Sitting of 10 June 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  Leasehold Reform
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate. Before I begin, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on being instrumental in the establishment—and subsequently being elected chair—of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold reform.
  The existence of the group demonstrates that many hon. Members recognise that the law is flawed—there is considerable agreement on the urgent need for reform. I should mention that I am a vice-chair of the group and that the Minister addressed its first business meeting—his presence was very welcome, as were his comments. I am sure that his response to this debate will be equally well received.
  I have received a number of messages from parliamentary colleagues—such as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith)—who would have contributed to the discussion but cannot be here because of previously arranged constituency business; I am sure that they will be keen to read the Minister's comments.
  The timing of the debate is appropriate, as the Minister plans to issue a consultation paper on leasehold reform later this year, which will be a welcome development for the million or so leaseholders in England and Wales. The law is different in my native Scotland, so I do not intend to touch on issues north of the border—in any event, I think that most Scots will have other things on their mind today.
  I do not want the discussion to develop into a party political squabble. Conservative Members may be tired of Labour Members holding them responsible for all the evils that resulted from 18 years of Conservative rule, but it is widely recognised that the previous Government failed to appreciate the scale and nature of the problems that their legislation caused. The negative effects of the poorly drafted, dogma-driven leaseholder legislation were compounded by the Tory Government's failure to address the very real problems that they created through the Housing Acts 1980 and 1985.
  There are two distinct elements of leaseholding: leaseholders who have bought their lease from private freeholders, and the ex-council tenants who exercised their right to buy, first under the 1980 Act and subsequently under the 1985 Act. Leaseholders' problems arose partly because of the gap between the desire for
  988
  home ownership and the reality of leaseholding. People may have invested considerable sums in their property; they understandably count themselves as owner-occupiers, although, in law, they are regarded as tenants. Many did not take account of the implications of the leases that they signed. They were trying to better themselves and to build for the future, for themselves and for their families, but now feel that things have not worked out that way.
  There are serious problems with leasehold law as it applies to private leaseholders. The law is firmly weighted on the side of the freeholder, whereas the burden of the cost lies with the leaseholder. There is usually little that leaseholders can do, short of costly and often unsuccessful litigation. In Poplar and Canning Town, I have met constituents who live in a luxury development, which looks fabulous from the outside, but which is, for the leaseholders, a living nightmare—the landlord seems to regard the service charges as a type of income, and my constituents have complained that they feel bullied, intimidated and harassed by their freeholder, who controls security, the concierge system, car parking and all the other services.
  I know that other hon. Members want to deal in more detail with the concerns of private leaseholders, but I shall concentrate on the right-to-buy leaseholders—people who bought their flats and houses from their local authorities. Problems are generally, but by no means exclusively, concentrated in London—where the bulk of the right-to-buy leaseholders are situated—particularly in high-rise blocks, which require substantial repairs.
  I believe that Tower Hamlets has the second highest number of leaseholders in London, and the Tower Hamlets leaseholders association is the largest organised group of leaseholders in any borough in the country. Andrew Coles, the chair of the association, and his colleagues have done much to highlight the problems that right-to-buy leaseholders have experienced, bringing them to the attention of me and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King). We have done what we can to assist them.
  Many problems arise from poorly drafted legislation. Others, however, are of a more ordinary political nature. Our political problems partly arise from the disastrous neighbourhood system devised by the Liberal Democrats in Tower Hamlets between 1986 and 1990. Different parts of the borough issued radically different leases, and there appear to have been some cases in which neighbourhoods mis-sold properties in the knowledge that buildings had structural faults. That has made the borough's task more difficult than that of other boroughs.
  Leaseholders in my constituency justifiably feel frustrated at the manner in which they have been dealt with. Perhaps Tower Hamlets has not committed enough resources fully to grasp the nettle of sorting out what politicians and leaseholders alike acknowledge to be a mess. Of course, the reduction of local authority finances by the previous Government made service delivery more difficult, but Tower Hamlets must know that more resources need to be devoted to dealing with the problems.
  Mr. Tim Yeo: On that point, was the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the revenue support grant

  989
  decision for Tower Hamlets last year? Did he vote in favour of it, and what will he do if it is not increased this year?
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: The settlement that Tower Hamlets received from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions last year was the most generous in 20 years. It was very welcome, and I voted for it. We are making representations to ensure that areas of deprivation such as Tower Hamlets receive the support that they should from central Government. That support should be based on need, and I am confident that the Government will continue to address our difficulties.
  In 1995, the Department of the Environment study, "Leaseholders and service charges in former local authority flats" found that more than half of right-to-buy leaseholders had complained about the level of charges and the standard of service that they were receiving. Many of my constituents thought that they were investing in their future, but they have found their savings being eaten away by high service charges. The previous Government's measures to limit right-to-buy leaseholders' liability were welcome as far as they went, but they were of limited value. We have reached the point at which a number of my constituents are prepared to give up their leases and return to renting from the council for fear of losing the roof over their heads. Leaseholders in my constituency want to hear the Minister's views on buy-back options and reinstatement to tenancies, as they feel that there is no coherent strategy at present.
  I want to mention the plight of leaseholders who fall under estate renewal challenge fund schemes. Tower Hamlets is to be congratulated on the amount of money it has secured for regeneration purposes, and I commend the schemes. The most recent, and most ambitious to date, is a series of stand-alone housing companies—the housing and regