become a non-integrated part of a unified service. The service will also be more than a local service if Green Paper proposals for more regional planning are implemented. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any proposals to open, alter or close a community or a foundation special school take account of other local plans and proposals; namely, the education development plan, the school organisation plan and any proposals for the regional co-ordination of services for children with special educational needs. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Does the noble Lord want the good news or the bad news first? The bad news is that his amendment would not do what he wants. It relates to the part of the Bill that deals with who should be consulted rather than what regard should be had to the education development plan, the school organisation plan
132
and proposals for regional co-ordination of services. I believe the noble Lord's intention is rather wider than the wording of the amendment.
The good news is this. I believe that the noble Lord wants us to say that the Government intend to put the issues referred to in the amendment into guidance. I can give him that assurance. To put it in the proper words of a speaking note, the guidance provided to the adjudicator and the school organisation committee will be reflected in the guidance on good practice that we shall be providing to proposers wishing to bring forward statutory proposals. It is our intention that the guidance to proposers will identify the plans they should consider when developing their schemes. That would include the local school organisation plan and any proposals for the regional co-ordination of provision for pupils with special educational needs.
There may also be instances when local education authorities or foundation special school governors will need to consider the education development plan when making plans to reorganise special provision. It has always been our intention that the issues raised by this amendment should be covered in guidance. We shall of course consult on the detail of both the guidance and the regulations governing special school reorganisation. That will provide a further opportunity for comment before the regulations finally come into force. I hope that gives the noble Lord the reassurance that he needs.
Lord Rix: I am grateful to the noble Lord for those assurances. I shall now consult with my colleagues outside the House and return to the matter on Report if required—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. Before he withdraws his amendment, I should have said that my noble friend Lady Blackstone and the department will be very happy to meet him between now and Report stage.
Lord Rix: I go home to bed even happier on hearing that. With that assurance ringing in my ears, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Statutory proposals: procedure and implementation]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 120, line 15, at end insert—
("(4A) If—

(a) by the end of such period as may be specified in or determined in accordance with regulations, the committee have not voted on the question whether to give any approval under this paragraph, and

(b) the body or promoters by whom the proposals were published request the committee to refer the proposals to the adjudicator,

they shall refer the proposals to the adjudicator.
Regulations made for the purposes of this sub-paragraph (or any other corresponding provision of this Act) may be framed by reference to the opinion of the committee.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 117 to 122, 127, 128, 130 to 137, 217, 218 and 219.
Let me start by acknowledging that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was right in saying that when she was in the Home Office she took good care to write to me whenever significant numbers of government amendments were tabled, putting them into their right order and explaining in a letter to me what they meant. I gather that she followed that procedure with a number of other noble Lords as well. I am sure that my noble friend Lady Blackstone will consider that helpful suggestion sympathetically.
All of these amendments are in response to suggestions made by the Opposition in Committee on 10th February in another place. Mr. Dorrell, who I gather has now left his responsibilities for these matters at his own request, criticised (at col. 377) the possibility of delay implicit in the process of consideration by school organisation committees and the need for unanimity in their reaching decisions. He said—I am sure rightly—that there would be great damage to schools, to children and to local education systems if there were excessive delay in the school organisation committees reaching decisions. Estelle Morris, the Under-Secretary, said at col. 377 that she was happy to give the assurance sought; that she agreed with the comments made by Conservatives and Liberal Democrat spokesmen; and that delay was the worst possible scenario. She said:
"I think that we included in the note that my hon. Friend the Minister circulated yesterday the requirement that school organisation committees must make decisions within two months. If that is not in the note, it will be set out in regulations. Committees will have two months to make a decision, at which point, if they have not reached a unanimous decision, the matter will be referred to the adjudicator, for the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Delay and sitting around waiting for unanimous agreement is not in the best interests of children".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 10/2/98: col. 377.]
All of these amendments seek to provide that assurance, not in regulations as was originally thought but on the face of the Bill. Unless I am challenged, I shall not go through every one of the amendments, but I wish to say something in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about Amendment No. 116.
Basically all the amendments say that if the committees have not voted on a matter, or if they have voted on it and have not reached a unanimous decision, then the adjudicator is called in. But Amendment No. 116 has two other, puzzling phrases. The first is:
"Regulations made for the purpose of this sub-paragraph … may be framed by reference to the opinion of the committee".
That refers only to the school organisation committee. The committee may, for example, express an opinion that two proposals are linked and need to be considered together. In these circumstances, the regulations will have to provide that the proposals whose time limit expires first do not need to be remitted to the adjudicator until and unless the other proposal also reaches its time limit. That is the purpose of the reference to the opinion of the committee.
The second reference which I agree could be confusing is:
"or any other corresponding provision of this Act".
That relates to the fact that in the complexity of drafting we have to insert this into Schedules 6, 7 and 23. There are amendments to all these schedules in this group which will enable regulations to prescribe a time limit for deciding proposals. These are Amendments Nos. 120, 133 and 217. These amendments cover each type of proposal, because there are proposals of this kind discussed in Clauses 27, 28 and 30, with different schedules attached to them. That is the explanation of those particular points which the noble Lord raised.
In general, the purpose of the amendment that I have expressed from the comments in Hansard give the thrust of our arguments. They give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations limiting the length of the school organisation committee's deliberations on proposals for the organisation of schools. These amendments give the proposer discretion to require the school organisation committee to refer a proposal to an adjudicator if the committee has not come to a decision within a specified period. This is preferable to requiring the committee to refer proposals to the adjudicator after a fixed period. It also allows the person who is affected by any delay to decide whether the time taken is excessive and whether referral to the adjudicator would speed things up.
The length of the time limit is something most appropriately dealt with in regulations, although my quotations from Estelle Morris make our intentions clear since we shall need to ensure that, if necessary, the time limit can be amended in the light of experience. Of course, we shall consult on the regulations, but we intend that in most cases the limit will be two months from the end of the objection period. Where several proposals are linked, we intend that the time period for all proposals should be two months from the end of the objection period of the last proposal to be published. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord for the sympathetic way in which he explained the amendment, but also for agreeing that it would be helpful to have advance explanatory memorandums of the amendments.
I want to ask a question in relation to the reference to the "opinion of the committee" in the final paragraph of Amendment No. 116. Is that a formal statement? Is the "opinion of the committee" a formal definition? In which case, should not it be upper case "o" in its reference? Does that mean a decision taken by a committee that is a unanimous view or is it an en passant opinion? In other words, is it an informal view that at a particular point in time the committee thinks "X" or "Y"? It would helpful to know exactly the status of the "opinion of the committee".
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We intend that it should refer to an informal opinion and that indeed was the thrust of my example of a committee expressing an

135
opinion that two proposals were linked and needed to be considered together. In those circumstances capital letters are not appropriate.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 117 to 122A:
Page 120, line 16, leave out from ("If') to ("they") in line 17 and insert ("the committee—

(a) have voted on any matter which (in accordance with regulations under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4) falls to be decided by them under this paragraph by a unanimous decision, but

(b) have failed to reach such a decision on that matter,").

Page 120, line 19, at end insert ("(4A) or").
Page 121, line 40, leave out ("that sub-paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b)").
Page 121, line 43, at end insert—
("(4A) If—

(a) by the end of such period as may be specified in or determined in accordance with regulations, the committee have not voted on any matter falling to be decided by them under this paragraph, and

(b) the body or promoters who published the proposals referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b) request the committee to refer that matter to the adjudicator,

they shall refer that matter to the adjudicator.").
Page 121, line 44, leave out from ("If") to ("they") in line 45 and insert ("the committee—

(a) have voted on any matter which (in accordance with regulations under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4) falls to be decided by them under this paragraph by a unanimous decision, but

(b) have failed to reach such a decision on that matter,").

Page 121, line 47, at end insert ("under sub-paragraph (4A) or (5)").
Page 125, line 21, leave out first ("special school").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I should like to move Amendments Nos. 117 to 122A en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 125, line 38, leave out ("or buildings (or both)").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 123, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 to 126. These amendments correct an error in the original draft. They amend provisions which in some cases put local education authorities under a duty to provide new buildings for foundation, voluntary controlled or foundation special schools on land owned by the school's trustees or governing or foundation body.
The drafting in the Bill provides for the buildings, if that is the case, to be transferred to the trustees. But that is not necessary because the land owner will own the buildings by virtue of owning the land on which they are built. There is therefore no need for the local education authority to convey its interest in the new buildings and the amendments remove that unnecessary duty. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 124 to 128:
Page 125, line 40, leave out ("or buildings (or both)").
Page 125, line 42, leave out ("or buildings (or both)").
Page 125, line 42, leave out ("(in the case of a site) their interest").
Page 128, line 19, leave out ("are unable to reach a") and insert ("have failed to reach a unanimous").
Page 128, line 23, after ("paragraph") insert ("3 or").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move Amendments Nos. 124 to 128 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 128, line 30, at end insert—
(""make", in relation to a transitional exemption order, includes (so far as the context permits) vary or revoke,").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 129 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 138. These amendments clarify the provisions relating to transitional exemption orders under the Sex Discrimination Act. They will ensure that school organisation committees have the powers to vary or revoke orders where that is necessary. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I should like a more elaborate explanation of this amendment. It says that an organisation committee can vary or revoke orders and that sounds as though a fairly extensive power is being handed to the committees. I should like some examples of exactly what is meant, and the extent of those powers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We are of course referring to transitional arrangements. They are nothing like as threatening as they sound. They are traditional exemption orders under the Sex Discrimination Act. At the moment the Bill says that the school organisation committee may make such exemption orders, but it may be appropriate to vary or revoke them rather than to just make them.
Perhaps I may give the example that the noble Baroness seeks. It could happen when a single-sex school wishes to become a mixed school. It will enable it to refuse entry to pupils of one sex in years higher up the school which are otherwise entirely of the other sex. The introduction of mixed-sex education could be allowed progressively through the school which I understand to be quite a common occurrence, rather than it having to be introduced all at one time. If the orders were not made in this way schools would be obliged to accept pupils of one sex into a year otherwise composed entirely of the other sex.
Transitional exemption orders may need to be amended if the associated proposals are amended or revoked. The amendments that we are proposing will ensure that school organisation committees will be able to amend or revoke the orders and therefore operate the system satisfactorily. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that that will make the local decision-making system more efficient and responsive to local needs.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I shall have to let this pass and read what the noble Lord has said because I still do not understand his explanation. What I am not sure about is whether the school organisation committee is doing something which is simply technical as a school moves either of its own volition or by agreed proposals. In other words, the school organisation committee is not doing something which may be inconsistent with the wishes of the school or the parents. When the noble Lord speaks of varying or revoking an order, under what authority is that being done? Is it being done under its own authority as opposed to doing it through agreed proposals with the agreement of the school concerned?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Certainly the examples that I have given are of the agreed proposals where a school wishes to make a change in its character in the way described and needs the school organisation committee to give it transitional exemption under the Sex Discrimination Act. But if there are examples where there could be conflict between the views of the school organisation committee and the individual school, which is what I believe the noble Baroness fears, then I shall write to her on that point. I hope she will agree that silence indicates that there are no such examples.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Direction requiring discontinuance of community or foundation special school]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 129A:
Page 30, line 10, leave out ("special school").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Rationalisation of school places]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 138:
Page 130, line 47, leave out ("3(5)") and insert ("3").
Page 130, line 47, leave out ("8(2)(c)") and insert ("8").
Page 132, line 37, at end insert ("under sub-paragraph (4A) or (4B)").
Page 132, line 44, at end insert—
("(4A) If—

(a) by the end of such period as may be specified in or determined in accordance with regulations, the committee have not voted on the question whether to give any approval under this paragraph, and

(b) the Secretary of State requests the committee to refer his proposals to the adjudicator,

they shall refer his proposals to the adjudicator.
(4B) If the committee—

(a) have voted on any matter which (in accordance with regulations under paragraph 5 of Schedule 4) falls to be decided by them under this paragraph by a unanimous decision but have failed to reach such a decision on that matter, or

(b) have decided not to give any approval under this paragraph,

they shall refer the Secretary of State's proposals to the adjudicator.").
Page 132, line 46, leave out ("(2)(c)") and insert ("(4A) or (4B)").
Page 133, line 9, leave out ("(2)(c)") and insert ("(4A) or (4B)").
Page 133, line 25, leave out ("8(2)(c)") and insert ("8(4A) or (4B)").
Page 135, line 48, leave out ("are unable to reach a") and insert ("have failed to reach a unanimous").
Page 136, line 9, at end insert—
(""make", in relation to a transitional exemption order, includes (so far as the context permits) vary or revoke,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [School changing front one category to another]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 31, line 13, after ("categories") insert (", and
(b) in certain circumstances, requiring proposals to be published for a voluntary aided school to become a school within another of those categories;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 140 and 142 to 146 inclusive and to Amendment No. 146P. I am sorry that I have not sent a letter in advance about these amendments. I would like to confirm what my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said that in future we shall try to get out a letter in advance which explains any group of government amendments, whether technical or otherwise, because that is very helpful.
These amendments adjust the change of category provisions in the Bill in three ways. Amendment No. 146P makes clear that the approval of proposals to change category does not authorise the school to change its character in any way.
Amendment No. 146 enables regulations to be made preventing an LEA from disposing of or changing the use of land currently used by a community school which wishes to change its category. This power will enable the Secretary of State to prevent LEAs frustrating a school's wish to change category by, for example, disposing of some of the land it uses. However, regulations under this provision might enable an LEA to dispose of land in these circumstances with the permission of the school and, where appropriate, the Secretary of State.
The remaining amendments ensure that if the governing body of an aided school is unable or unwilling to meet its financial obligations, it must publish proposals to change category. It is in no one's interests if a school is unable to afford essential repairs and maintenance. In these circumstances, a voluntary aided school may need to change to a voluntary controlled school. We are therefore putting it beyond doubt that in that situation the governing body of a voluntary aided school must publish proposals to change category. This reflects the current position set out in Section 57 of the Education Act 1996, under which the governors of an aided school must apply to the Secretary of State to become a controlled school if unable or unwilling to meet their financial obligations. That section is a provision with a considerable history, dating back to the 1944 Act. The amendments introduce an updated version of the provision for the new framework. I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 31, line 16, leave out from ("Except") to ("that") in line 17 and insert ("in relation to a change of category from voluntary aided to voluntary controlled school for which proposals are required to be published by virtue of paragraph 2A of Schedule 8,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 8 [Changes of category of school]:
[Amendment No. 141A not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 142 to 146P:
Page 137, line 8, at end insert—
("Mandatory publication of proposals for voluntary aided school to change category
2A.—(1) If at any time the governing body of a voluntary aided school are unable or unwilling to carry out their obligations under Schedule 3, they shall publish proposals under this paragraph.
(2) If the proposals are published during the period mentioned in section 34(2), they shall be proposals for the school to become a voluntary controlled school.
(3) If the proposals are published after the end of that period, they shall be proposals for the school to become either a voluntary controlled school or a foundation school, as the governing body may determine.
(4) Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 shall apply in relation to proposals published under this paragraph as it applies in relation to proposals published under that paragraph.").
Page 137, line 21, leave out from ("able") to end of line 22 and insert ("to carry out their obligations under Schedule 3;").
Page 137, leave out lines 23 and 24.
Page 137, line 31, after ("2") insert ("or 2A").
Page 137, line 34, after ("property") insert (", rights and liabilities (including such a transfer to or from a foundation body),").
Page 137, line 36, at end insert—
("(1A) Regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may, in particular, make provision with respect to—

(a) restricting the disposal of land by a local authority which is used or held for the purposes of a school in relation to which proposals to change category are, or may be, published under paragraph 2, as from—

(i) the date of publication of such proposals; or

(ii) such other time as may be prescribed;

(b) restricting the taking of action by virtue of which any such land would cease to be so used or held to any extent:

(c) the consequences of any contravention of any such restriction;

(d) conferring on any prescribed body such functions as may be prescribed with respect to any such contravention.").

Page 137, line 41, at end insert—
("5. A school's change of category under this Schedule shall not be taken as authorising or requiring any change in the character of the school conducted by its governing body (including, in particular, any religious character of the school).").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Governing bodies]:
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe moved Amendment No. 146A:
Page 31, line 22, at beginning insert ("Subject to section (Grouping of community, voluntary aided, voluntary controlled and community special schools under a single governing body),").
The noble Baroness said: Even at this late hour, I am in an optimistic mood. It gives me great pleasure to move this amendment and to speak to Amendments Nos. 154A to 154G inclusive. The amendment concerns a straightforward administrative matter and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it. I admit that it appears complicated, but it is really a very simple issue.
All that I am doing is proposing that the Bill maintains the provisions of the 1996 Act to enable two or more schools to continue to appoint a single board of governors. The best way that I can explain this is to give the Committee the background of the school which has enlisted our help and the situation in which it would find itself if the Bill were not amended.
The school in question is the Church of England-aided school of St. Alphege, the church where my husband and I were married many years ago. Therefore, I understand only too well its standing in the area as a centre of excellence. Parents from all over the borough are anxious to get their children accepted in the knowledge that they will receive the very best start in their academic life.
The school has been administered by a single governing body probably since Elizabethan times and certainly since 1862. During its history there have been separate schools for boys and girls while at other times they became amalgamated again. But in 1973, due to its popularity, the school wanted to expand but was unable to do so as the original one-form entry site was too small to cope with a two-form entry. As a consequence, the junior department moved to another site half a mile away. Throughout these changes, there has been one governing body maintaining that essential ingredient, continuity, and highlighting the fact that it is the school attached to St. Alphege Church. The governing body therefore wishes to remain one single body, albeit on two sites, so that it can retain that continuity but also because any child who enters at nursery stage is given the right of attendance through to the end of junior school. The admission rules are administered as for one school. It is felt that any action in the nursery and infant school has a knock-on effect on the junior school. At present due to more parental pressure consideration is being given to a three-form entry. That will obviously affect the junior school that must follow suit.
I have spoken to both the rector and chairman of governors who feel strongly about this matter. They believe that there would be a duplication of duties for those who had to be on both governing bodies. They also feel that the two schools may drift apart; that there will be increased administration costs; and that as it is the school of one parish it should be administered as one. The governors of an aided school are responsible for 15 per cent. of certain costs. As a single body it administers moneys that it has accrued for projects. Their concern is that they will have to set up a foundation or trust to administer that money. In the school there is one parent-teacher association.
The school accepts that change is necessary from time to time but only if it is for good reasons. It is a very successful school whose pupils achieve the highest results. It is also rightly proud of the way that it looks

141
after children with special needs. I believe that such schools—there must be others in the same position—deserve consideration and support. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I support the amendment. I have also received a letter from the chair of the governing body of the school to which the noble Baroness has referred. As she has said, this is by no means the only school that has this particular concern. There are a number of cases, particularly Church of England schools, where infant and junior schools are on the same site and a single governing body runs both of them, although technically they are separate schools. That is allowed under present legislation. That right is to be removed under the Bill. I find it difficult to see why the Government should not respond positively to this amendment. I welcome the possibilities for governing bodies which this amendment provides.
Baroness Blackstone: Before I respond to the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, in moving her amendment it may be helpful if I make a few introductory remarks about our intentions on school governance. Our focus is on standards and not structures. We want governors to focus on what is really important: raising standards in our schools. The Government appreciate the major commitment and contribution that governors make in governing the nation's schools. We want to make their lives easier by defining the most important tasks and providing a simpler governance framework.
A new school framework will require a new governance structure. We have seized the opportunity to introduce a more streamlined structure which will get rid of some of the rather arcane and bureaucratic requirements of the present system, including articles of government. The existing school governance arrangements are rather incoherent and inconsistent. They represent an accumulation of previous legislation which has been added to over very many years. Some requirements operate directly through legislation and some are required by legislation to operate through articles of government, but every time there is a change in the law on an issue which operates through articles those documents have to be amended.
A simplified structure will be easier for governors to understand and I hope more accessible for schools and parents. Indeed, our proposals for rationalising the process have been welcomed. The need to introduce new governance arrangements for the new framework has provided us with a unique opportunity to think afresh. However, much of what is existing legislation will remain. The substance remains broadly the same.
Primary or secondary legislation will contain all those requirements that currently apply through articles of government. There will be no articles of government in future dealing with the way the school should be conducted. All of that detail will be in legislation. But all schools will have their own individual instrument. No longer will they be subject to a block or group instrument applying to all schools of their category within an LEA as they are at present. They will have their own individual instrument, which schools themselves will initiate.
142
To reinforce the standards agenda we are honouring our election pledge to give more power to parents by increasing the number of elected parent governors and LEAs will be represented on all schools, including foundation schools.
I come now to the amendments which reinstate the existing legislation on grouped governing bodies. In implementing our standards agenda, one of our intentions is that every school should have its own governing body. A dedicated governing body, which is able to focus, with no distractions, on the performance of its own school, will stand a better chance of promoting higher standards. The amendments conflict with that by reintroducing the possibility of grouped governing bodies.
Two other main aims underpinning the governance provisions of the new framework for schools are strengthening the rights of parents and increasing the accountability of the governing body. The amendments proposed would enable LEAs to continue to group schools under a single governing body. We believe that such arrangements blur the lines of accountability and reduce the influence of parents on the governing body.
The retention of grouped governing bodies is not consistent with our manifesto commitment to increase the number of parent governors, about Which we feel strongly. Under a grouped arrangement far fewer parents are able to serve as parent governors, and parental influence at each individual school within the group is therefore diluted. The reduction in influence is significant. On a grouped governing body for separate infant and junior schools having 600 or more pupils between them, the two schools would have only five parent governors. If each school were to have a separate governing body under our proposals they would be able to choose whether to have four or five parents each.
These amendments are also in conflict with what we see as the basic spirit of the reconstitution proposals, which will allow governing bodies, within the legislative framework provided, to draw up their own draft instrument of government for approval by the LEA. Although Amendment No. 154C provides for the LEA to secure the consent of any voluntary school governing body, it would only be required to consult community and community special schools and could in theory impose a grouped governing body on them. That is undemocratic. It is also against the spirit of delegation. Although I appreciate that the amendments are based on existing legislation in the consolidated 1996 Education Act, the original legislation was framed at least 20 years ago at a time when it was possible for LEAs to set up single governing bodies covering large numbers of schools, which the Committee will agree was not a terribly good system.
I know from letters we have received in the department, how much some schools value being grouped. I understand that. They argue that it provides a better management structure for infant and junior schools sharing the same site, and improves decision making on those issues which affect both schools. They also argue that it provides for a level of continuity and progression across the phases which might otherwise be lost. Again I can understand those arguments.

143
However, I must say this to the schools. The benefits they describe will not be lost under the new framework. That is important. Schools can continue to enjoy the mutual benefits accrued from freely entering into co-operative arrangements and we hope that they will do that. Our proposals would permit some cross-representation as regards governing bodies—that again is important—either by LEAs appointing the same individual to both governing bodies or through the governing bodies' own co-option arrangements. If they wished to co-opt the same person on to two different governing bodies where schools share the same site, that would be wholly acceptable and entirely sensible. Although parents and staff will not be eligible for co-opted posts in their own school, it would of course be in the spirit of wider community interests to enable a parent, teacher or staff governor at one school in a former group to be co-opted to another.
It is also clear from the correspondence we have seen that there is a greater risk that those schools are spending a disproportionate amount of time on day-to-day site management and related issues. Of course the governing body must have a role, but operational matters concerning site management and related issues should for the most part be left to head teachers to resolve together. If there is too much discussion of such issues, they are somewhat of a distraction for governing bodies rather than talking about the real issues of standards and the performance of the schools' targets, and so on. They are important if schools are on adjoining sites or sharing buildings which are run harmoniously. But they should not absorb too much of a governing body's valuable time. Indeed, we have heard of grouped governing bodies where half the meetings are taken up by discussion of these matters. Governing bodies should be left free to concentrate on the really important strategic issues, of which improving standards is the most important of all.
We believe that it is important for every school to have its own dedicated governing body to oversee improving standards within the school. In the light of explaining the purpose and nature of the Government's proposals on school governance, and each school having its own governing body, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: That is probably the most disappointing answer that we have had all day. It seems a case of administrative tidiness gone absolutely mad. Does the noble Baroness say that where the parents, the governors and staff of the school, and the diocese, wish the management of two schools to be under one governing body there is no flexibility in the system to allow that to occur? As my noble friend said, if it were possible to be on one site, this would be one school. It expanded as a popular school and was unable to do that. The Minister refers to governing bodies wasting time on matters which are not concerned with raising standards.
144
It seems almost an insult to say that this governing body is not primarily concerned with the standards of education in these schools.
Baroness Blackstone: The Government do not wish to have administrative tidiness for the sake of administrative tidiness. The point of having a set up in which each school has its own governing body is, as I sought to make clear, to make sure that parents are properly represented on the governing bodies of every school. There will be far more parent representation if each school has its own governing body. I have also suggested that there can be joint co-options so that there are people on the governing body of two schools which share the same site and there is continuity in decisions made between the two governing bodies.
In response to what the noble Baroness was just saying, if the need for a single governing body is so strong, one option would be for the schools to merge and, of course, that does sometimes happen. There is no requirement to do so and I am not suggesting that schools in these circumstances should necessarily do so. But we believe that it should be possible for governing bodies, if necessary, through cross-representation and by working constructively with their head teachers, to deal with common management issues.
The large majority of schools with group governing bodies are county schools. As the LEA is the employer and owns the land, and will continue to do so under the new framework for schools, the management issues involved should be quite straightforward. I do not think it is just a matter of administrative tidiness. It is a genuine wish to give parents in every school their own governing body, and the staff of those schools their own governing body, but with some shared membership.
I am sorry if I have disappointed the noble Baroness, Lady B latch, but I do want to try to explain that our intentions are not administrative, but entirely concerned with parental representation, and each governing body being concerned with the standards of education in the school.
Baroness Seccombe: I thank the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Blatch for their support. I am, of course, disappointed with the noble Baroness's response. She has said much tonight and it is important that I read and study it. I shall also want to talk to those who have given me the information.
At this stage I shall withdraw the amendment with the probability that I shall come back to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 146B:
Page 31, line 26, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 146B, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 146C, 148A, 148B and 149A.
The Minister has given the most perfect introduction to my amendments. In essence, these are amendments to give greater flexibility. They are quite important amendments, and, therefore, I want to develop them as far as I can, without keeping your noble Lords too long.
Under current legislation the government and management of each school are determined by instruments and articles of government. In the case of the present grant maintained schools—and these are quite important points—these are statutory instruments, and can only be amended after discussion with the schools concerned. The point I make about these particular technical points is that they allow local initiative for schools.
This Bill simplifies, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, the instruments and abolishes the articles and, in effect, incorporates many of the provisions of what were the articles into clauses and schedules of the Bill. In other words, it imposes a pattern.
The present situation, as we have seen from the debate that has just occurred, is that articles and instruments are personal to the school, and, as we have seen in this situation, which has aroused considerable feeling in the area, can be adapted to local circumstances, as they have been for the best part of a century or more.
I can give the Committee some examples. Under articles, which are being abolished, governors of certain schools have discretion over issues which will not be possible under the present situation where they have been included in clauses and schedules of the Bill. For example, there are issues like how vacancies are advertised, which the governors and headmaster decide; and whether there is an admission committee. Some powers are delegated to the headmaster; for example, the actual allocation of salaries subject to the overall financial control of the governing body. All this will go, since in schedules, but also in some clauses, all these arrangements are laid down for schools everywhere.
The Minister's answer to my noble friend was negative and I am puzzled by the fact that it contradicts what was said by her honourable friend the Minister of State, Stephen Byers, in the other place. When he was debating this matter he recognised the problem and said that flexibility could occur. He said:
"There is nothing to deny schools the opportunity of adding to these procedures the detail that might at present be included in the articles of government".
The articles of government are personal to the school. I repeat that the Minister's colleague in the other place said:
"There is nothing to deny schools the opportunity of adding to these procedures the detail that might at present be included in the articles of government. Under the present Bill, that is replacing articles by a common instrument and including much in primary education in the schedule. That would provide a narrow and focused set of requirements but there would be nothing to stop schools adding to them".
Since the Minister was in conversation with her colleague, I remind her that he said that there would be nothing to stop schools adding to the articles. Therefore, the Minister seemed to take account of the worries about the loss of local initiative, for which the noble Baroness has recently shown a conspicuous disregard.
The amendments are designed to discover whether the Minister in this House supports the statements made by her colleague in the other place. I remind her again that he said there is nothing to deny the schools. There is a lot to deny them—the Government have denied them.
The Minister of State made a statement over the position of governing bodies where the articles have been abolished, but he is saying, "Don't worry about the articles being abolished. You can include local initiatives". I want the Minister to put flesh on these bones because that is what her colleague said. I cannot understand her comments when concentrating on the overall pattern and paying little regard to local initiative. I am worried whether my amendments will permit the flexibility which the Minister in the other place suggested because things have been written in tablets of stone in the schedules and clauses of this Bill which would deny the local initiative which at present exists. We have a contradiction in government policy between what the Minister of State said in the other place and what the Minister is saying here. I would be grateful if the Minister could elucidate.
I shall speak briefly to my specific amendments. Amendments Nos. 146B and 148A remove the straitjacket. Amendments Nos. 146C, 148B and 149A give flexibility guidance. That is what the Minister of State said he wanted, yet the Minister, faced with something that has existed since Elizabethan times, said, "No way." How do we reconcile that? I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): As Amendment No. 149A is also being spoken to, I should point out to the Committee that if that amendment were agreed to I could not call Amendments Nos. 150 to 152.
Midnight
Lord Whitty: I regret that we cannot accept these amendments. If they were carried they would delete Schedules 11 and 12 which are important provisions on the way in which we give statutory backing to the government of schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, appears to believe that we are engaged in over-bureaucracy and over-regulation, but it is not our intention to provide a straitjacket which could tie the hands of governing bodies unnecessarily. School governors are corporate institutions with their own legal identity and that has always been the case. It is essential that their constitution has legislative backing. That backing is provided for in Schedule 12 to the Bill, which works together with Schedule 9.
We have slimmed down the contents of the instrument of government to the bare essentials. The instrument of government will be a brief factual document setting out the school's name, category of school, categories and numbers of governors and the names of the appointing authorities. We do not intend to go further than that, except that schools with a religious character will be required to include an ethos statement. We regard this as the minimum content for the instrument of government to ensure that there are no difficulties or ambiguities in the membership or constitution.
My understanding of the position with reference to Stephen Byers' comments, although I have not managed to check the context in the last three minutes, is that the

147
provisions which we laid down by statute are the core of the instrument of government, but we specify that schools are otherwise able, provided they meet those core requirements, to regulate their own proceedings. There is, therefore, no contradiction between what we are proposing in these clauses and schedules and what the Minister of State said in another place.
This legislation does, however, abolish the old articles of government. The present position is that these articles govern the way that each school should be conducted, including the respective roles, responsibilities and functions of the governing body and head teachers in certain key areas.
It is essential that there should be a clear understanding on these issues. That is why we shall be addressing them in primary legislation and in the regulations under Clause 37. It is also our intention to issue guidance on these matters. But they cannot be left—as the amendment would suggest—to guidance alone which would have no statutory force. Nor, in our view, given the range and types of school and the lack of uniform experience of governing bodies and of head teachers, do we feel it would be appropriate to go down the path of a formal code of conduct for governing bodies, as has been suggested.
The abolition of articles of government is not primarily a deregulation mechanism, although in a sense it is. It is a modernising one. The provisions currently within articles will be applied directly through primary and secondary legislation. To replicate such legislation in the form of articles, school by school, has proved unworkable and unnecessarily bureaucratic. We believe that abolishing articles of government as a consequence of the new framework will simplify the system of governance for all schools and not put it in a straitjacket.
In future there will be no ambiguity. Schools will rely on what is set out in the primary or secondary legislation and they will have their own instruments of government. These proposals have been widely welcomed by the local education authorities who, in practice, currently carry the main burden of amending school articles of government to conform to successive batches of new legislation, which is wasteful and ties up LEA and school resources which could more profitably be used
148
on other things. The abolition of articles of government, therefore, is a tidying up measure which frees school resources.
If these amendments were carried and the schedules, to a large extent at least, fell, the statutory backing for the instruments of government would fall. And if we were to drop the proposal to require articles of government school by school, the local education authorities in schools would continue to face a substantial bureaucratic burden, which would be unnecessary.
But we do build in the flexibility to which my honourable friend Stephen Byers referred in that schools can add to the core content of the instruments to meet their own particular circumstances. I hope that clarifies the position.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I must confess that I am worried about this. Articles are inconvenient, I will allow that. They are local, they represent large chunks of history and tradition, and this Bill, as I said on Second Reading, is dirigiste. It favours neither local history nor local tradition.
To incorporate a general picture in a Bill destroys not only the limited tradition that you heard recently but quite a lot more. I say again, articles are inconvenient because they represent a local community. LEAs have often found them inconvenient. They have often defended schools against what LEAs wanted them to do. I quote again that some schools have preserved sixth forms. Some schools to which the Minister's colleagues like to send their children are often due to local articles.
I still feel that this Bill is a nationalising, dirigiste Bill. It will impose patterns and I think there will be resentment. I can well accept that local authorities will like it; it eliminates all those awkward little things that stem from history, from tradition and from things like that.
I am not happy. I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment but it is yet another mountain that we shall have to climb on Report. I understand what the Minister is saying; namely, that the present provision will make it all nice and easy. It is like a nice little manor house standing in the way of a great highway: "Get it out of the way". It may be pretty, but it is inconvenient. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 146C not moved.]
Clause 35 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Constitution of governing bodies]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 146Q:
Page 138, line 13, after ("preserved") insert ("and developed").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 146R to T, 146V to Z, 148C and 246C. The Government are very pleased to bring forward Amendment No. 146Q at the request of the Churches. The addition of the words "and developed" is in line with the original 1944 Act definition of the purpose of a foundation governor. We recognise that the Churches are forward-looking institutions and that "preservation" should not imply that there is no room for any change whatever. The wording has stood the test of time. We are very pleased to be able to reinstate it.
The remaining amendments are technical and are designed to improve the drafting of the Bill. The first set of amendments modify the provisions on additional governors. Amendment No. 146R alters the wording of paragraph 15(1) in Schedule 9 to allow the governing body of any maintained school to make provision in its instrument of government for any number of additional governors to be specified in the regulations. The intention is for the regulations to provide for a specified number of additional governors, or a maximum number to be determined by the governing body.
Amendments No. 146S and 146T modify the wording of paragraph 15(2)(b) to allow the governing body to decide which persons within the category they may seek a nomination from. Amendment No. 146V has the effect of adjusting the number of surplus governor provisions as they apply to additional governors to ensure that only a surplus governor of the type requiring to be removed could be removed, and not any other co-opted governor within the category.
Amendment No. 146Z provides for the dissolution of the governing body to take effect from the school's discontinuance dates or at a later date which the Secretary of State may specify by order. The definitions of discontinuance dates are in line with existing legislation. The new power for the Secretary of State to specify a later date by order will be used in cases where property transactions and other matters need to be dealt with by the governing body after the date on which the school is discontinued. Finally, Amendment No. 246C is consequent upon it and adds the new paragraph 4 in Schedule 10 to Clause 127 under the list of provisions not requiring statutory instruments. I trust that these amendments are in no way contentious and that Members of the Committee will accept that they should form part of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I should like to thank the Minister for introducing Amendment No. 146Q and for listening so carefully to the concerns of the Churches that we should be seen both as developing as well as preserving the religious ethos of the schools for which we are responsible.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
12.15 a.m.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 146D:
Page 138, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Before appointing a governor of a school, a local education authority shall consult any district, town or parish council which covers an area served by the school.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 146F, H, J, L and N, all of which deal with minor authority governors. There is great concern that the present practice of minor authority representation on primary school governing bodies will cease if this Bill is passed, unamended, by Parliament. We have received many letters, telephone calls and personal expressions of concern about the new categories of governors as defined in this Bill. All speak of the current close link formed between their local primary school and their village or town community councillor. Yet here we are about to see the ending of this statutory right. Parish and town councillors—properly elected people—who are the closest community link to their school are to have that right removed.
That is even more puzzling as in the foreword to the White Paper the Secretary of State, the right honourable David Blunkett, stated,
"Partnership for change means commitment from everyone: from the family and the wider community".
I am sure the Committee would echo that sentiment. Yet here in this important Bill the Government will end, by right, this closest and most important link. This comes only two months after the countryside rally in March when the Government acknowledged the importance of local communities and specifically included the role of village schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, when replying to a debate in this Chamber on the role of grandparents, spoke of the support given by the wider family, friends, neighbours and the community.
I now refer to the comments we have received from schools, parish councils and from the Association of Parish Councils. Mr. Michael Farrar, clerk of Stapleford Parish Council wrote,
"The council was dismayed to learn of this proposal and felt that the present link between a parish council and its local primary school is both mutually beneficial and essential for the maintenance of a proper sense of community".
A letter from the primary school in the village of Stapleford stated:
"We have found the link … our minor authority governor has made between the school and the parish council to be of great benefit to the school…We urge you to reconsider this proposal, to ensure that local schools continue to enjoy good relations with their local communities, a principle which the Government states it believes in".
That letter was sent by the chair and deputy chair of governors to David Blunkett.
Mr. Robin Wendt, chief executive of the National Association of Local Schools, wrote of,
"The key role which primary schools play in the life of local communities and the role of parish, town and community councillors in articulating the needs of these communities".
Under this Bill the parish, town and community councillors can sit on primary school governing bodies only as co-opted members. This position has caused widespread anger and concern among local councils.
At present LEA appointees to governing bodies are made by the political parties, in roughly the proportion of the seats they hold on the county council. To supply an "opening" for a minor authority representation out of those seats implies a political involvement in an area which at parish level has hitherto been apolitical. This could well pose difficulties in deciding who would be nominated to fill this place.
I have raised my next point in previous debates. There are reports of some schools, particularly primary schools, having LEA places unfilled. I mentioned the school of which my husband is a governor which has three LEA places. Some 12 months later two of the places are still unfilled. At the one extreme LEA places are not being filled and therefore a contribution is not made to a particular school, and at the other extreme the Government's proposals on this Bill exclude the most locally and democratically elected personnel from service. Surely that is all the more reason that the present status quo should continue to exist and that minor authority governors should not be excluded by the Bill.
I know that the noble Baroness the Minister is aware of the strength of feeling that has been aroused on this issue. Indeed, she indicated as much in a letter to my noble friend Lady Platt, who is unfortunately not here today, when she spoke of reinforcing opportunities for minor authority representation. When this Bill was debated in another place, Mr. Hain, the Minister, speaking on this issue, said:
"We intend to ensure an opening for minor authority representation … We recognise its value … it can add to the strength and cohesion of governing bodies".
If the Government appreciate and acknowledge the important role that minor authority governors play, and if they wish to ensure an opening for such local councillors to be able to serve on their local governing bodies, why will they not rethink this whole important issue?
The amendments proposed by the Minister go half-way. We on these Benches ask the noble Baroness to reconsider her position and be persuaded by the strength of argument in this Chamber today and the depth of concern expressed by those who serve us outside this House. I beg to move.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Will the noble Baroness say what should happen in an area where there is no parish council but a parish meeting? I happen to live in a village where there is a very active parish meeting which is very interested in local affairs. It seems to me that this amendment would deprive those people of the representation about which the noble Baroness properly feels strongly.
Baroness Byford: Indeed, it was my intention that there should be a representative from the parish council. As I say, the parish council is a democratically elected group and elects a person to serve on the local primary school committee. If I am not making sense, I am sorry.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Without wishing to prolong the matter, I am saying that in some areas there is
152
no parish council, but there is a regular parish meeting. Are those people to be deprived of the laudable provision that is suggested?
Baroness Byford: No, indeed, I do not see why they cannot be represented. If I have erred in some way, then I will bring the matter back at the next stage. The whole idea of these amendments is to be inclusive, so that we can have good representation at local level in schools. I have waited hours to speak in this debate. I wondered whether I should be speaking on the day on which I had thought to speak, or the day after. The whole debate is to make sure that the closest elected body is not precluded. At present, the Bill suggests that those people have the chance to be included and they are open-minded on the matter. But they are not there to serve as of right, as they are at present. That is my understanding. I shall wait to hear what the Minister has to say.
Baroness Maddock: I rise to speak to similar amendments standing in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Tope, who cannot be with us, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I shall not reiterate the arguments as they relate to our amendments because the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has set them out fully and we have heard enough repetition in these debates. We have been heavily lobbied by people outside this House. The noble Lord was concerned about parish meetings. Our proposal is to keep the legislation that already exists. If the noble Lord wishes parish meetings to be included, I suggest that he proposes an amendment. I should be happy to support it. The point is that we do not want to lose the representation that parish councils have now.
Our amendments are slightly different from the Conservative amendments. They include community councils in Wales and give the right to appoint a governor to every school in a parish. The Minister will introduce an amendment which recognises some of the concerns that we all have, and I shall listen carefully to her remarks. However, on examination, and after discussing it with others, it appears not to go quite so far as we should like it to go. It is just a little disappointing. At this time of night, it seems incredibly mean. We have waited until this time to deal with one of the parts of the Bill on which we have been lobbied by many groups. Given the strength of feeling, I cannot understand why the Government cannot go the whole way on this. If I understand correctly, they are saying that they put the matter in the hands of the governors and that minor authorities are given the right to nominate but do not have full nomination rights; the other governors must consider whether they will co-opt the minor authority nomination. I may have got that wrong. This matter was debated in the other place. It is an issue that people care about. Can we have a bit of caring at twenty-five past midnight, please?
Baroness Blackstone: As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, suggested, I am aware of the strength of feeling among minor authorities about our proposal to withdraw their right to appoint school governors for some categories of primary schools. We have assured them that there will continue to be an opening for minor authority

153
representation. The government amendments that we have brought forward now enshrine that commitment on the face of the Bill, while allowing governing bodies to choose for themselves whether or not they wish to co-opt a minor authority representative. I shall come later to the government amendments, but first I should like to address the points raised by the two sets of amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for the Conservatives and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for the Liberal Democrats.
Turning first to Amendment No. 146D, I am aware that not all LEAs are equally diligent about appointing LEA nominees to governing bodies. It is clearly unacceptable for vacancies to be carried for many months, with the governing body deprived of another useful pair of hands. For this reason, the Government have some sympathy with Amendment No. 146D, which would require an LEA to consult any district, town or parish council covering the area served by the school before appointing LEA governors. But we believe that these matters are more appropriate for guidance on good practice rather than legislation. I hope it is helpful to the noble Baronesses on both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches to say that we intend to encourage LEAs in the strongest terms to be mindful of minor authority links in making their own appointments, particularly where they are having difficulty in identifying sufficient appropriate LEA nominees, as we know they sometimes do. However, we do not feel that legislation would be appropriate as it would impede the ability of democratically elected LEAs to consider freely who should represent them.
It is also the case that the proposed statutory code of practice on LEA-school relations covers appointments to governing bodies. It states that LEAs should publish the process and criteria by which they will identify candidates for appointment as LEA governors and make those appointments promptly. In the guidance we shall issue on reconstituting school governing bodies we intend to give strong encouragement to LEAs to consider minor authority nominees, particularly in cases where they are finding it difficult to fill their places. But a great deal will depend upon local circumstances. To impose a blanket requirement on all LEAs to consult, even in cases where they had no need or intention to open up their lists, would only arouse expectations which could not be fulfilled. Providing another route for minor authorities via LEAs would be confusing and blur accountability at local level.
I should like to turn now to the two different sets of proposals to add minor authority governors or parish or town council governors to school governing bodies. While it is true that we have received a great many representations in favour of maintaining the status quo, both sets of amendments go very much further than that. To accept these amendments would result in minor authorities having considerably more influence on governing bodies than they do at present. Amendments 146G to 146N make no distinction between primary and secondary schools. Maybe that was just a mistake in the drafting. Under existing legislation and under our
154
proposals there is no requirement for minor authority representation on secondary school governing bodies. Secondary schools often take pupils from a very wide geographical area, so a significant number of minor authorities could well be involved. Extending minor authority representation to secondary schools would greatly increase the risk of disagreement about who should represent them as more authorities would need to agree.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, does not suggest that a minor authority governor should be appointed at foundation schools. However, Amendment No. 146J, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would require such schools to have a "parish or town" councillor governor appointed collectively by the parish or town councils covering the area served by the school.
It is a bit surprising that a Conservative amendment should require foundation schools to have a parish or town council governor. As Members of the Committee will appreciate, it is not unheard of for either town or parish councillors to be politically aligned—it is particularly likely in the former case. I fear therefore that this would cut across the undertaking we have already given to GM schools that no more than two local authority appointees should be added to foundation school governing bodies, irrespective of size or circumstances.
The Government gauged very carefully the appropriate level of local authority representation on foundation school governing bodies. The amendment would increase that representation and we understand that such a proposal would be unwelcome to the existing grant-maintained sector. The previous government made no provision for minor authority representation on grant-maintained school governing bodies. The Government do not wish to perpetuate unnecessary divisions between different categories of school. That is why we would wish to give all primary schools the right to decide for themselves whether minor authority representation is appropriate for them.
I note that Amendment No. 146F perpetuates the current unsatisfactory position of joint appointments by minor authorities acting collectively which provides no means of determining a dispute if the parties cannot agree. Those decisions should be made locally, but we know from experience that minor authorities are not always able to secure agreement. To rely on local agreements is unworkable and the Secretary of State does not feel that it should continue to be a function of the department operating from Whitehall to determine disputes of that kind.
I turn now to the Government's amendments relating to minor authority representation. Amendment No. 146U amends paragraph 15 of Schedule 9 to place on the face of the Bill the duty for governing bodies of primary schools serving minor authority areas to consider co-opting minor authority nominees. Where a primary school is served by more than one minor authority, it will be open to the governing body to approach any one or more of those authorities as they see fit. Special provision is made for voluntary-aided schools, which do not generally have

155
co-opted governors, to have a co-opted governor nominated by a minor authority if the governing body thinks fit.
Amendment No. 208A is consequential to Amendment No. 146U. Placing the provisions on minor authority representation on the face of the Bill enables this amendment to Clause 78 to allow for a co-opted governor nominated by a minor authority to be an ex officio trustee at a foundation or voluntary school. That follows the spirit of the existing legislation which allows the governors appointed by foundations, LEAs or minor authorities, to be ex officio trustees at foundation or voluntary schools.
Bringing provision for minor authority representation on the face of the Bill now requires the term "minor authority" to be defined in the Bill. Accordingly, Amendment No. 255C inserts a new clause defining the circumstances under which a maintained school would be regarded as serving an area for which there is a minor authority. I point out to my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington that a parish meeting will provide the representative where there is no parish council. It provides for minor authorities to be either parish councils or parish meetings where there is no parish council, community councils in Wales or district councils. Town councils are included in the reference to parish councils. Where a school is not situated within a parish or unitary authority, the clause allows for more than one district council to be regarded as a minor authority.
Finally, Amendment No. 257S adds a reference to a minor authority in the index of expressions set out in Clause 131. I would like to assure all concerned that there is no intention to undermine the quality of rural life or indeed to undervalue the enormous contribution which representatives on minor authorities make to their communities or to the schools which serve them. We believe that the majority of primary schools, given the choice, would still wish to include a minor authority governor as a co-opted representative.
We understand the uncertainty that many minor authority interests have felt over the Government's intentions and that is why we have decided, given the very obvious strength of feeling on the issue, to make those intentions clear on the face of the Bill instead of in regulations as originally intended. Alongside those regulations we plan to issue strong guidance urging governing bodies to consider co-opting a minor authority nominee to represent the local community. We also plan to ask LEAs to consider nominating such individuals themselves. We have reflected very carefully on this issue, as I hope what I have said indicates. But on balance we believe that the decision should be left to governing bodies themselves.
As I indicated, we have received a great many representations on this matter although we have received hardly any from the schools themselves and none at all from LEAs. Our proposals for the constitution of governing bodies are consistent with the rest of our proposals for the governing bodies. Our desire is to see schools treated more equitably and to ensure that governing bodies are kept to a reasonable size. By "reasonable size" we mean with sufficient governors to
156
ensure that business is conducted efficiently, but not so many that the governing body becomes over-large and unwieldy.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Maddock: Members of the Committee will know that that was an incredibly disappointing answer. I felt that the Minister was offering crumbs from the table to parish councils. I believe the Minister said that particularly in cases where the local education authority could not find governors itself it might consider asking the parish council. I found that particularly disappointing and surprising. It is not the kind of remark which the Minister normally makes.
She also indicated that we were slightly changing the amendments. I believe that my amendment improves the situation that we have now. We were not even asking for the status quo. If we asked for that, would the Minister look on the matter more favourably? Perhaps she will indicate whether that is so. The noble Baroness then tried to sell the provision to us by saying that it was going to be put into regulations, but we have been very kind and put it on the face of the Bill. I do not believe that anyone is going to be fooled, least of all the parish councils and minority authorities who lobbied us. I feel sure that we shall return to this matter again.
Baroness Byford: Perhaps I may return again to the Minister's response. I, too, am equally disappointed. It was hoped that the status quo would be allowed to exist. The Minister has moved some way to meet some of our requests. She spoke about co-option; possible openings; recommending the strongest terms; not imposing; and primary schools being satisfied at having someone from their LEA appointed rather than a local person being appointed.
I wish to ask the Minister two things. On looking at the amendments as they stand, obviously we have asked for a place in primary and secondary schools. If our amendment referred just to primary schools, would the Government reconsider? The last comment that the Minister made was about the size of the governing body. We are not changing the size of the governing body. All that we are changing—or rather, all that the Government are proposing to change—is that there may be certain nominees, with appointments being made by LEAs, with perhaps political rather than non-political appointees. The point of our amendment is to ensure that a parish council, which is duly elected and is the closest link to the school, should be allowed to continue to put forward its nominee for election as a governor as of right in primary schools.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may answer those two points briefly. It would be an improvement if the amendments related only to primary schools and did not go wider to include secondary schools, but I do not think that confining the provisions to primary schools would solve the Government's problems for the reasons I have explained, relating to an undertaking that has been given to grant-maintained schools.

157
The issue of the size of the governing body is not crucial to the argument. I mentioned it at the end because it is clearly important, as I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, that governing bodies should be of a sensible and reasonable size to get on with their business.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for her response. Obviously, I am not happy about it and I expect that there will be great disappointment out there among our primary schools and parish councils. I should like to read Hansard—not tomorrow, but the day after—and to return to the issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 146E to 146N not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 146R to 146V:
Page 143, leave out line 20 and insert ("specified in or determined in accordance with regulations.").
Page 143, line 24, leave out ("by whom") and insert ("from amongst whose members").
Page 143, line 24, leave out ("may be made") and insert ("are to be sought").
Page 143, line 25, at end insert—
("(3) If, in the case of any voluntary aided school which—

(a) is a primary school, and

(b) serves an area for which there are one or more minor authorities,

the governing body so determine, the instrument of government for the school shall provide for the governing body to include (in addition to the governors required by virtue of paragraph 14 and any required by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)) one co-opted governor nominated by the minor authority or (as the case may be) one of the minor authorities in question; and the governing body of any such school must decide whether or not to make a determination under this sub-paragraph.
(4) Where any such school serves an area for which there are two or more minor authorities, the relevant governors may, for the purposes of the appointment of any such co-opted governor, seek nominations from any one or more of those authorities as the governors think fit.
(5) In sub-paragraph (4) "the relevant governors" means those members of the school's governing body who are not co-opted governors.
Co-opted governors nominated by minor authorities
15A.—(1) In the case of any maintained school (other than a voluntary aided school) which—

(a) is a primary school, and

(b) serves an area for which there are one or more minor authorities,

the relevant governors shall, when making an appointment of a co-opted governor in accordance with paragraphs 9 to 13, consider
158
whether to appoint as such a governor a person nominated by the minor authority or (as the case may be) one of the minor authorities in question (unless one or more such persons are for the time being so appointed).
(2) Where any such school serves an area for which there are two or more minor authorities, the relevant governors may, for the purposes of the appointment of any such co-opted governor, seek nominations from any one or more of those authorities as the governors think fit.
(3) In this paragraph "the relevant governors" has the meaning given by paragraph 15(5).").
Page 144, line 2, at end insert—
("(4) Where the governing body of a maintained school includes any additional governors appointed in pursuance of paragraph 15, this paragraph shall apply to the school as if such of those governors as are nominated by a particular category of person constituted a separate category of governor.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Incorporation of governing bodies]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 146W to 146Z:
Page 144, line 18, leave out ("by") and insert ("before").
Page 144, line 23, leave out ("by") and insert ("before").
Page 144, line 25, leave out ("by") and insert ("before").
Page 146, line 27, at end insert—
("Dissolution of governing body
4.—(1) If the school is discontinued, the governing body are dissolved by virtue of this paragraph—

(a) on the discontinuance date, or

(b) on such later date as the Secretary of State may specify by order made before the discontinuance date.

(2) In this paragraph "the discontinuance date" means—

(a) the date when proposals for discontinuing the school are implemented under Part III of Schedule 6,

(b) the date when the school is discontinued under section 29, or

(c) the date specified in a direction given under section 19(1) or 31(1),

as the case may be.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Membership and proceedings etc. of governing bodies]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 148, line 24, leave out ("they consider") and insert ("is").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 147, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 152. Amendments No. 147 and 148 are an opportunity to ask the Government how they expect local authorities to be held to account for the standards they apply to governor training. Is this one of those wonderful bits of education legislation which leaves everybody powerless and the local authority without any real responsibilities or somewhere hidden in the wording is there something which will allow either the local people or the Secretary of State to impose some degree of guidance or control on the standards of governor training?
Amendment No. 152—a totally separate issue—concerns the meaning of the phrases "high standards" and "educational achievement". Perhaps I can find the

159
right page in the Bill. I am very surprised. I thought that I had found it earlier. Perhaps the Government know where it is. I believe that it should be on page 32, line 5. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, understands that that is where it is supposed to be.
The promotion of high standards of educational achievement is a very noble aim, but it does not appear to be anchored to any ability to turn that into reality. If that is something that a governing body is supposed to do it must know what is meant by "high standards". One could say that the hills in East Anglia were high. By local standards they might be high, but they would not be high by Welsh standards. Educational achievement varies across the country in a similar fashion. I believe that a governing body should have regard to a national measure of "high standards" rather than whether it is doing better than its neighbours.
As to educational achievement, that can be very loosely and differently defined. What is important? What level of educational achievement is satisfactory? By what measures will such achievement be judged? I see nothing in the Bill to enable the Government or anyone else to set out the standards by which the two phrases in Clause 37(2) can be judged. My rather imperfect Amendment No.152 may provide a way of doing that, if it is put in the right place in the Bill. I beg to move.
12.45 a.m.
The Chairman of Committees: I should point out to the Committee that, as Amendment No. 152 is also being spoken to, if Amendment No. 149A is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 150 to 152.
Lord Whitty: It appears from the drafting of the first amendment that the noble Lord aims to do what his Front Bench has argued the Government should not do; namely, to lay down precise formulations and impose a straitjacket on local authorities and governing bodies.
Amendment No. 147 relates to the provision of information. It is clear that at present governing bodies can carry out their functions only if they have the information in a form that they can understand. Most governing bodies will look to the head teacher to provide such information. Clause 41(4) of the Bill places a requirement on the head to provide the governing body with such reports in connection with the discharge of his duties as the governing body may require to enable it to exercise its functions. Clause 41 places a similar duty on head teachers and governing bodies to provide information to the LEA for the purpose of exercising its functions.
These requirements, which reflect existing legislation, are to be further buttressed by the guidance on exchanging information in the proposed code of practice on LEA-school relations. If LEAs, head teachers and governing bodies are to work in partnership they will need to agree among themselves sensible arrangements for exchanging information and the form of that information. The department is providing increasing amounts of information to governors, but it will be up
160
to the LEA to agree with governing bodies what further information it can usefully provide to help governors set their schools' performance in context and understand how it compares with others. The effect of the amendment is to try to establish an objective single form of information that applies in all local authorities, whereas we believe that the information which follows discussion between the local authority and the governing body will meet the circumstances of particular areas and schools.
A similar argument applies to Amendment No. 148 which relates to governor training. Local education authorities are well placed to consider along with their governing body partners the type of information and training which governors need to do an effective job. Given the wide range of interests and individuals represented on governing bodies we do not believe that a single centrally imposed model, which the amendment implies, would be the right course of action. Governors are at different stages of development, and have marked differences in knowledge and understanding.
However, we share the noble Lord's concern, which lies behind the amendment, that there should be an improvement in the amount of training for governors. We have already stepped up that provision. That is why the White Paper Excellence in Schools committed the department to issuing guidance on how governors' training needs can best be met, drawing on the best of existing LEA practice. Officials are working with LEA governor trainers to identify good practice, and intend to publish a document in the autumn. In view of all that activity, amendments which imply that there should be one form of training for all governors in all areas should be resisted. There should be a recognition that the back-up and support which the department is giving to governors and LEAs in the provision of training should be supported.
With regard to Amendment No. 152, I understand the noble Lord's anxiety that we should define more closely "high standards" and "educational achievement". If we follow that through, there is a danger that we start to write targets for schools into regulations about governing bodies. That is something we wish to avoid. The regulations proposed in this clause are concerned with things such as establishing the governing body's terms of reference, role and responsibilities, and the respective roles which the head teacher and the governing body should be playing. They are not about setting targets for the school's achievement.
There is plenty of advice in this area. The department has issued recently, for consultation, draft guidance for LEAs on education development plans, which covers pupils' standards of achievement, the quality of teaching and learning, and the quality of leadership and management, including support for governors. Governing bodies clearly have a major role to play in the raising of expectations and of standards. To write into regulations the precise educational targets which governors will be required to deliver would be counter-productive and would not gell well with what is required under the regulations which state the more basic requirements for governing bodies.

161
The raising of educational standards is clearly shared by us all. That statement does not pretend to be a defined objective target against which the performance of a governing body can be measured. It is a description of the role which we see governing bodies having in driving up standards in schools in general. We do not wish to be restrictive or prescriptive in the way in which we define that in regulations, as the amendment implies. I understand the noble Lord's anxieties in this area. I hope that he will accept that his amendments would not achieve his objectives.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply to the amendments. I accept what he has said. I am delighted to have his assurance about guidance on governor training and information for governors. That answers the question underlying those two amendments. I accept his strictures on Amendment No. 152. I shall read in Hansard tomorrow what he has said, and if I have any further questions I shall write to him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Instruments of government]:
[Amendments Nos. 148A and 148B not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Instruments of government]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 148C:
Page 149, leave out lines 12 to 15 and insert—
("(ii) the categories of person from amongst whose members nominations for the appointment of any additional governors required by virtue of paragraph 15 of Schedule 9 are to be sought,
(iii) the number of such governors for whose appointment nominations are to be sought in the case of each such category of person,
(iiia) where the school is a community special school, whether it has a representative governor by virtue of paragraph 10 of Schedule 9, and").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has already been spoken to.
Baroness Blatch: I have given notice of my intention to oppose Schedules 11 and 12. I said "not moved" to Amendments Nos. 148A and 148B. I did not say "not moved" to Schedule 11. Schedule 11 has not been called. I am sorry, but I did not hear Schedule 11 called.
Noble Lords: Yes, it has.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has just called Schedule 12. Therefore I shall oppose Schedule 12 and put forward the same arguments as I would have done to Schedule 11.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Burnham): Schedule 12, Amendment No. 148C, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
Baroness Blackstone: It has already been moved.
[Amendment No. 149 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 12 stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is being allowed to backtrack on having said "not moved" I find that extraordinary. I have been told that I cannot speak to Schedule 11 and go back on what I thought was an omission.
I rise to oppose that Schedule 12 stand part of the Bill. I shall be brief because the arguments were made earlier by my noble friend Lord Pilkington. This really is a straitjacket. The Government have made much of the importance of local flexibility. They have made much of the importance of attending to the wishes of local people and of local schools. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Pilkington suggests that by cancelling out Schedules 11 and 12 we should remove the straitjacket that every school shall be bound by the one single stricture: the one single set of procedures for governing bodies; the one single set of instruments; and the disappearance and abolition of the articles of government. It is the articles of government which give schools their distinctive character. Some schools may not wish to avail themselves. A large proportion of schools in the country may well settle for model guidance and there will be no problem.
However, the Government go for the administrative, tidy solution, because some schools may want distinctive, characteristic, idiosyncratic articles of government which conform to all the laws but nevertheless reflect the distinctive nature of the school and which might give local education authorities more work. Local education authorities are there to serve schools. They are there to serve governing bodies. A number of governing bodies would lament very much the passing of the articles and the fact that they are bound by the single regulatory framework which is offered by Schedules 11 and 12.
It is administratively tidy. It offers no flexibility. It panders to one of the worst notions I can think of: dull uniformity. How can we accept the proposition that dull uniformity should persist? Even the school which the Prime Minister's children attend has distinctive articles of governance which will not be allowed under the Bill because they will be subject to the strictures of the regulations set out in Schedules 11 and 12.
The words "control freaks" have been used about the Government. When one considers the Bill, that is what it adds up to—central control throughout. Membership and proceedings, instruments and articles of government should be a matter for guidance from government. We think that Government should take an interest in it, but the idea that those matters should be hidebound by strict, monolithic sets of regulations flies in the face of what we would all want to see, which is distinctive characteristic diversity at a local level.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may intervene. My understanding was that Amendment No. 148C was moved but not called by the Chairman of Committees,

163
so that the Committee did not have an opportunity to make a decision on that amendment. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, spoke on whether the clause shall stand part, but I wonder if the Committee could prevail upon the Chairman of Committees to call Amendment No. 148C. That would enable the Committee to make a decision on that amendment, prior to the Minister responding to the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on whether the clause shall stand part.
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 148C had already been debated and I simply said "not moved".
Lord Monkswell: My understanding was that the government response to Amendment No. 148C being called was that it had already been spoken to, and by implication that they were moving it. The difficulty we are placed in is that, for fairly understandable reasons, the amendment was not called in terms of a Division, so it would seem to me that it would put matters right, if I can put it like that, if the Chairman of Committees could ask whether Amendment No. 148C is agreed. The Committee could then make a decision on that and the Minister could then respond to the arguments that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has made about the clause stand part.
The Chairman of Committees: Perhaps the matter can be resolved in this way. I understand that the question on Amendment No. 148C was not put. Perhaps I may put it now. I believe it can be moved formally.
Baroness Blackstone: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty: Returning to the Question that Schedule 12, as amended, shall be agreed to, the noble Baroness has spoken against the Motion. Perhaps I could reply to her before we take a decision on it.
As the noble Baroness said, much of this was debated in the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. The noble Baroness claims that the abolition of articles of government and the provisions relating to the instruments of government form a straitjacket. The instruments of government are not a straitjacket; they are a modernisation. They provide for certain core information that will be required, detailing the name of the school, its category, the composition of its governing body and, where applicable, those entitled to appoint foundation governors, and, for schools with a religious character, a statement of the school's ethos. As I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, there will be additional provisions to those provided by individual schools, which will build in the flexibility to those instruments of government.
As far as the old articles are concerned, I understood the romantic notions of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that these often archaic documents were great defences of freedom. Nevertheless, they were very outdated in
164
many cases, and schools as well as local education authorities found them difficult to work to, requiring regular updating as legislation or regulations changed.
If Schedule 12 were deleted it would delete all reference to instruments of government. The instruments of government are necessary. Some uniformity of part of those instruments of government is necessary; other parts will be agreed between the governing body and the local education authority; and other parts can be added by the individual school. I think that gives adequate flexibility, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her opposition to this schedule standing part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: That is a deeply disappointing answer. There is one set of regulations for all 25,000 schools in the whole country, with no flexibility for idiosyncratic characteristics to be reflected. I would like the noble Lord to point to where in the Bill, either in Schedule 11 or Schedule 12, it is spelt out that governing bodies can be additionally flexible.
Lord Whitty: It sets out the basic information that is required. It then requires that the instrument will be completed by the governing body using a model pro forma. But it will be possible to complete it in the light of the circumstances of that school.
It is interesting that few GM schools wanted the amendments to the standard instruments because it was so difficult to keep them in line with regular updatings of the regulations. That will be even more true with community schools, as we will be calling them.
We are not imposing a straitjacket. We are tidying up the situation and making it a little more modern than the manor house of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. Nevertheless, we are preserving the essential ethos of that manor house in a new context. I trust that the destruction of the schedule, which would remove all statutory backing for instruments of government, would be regarded as a deregulation too far, even by the noble Baroness opposite.
Baroness Blatch: It would not remove the need for instruments or articles of government; it would insist that all schools need to have instruments and articles. It would leave flexibility for them to determine their nature. The noble Lord has wheeled out the old chestnut that because not many schools do it none should do it. That is a policy of despair. Regardless of how few schools want to do it, if they have good reason for doing so they should be supported.
The school which the Prime Minister's children attend cedes powers to the head under articles of government which are agreed by the governors. Under the Bill, that will not be allowed. If the noble Lord is saying to me that under the Bill powers can be ceded over and above the regulations set out in Schedule 12 I shall be a much happier bunny as I go to bed tonight—or this morning.
Lord Whitty: The basic provisions cannot be altered because they are standard provisions. But there can be flexibility over and above those standard provisions

165
relating to the particular ethos of the school. That is the context in which my honourable friend Stephen Byers was speaking in another place.
Baroness Blatch: I am not talking to the honourable gentleman Stephen Byers, I am talking to the Minister in this House. I am not talking about the basic regulations. They are already here and the noble Lord has made it clear that they cannot be altered and will apply to all schools. Beyond that, can he assure me that over and above the regulations in Schedule 12 powers can be ceded within the governing body to the head? Can matters over and above what is in regulations be ceded? Accepting that Schedule 12 stands part of the Bill, will there be flexibility to exercise some of the powers which are now exercised under present statutes?
Lord Whitty: I do not believe that the term "over and above" is correct. It is in addition to what is provided; they cannot alter what is laid down as standard provisions. There can be additional provisions, but they cannot alter the standard provisions.
If the noble Baroness wishes, I will clarify the matter in writing. However, I am suddenly advised that they can build in extra procedures and rules, but not ones which contradict the basic requirements of the instrument. I repeat that if the noble Baroness requires further clarification I shall be happy to provide it in writing.
Baroness Blatch: I certainly do need further clarification. If I remove my words "over and above" and say "additional to", so that I use the same language as the noble Lord, can he assure me that the powers that are used by, for example, by the Oratory School under its present articles of government can be translated under the new Bill'? In other words, can the things it does not do, which are not included in Schedule 12, be done in addition to what is laid down in Schedule 12
Lord Whitty: I regret that I am not sufficiently aware of the precise provisions of the London Oratory School. What I am saying is that schools can provide, under their own standing orders and procedures, additional arrangements for how they conduct their affairs. What I am also saying is that they cannot contradict what are the basic requirements for the instrument itself.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [General responsibility of governing body for conduct of school]:
[Amendment No. 149A not moved.]
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 32, line 7, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment and Amendment No. 151 were moved by the Liberal Democrats in another place. We want to see, not that regulations may set out terms of reference, but that they shall set out the terms of reference for governing bodies of schools and define the respective roles of governors and head teachers, etc. Amendment No. 151 also provides for them to make standing orders to regulate
166
the conduct of their business. I think it is important to stress that although we want to ensure that their respective functions and relationships are spelt out, we are not setting out to prescribe from the centre what they should be.
I shall quote from my honourable friend in another place, Phil Willis. I think he put the case very well from his own experience in saying:
"The relationship between the head teacher and the governing body is crucial to the effective running of a school. Nothing is more important, particularly if we consider the relationship between the head and the chairman of governors."
I can say that from having been chair of governors in a school.
"Most head teachers would value knowing exactly where their operational responsibilities lay. … It is crucial that each school should know exactly where it stands. We want to see that enshrined in regulations."
He went on to say:
"The governing bodies in all GM schools have operated under standing orders. Again, head teachers value enormously a good relationship with the governing body".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 10/2/98; col. 438.]
The Minister, Estelle Morris, in another place, understood the point of what we were saying and pointed out that they were in the process of consulting on the regulations and that they were happy to include these ideas in the consultation. If the Minister has anything to report tonight, we should like to hear it. If not, perhaps we shall have to wait for a further stage. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: The Bill already provides the necessary scope to regulate on the terms of reference for governing bodies and the respective roles and responsibilities of the governing body and head teacher and to confer responsibilities. These are powers which we fully intend to use. But we do not want to be tied to legislating on every detail set out in Clause 37(3). The powers are intentionally permissive in order to give us the latitude to cover in regulations only those matters which we consider most helpful in clarifying the respective roles and responsibilities.
Our aim is to produce regulations which provide genuine clarification on the framework within which governing bodies and heads should work together. We plan to consult widely on the draft regulations. Prior to that we will test the views of the key partners so that what we do produce is workable.
Much of the content is likely to be familiar territory. For example, some provisions are already in existing articles of government. However, we plan only to regulate on key roles and responsibilities. We do not want to be drawn by this amendment into producing a long list of governing body and head teacher responsibilities which would repeat much of what is in existing legislation or proposed by this Bill.
Our particular concern regarding standing orders is the additional burden that producing them would impose on governing bodies. We fear that it would divert governing bodies from concentrating on the key issue of standards if they were required to spend time discussing their own procedures. Such procedures as we consider

167
essential for the smooth conduct of governing bodies will be contained in regulations to be made under Schedule 11. Beyond that, governing bodies should be free to choose for themselves with what degree of formality they should conduct their affairs. Governing bodies vary greatly, and what is appropriate for a large secondary school may feel quite wrong in a small primary school. However, we have indicated in another place that our minds are not closed on the issue of standing orders. The Bill, as currently drafted, would not preclude a requirement for standing orders in the regulations if a consensus for their support emerged on consultation. Any school will be able to adopt standing orders if it wishes as Schedule 11 allows governing bodies to regulate their own procedure and that of any committees subject to what is set out in regulations. We will be seeking practitioners' views on whether governing bodies should have standing orders, and what they might contain.
It is neither necessary nor desirable to have every detail of what regulations may include on the face of the Bill. The regulations will be fully consulted upon and a decision taken about the inclusion of standing orders. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for that response. I shall read very carefully the Hansard report of what she said. At this time of night it is not always easy to take in such a response and interpret exactly what it means. However, I picked up the fact that the Minister is of the view that we want to put everything in the Bill. We have indeed been very specific here. We were concerned about the relationship between governors and head teachers. I believe that the Minister is accusing us of seeking to do more than we actually intended. Nevertheless, I shall study her response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 151 and 152 not moved.]
1.15 a.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 32, line 20, at end insert—
("(4) The first regulations under this section shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 154, 160, 162, 166, 199, 200, 224, 225, 227, 228, 248 to 251 and 253 to 255. These amendments are coupled with two government amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 255A and 246A. Our debate so far on the Bill has more than convinced me of the need to take a very close interest in the secondary legislation which will flow from it. As we all know—and this is certainly true of all legislation—the devil is very much in the detail. Indeed, when one looks at part of this Bill, it is clear that we shall find a very real devil as regards the detail, especially in connection with the four action zone clauses. A great deal of activity will flow from them,
168
much of which is still only a matter of speculation. My reason for tabling this raft of amendments is to ensure that any regulations produced will be subject to approval under the affirmative resolution procedure of both Chambers.
I have two brief points to make. First, on reading the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness—Amendments Nos. 255A and 246A—it seems to me, from my limited technical understanding of them, that it could just be possible that they subsume all of my amendments in toto; in other words, that every one of my amendments where I call for affirmative resolution for regulations that flow from the Bill will in fact be subject to that procedure. I would not only welcome confirmation of that, I would also be very pleased to hear it.
Secondly, I have a question for the Minister. I suspect that it is more a case of ignorance on my part. I cannot really blame this on the lateness of the hour, it is just that the information has gone from my memory. Can the Minister confirm that Amendment No. 247 was agreed to on either the first or second day of the Committee stage of the Bill? It actually relates to Clause 1, so I presume that it must have been discussed on the first day of Committee. I ask that question because I should like to couple it with my amendments. My dim, distant memory of the early stages of the Bill is that Amendment No. 247 was in fact accepted by the Minister. If that is so, I would appreciate her confirmation in that respect. I feel strongly that we ought to give Parliament an opportunity to see some of the detail that we would like to have had before us in discussing the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: As I said when the Committee met for the first time on 5th May, the Government will respond in a positive manner to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's report. In answer to the noble Baroness's question, Amendment No. 247 concerned class sizes. I said that we would return to the issue of class sizes on Report. During our previous debate I proposed amendments which clarified the Committee's concerns in respect of Clause 21(7). I shall be delighted to move the two government amendments in the group of amendments we are discussing, Amendments Nos. 246A and 255A.
Amendments Nos. 246A and 255A give effect to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's recommendations in respect of the resolution procedures to be used for those provisions covering governance, local management of schools, admission and exclusion appeals and grammar schools. The particular drafting employed by parliamentary counsel means that only these two amendments cover recommendations of the committee over much of the Bill and cover the same issues as the 19 amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am not sure how they have done it, but I am assured that these two amendments cover the same issues as the 19 amendments that the noble Baroness has tabled for discussion today.
Regulations made under Sections 37(3), 38(1), 45, 46, 47(1), 100 or 101 (2) will all be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure on the first occasion

169
that those regulations are made. That is consistent with what the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee suggested. In addition, orders made under paragraph 19 of Schedule 18, paragraph 16 of Schedule 24 or paragraph 14 of Schedule 25 will be subject to the affirmative procedure. I do not know whether the Committee will find it helpful if I discuss each of the committee's recommendations in turn.
Noble Lords: No!
Baroness Blackstone: In that case I hope the Committee will welcome the Government's amendments. They meet the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's recommendations in all the areas that I have just listed. The Government will propose more amendments in due course.
Baroness Blatch: I do not think anyone would want an even longer technical explanation, but I want an answer to my question. I understood the noble Baroness to say that she is responding to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's recommendations. My amendments go rather wider than that; they ask for affirmative resolution on a number of regulations which are additional to those recommended in the report. Are any of my amendments not subsumed by the noble Baroness's amendments? I need to know whether that is the case. If they are not, I shall want to make my arguments in the context of particular sections of the Bill.
As regards Amendment No. 247, I thought we had addressed this matter when we discussed class size pledges. The noble Baroness simply said that she would return to the matter. Will she bring forward an amendment that meets my request; namely that the regulations which flow from Clause 1 of the Bill will be subject to affirmative resolution by both Chambers?
Baroness Blackstone: As I said when we discussed class sizes, we shall return to the issue on Report. This evening we are not discussing the part of the Bill that relates to class sizes. I cannot therefore give the noble Baroness the positive answer that she requires. As I said, I shall return to this matter on Report. I am hopeful that I shall be able to give a positive response, but I cannot confirm that this evening.
I was not aware that the other amendments tabled by the noble Baroness went beyond the proposals in the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I thought that the amendments reflected the committee's recommendations. The two government amendments are entirely responsive to the committee. They do not go beyond that. I hope that that answers the noble Baroness's question.
Baroness Blatch: It does partly, and I am grateful for that. However, when I was a Minister I had a response for every single amendment that came before the House. I simply wish to know from the noble Baroness whether or not all my amendments to which officials have given
170
a response are consistent with the proposals of the scrutiny committee, or whether they are subsumed by the noble Baroness's amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: The advice that I received was that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness give effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. If that advice is wrong, I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness on those amendments which are apparently different. I hope that reply is helpful.
Lord Lucas: I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain to me what dangers of hybridity arise under Clause 100 which she is seeking to evade.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I might write to the noble Lord. I cannot answer that question at this time of night.
Baroness Blatch: This is positively the last time that I shall speak tonight. Perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness, as I promised my noble friend Lady Young I would, for acceding to her request that she might go home earlier—she was not feeling too well and she has a heavy day tomorrow—and for accepting that the last amendments tabled for debate tonight might become the first amendments for debate on Thursday. There was another point that I wished to make; however, I shall leave it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Additional functions of governing body]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 153A:
Page 32, line 31, 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.").
The noble Baroness said: The aim of this amendment is to clarify the role of governors to assist parents who want to set up an organisation for parents based on the school. This section in the Bill which confers additional powers on the governing body provides an opportunity to clarify what has been a confused situation.
Although the 1986 Education Act gave the right to parents to elect parent governors to the school governing body, the right of parents to set up an organisation to meet together in the school is not clear in law. If parents are to be treated as partners, it is essential that, if they wish, they should be able to form an association based on the school. This subsection would clarify the right of parents to form an association if they wish. It would not require such organisations to be set up, but would establish a climate so that such organisations would be encouraged.
Governors have an overall duty for the running of the school. It seems sensible that it should be the role of the governing body to assist parents if it is clear that the parents want to have such an organisation. It would give the governing body a clear role in encouraging parental participation.
This change would not be by any means a cure-all to ensure perfect home-school relationships. Parent involvement involves individual parents working with individual teachers to help their child learn. It also has a wider perspective which includes how a representative parental voice can be heard in the governance of schools.
This subsection is based on one which will be included in a Irish Education Bill. The Irish Bill will also enshrine the right of parents to be consulted on education policy.
This clause also reflects one of the functions of Scottish school boards, which is to promote contact between the school, parents and the community and to promote the formation of parents associations. Surely we do not want to be left behind other parts of the UK.
Also, many European countries have class meetings and parents' councils in schools. Parents' councils or associations allow parents to consult and be consulted on school policies in a democratic way. They establish an expectation that parents will be, and should be, involved in schools. Are we to do less?
Despite the great deal of rhetoric about parental power in recent years, so-called power is in fact limited almost entirely to parental choice at the time of choosing a school. In fact, it is not always parental choice; it gives the parents the chance to name their preference, but they may not get their choice. Parents do have rights to information through the prospectus, the annual report from governors and an annual meeting. Influence within the school once the "choice" is made can in fact be fairly minimal. Parents do not want power but to be consulted and to have their views taken seriously.
The amendment has the support of the PTA for Wales, the UK Education Forum, Family Education and Playwork in Devon, which has been doing splendid work in involving families, and the Alliance of Parents and Schools. In response to a letter to my noble friend, Lady Blackstone, from Mrs Tulloch, the chairman of CASE, the civil servant responding for my noble friend said in her letter:
"Parents' associations can provide an important underpinning for effective partnerships and the Government would certainly encourage governing bodies to ensure their school has one".
I am now giving the Government the opportunity to do that. I beg to move.
1.30 a.m.
Lord Whitty: I am grateful to my noble friend Lady David for raising this important issue at this late hour. The Government believe that parents should be more involved in the education in their schools. We have brought forward in the Bill proposals for home-school agreements in Clauses 103 and 104. We are increasing parental representation on governing bodies and parent representatives on education committees. We are providing better procedures to protect parents by ensuring that governing bodies take their complaints seriously, and that will be laid down in regulations. We also propose to retain the annual parents' meeting.
172
The amendment clearly goes further than that in requiring governing bodies to facilitate the establishment of a parent representative committee in some form, leaving it to the parents as to what form that representation would take. I am aware that, as my noble friend said, this proposal has widespread support. We are mindful that existing arrangements at school level are not always very satisfactory. However, I ask my noble friend to allow us to reflect further with colleagues on the issues raised and to return to the matter, I hope, at Report stage. I hope that in the light of my remarks, which are intended to be positive, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment at this stage.
Baroness David: I thank my noble friend the Minister for his response, which, on the whole, was fairly satisfactory, although it did not go the whole way in saying that governors would have the possibility of having parents' associations in the school. However, it was quite a decent response and I hope it means that the Government will come back with an amendment at Report stage. On that assumption, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 154A to 154G not moved.]
Clause 39 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Control of school premises by governing bodies]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 155:
Page 152, line 43, at end insert ("and shall reimburse the governing body for any expense necessarily incurred by the governing body solely as a result of such directions and not otherwise recoverable by the governing body").
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 13 gives the local authority an absolute right to,
"give such directions as to the occupation and use of the premises of a community or community special school as they think fit".
The kind of things I would expect to see happening under this provision are the after-hours use of theatres or other premises within the school for the local community, youth clubs or other groups. I do not seek to raise any objection in principle to that but simply to say that, if that does happen, a school can face considerable costs in terms of security equipment and other provisions to ensure that its premises are secure at a time when there are not pupils and staff to keep a watch on what is going on in the place. I can think of several examples where large sums have had to be expended to accommodate the results of such a decision and to deal with the problems of vandalism and theft which would otherwise arise if the school was not properly secured.
It is not reasonable that a school should have to meet from its own resources the costs of providing the security which is only required because the local authority gave a direction that the school should be used out of hours. The purpose of the amendment is to make sure that the local authority bears the costs of its

173
decisions in that regard. I am comforted by the Government's decision to group some of their amendments with this one and by the response of the noble Lord, Lord Whiny, to the last amendment. I hope that this may be similarly greeted. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I shall speak mainly to the government amendments which deal with an issue slightly different from that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
The amendments are straightforward. They deal with the power of governing bodies to transfer the control of their premises to a third party during school hours. That is covered by Amendments Nos. 155A to C. The Bill provides that the governing body of a community, foundation or voluntary school will have control of the premises both during and outside school hours and that the governing body of such a school may transfer to a third party control of the premises outside school hours. The governing body of a foundation or voluntary school may also transfer control of the premises during school hours. The Bill as drafted leaves uncertain the powers of the governing body of a community school to transfer control of the premises during school hours—for example, access to a theatre or whatever.
The amendments will make it clear that the governing body of a community school has the same powers as those which are enjoyed by foundation and voluntary schools: that is, the power to transfer control of the premises to a third party at any time while the premises are under the control of the governing body. Those amendments all deal with that issue.
We consider the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, to be unnecessary as it is already covered by existing legislation. As he says, a local authority has the power to give directions to the governing body of a school about the use of the premises, and the LEA may give such instructions as it sees fit. At present, the governing body may spend its budget share only for the purposes of the school; it may not subsidise non-school activities. If a governing body therefore is directed by the LEA to make the school premises available for non-school activities, under existing provisions the LEA must separately compensate the governing body or else ensure that the school is compensated directly by the user. That will include any additional expenditure on security mentioned by the noble Lord. Guidance is already given on that in existing departmental circulars.
Under the revised local management of schools framework, which we will be discussing, that basic position will remain. In addition, the Secretary of State will have a power under Clause 49(3) to prescribe other purposes for the expenditure of school budget shares. Regulations will allow conditions to be attached and those conditions may include a requirement that costs arising from non-school activities be taken into account in calculating school budgets. Therefore under existing provisions and under the proposed change under LMS which we will be debating on Thursday, we consider that those provisions together cover what the noble Lord intends by the amendment. In the light of that, I hope he will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I can ask one question of the noble Lord. What about the use of schools by
174
organisation committees? My understanding is that local authorities could use schools to enable the committees to meet. How would they stand in relation to what the noble Lord has just said?
Lord Whitty: Local authorities using premises for their own non-school purposes would have to compensate the school for the cost of the access. I assume that the same applies to the use of those premises by the school organisation committee. However, I shall take further advice on this matter to ensure that I can give the correct answer. I assume that the same applies as at LEA meetings, but I am not entirely sure.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful for that explanation. I feel sure that the noble Lord will feel able to write to me and point out where these powers are in existing legislation so that I may review the full position in time to table an amendment at Report stage, if necessary. With that nod indicating assent, I have pleasure in withdrawing the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 155A to 155C:
Page 153, line 2, at beginning insert ("Subject to sub-paragraph (2),").
Page 153, line 3, after ("agreement") insert ("with any body or person").
Page 153, line 4, leave out ("school premises outside school hours") and insert ("whole or any part of the school premises").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Carter.)
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the Chief Whip will forgive me, but I have another point which I forgot. Someone has changed the system for numbering amendments. I was told by the clerk to the Chief Whip this morning that that had happened. I do not know why that was. The Chief Whip's office apologised for it this morning. It caused confusion earlier when we were discussing amendments. The order is now askew and we do not understand the system. It would be helpful to know whether we can revert to the old system, but if we are to have a new system it would be helpful to have it explained to us.
I was quite surprised when my noble friend Lord Swinfen made remarks about the groupings. I am sorry, but these are important points when we come to the next stage of the Bill. I had my copy of the groupings at about 11 o'clock, but I cannot be precise: it may have been about twenty past eleven. It was always the practice when we were in government that not only both opposition Front Benches had the groupings, but anyone who had an amendment down in the Marshalled List

175
was asked whether they would like copies. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen did not see the groupings. It may well be that there were others who had tabled amendments. When suggested groupings are circulated it would be helpful for everyone who has tabled amendments to receive a copy.
Lord Carter: It is unusual to have a debate on the Motion that the House do now resume. I certainly
176
undertake to investigate. I was told earlier this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, about the problem with the groupings. I shall investigate that and also the other points that the noble Baroness raised.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before two o'clock.

  Office of Science and Technology
  Office of Science and Technology
  EU and South Africa: Free Trade Negotiations
  EU and South Africa: Free Trade Negotiations
  Turkish Nurses: Qualifications
  Turkish Nurses: Qualifications
  Breast-feeding
  Breast-feeding
  NHS: Millennium Compliance
  NHS: Millennium Compliance
  Commonwealth Education Ministers' Conference
  Commonwealth Education Ministers' Conference
  Rights of Audience in the Higher Courts
  Rights of Audience in the Higher Courts
  Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct: Chairman
  Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct: Chairman
  Family Law Act: Implementation
  Family Law Act: Implementation
  RAF Trainer Aircraft
  RAF Trainer Aircraft
  Gulf Deployments: Costs
  Gulf Deployments: Costs
  Campsfield House: Management Contract
  Campsfield House: Management Contract
  Access to Museums and Galleries: Consultation
  Access to Museums and Galleries: Consultation
  Lloyd's Underwriters: Tax Payments
  Lloyd's Underwriters: Tax Payments
  Heavy Industry and Agriculture: Employment Data
  Heavy Industry and Agriculture: Employment Data
  Notes and Coins: Decrease
  Notes and Coins: Decrease
  Gross Domestic Product: Scottish Share
  Gross Domestic Product: Scottish Share
  Car Owning Households
  Car Owning Households
  Imported Works of Art: VAT Rate
  Imported Works of Art: VAT Rate
  Civil Servants: Non-Executive Directorships
  Civil Servants: Non-Executive Directorships
  Old Sarum Park and Ride Site
  Old Sarum Park and Ride Site
  Motorways: Ragwort Control
  Motorways: Ragwort Control
  Government Car and Despatch Agency: Instructions to Drivers
  Government Car and Despatch Agency: Instructions to Drivers
  EC Legislatures: Salary Levels
  EC Legislatures: Salary Levels
  HK33 Assault Rifle: Contract with Turkey
  HK33 Assault Rifle: Contract with Turkey
  Romania, Moldova and Ukraine: Relations
  Romania, Moldova and Ukraine: Relations
  Kuwaiti Diplomat: Withdrawal from United Kingdom
  Kuwaiti Diplomat: Withdrawal from United Kingdom
  Diplomatic Status: Dual Nationals
  Diplomatic Status: Dual Nationals
  Sudan Peace Process
  Sudan Peace Process
  Mr. Akin Birdal
  Mr. Akin Birdal
  Sri Lanka Conflict
  Sri Lanka Conflict
  Former Yugoslavia: War Crimes
  Former Yugoslavia: War Crimes
  Gibraltar Waters: Spanish Fishing Vessel Incursions
  Gibraltar Waters: Spanish Fishing Vessel Incursions
  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Intelligence Agencies
  Intelligence Agencies
  Sinn Fein Conference: Release of Prisoners
  Sinn Fein Conference: Release of Prisoners
  County Armagh: Investment and Employment
  County Armagh: Investment and Employment
  Bloomfield Report: Consultation
  Bloomfield Report: Consultation
  Independent Commission on Policing
  Independent Commission on Policing
  Bloomfield Report: Reaction
  Bloomfield Report: Reaction
  Immigration and Nationality Policy
  Immigration and Nationality Policy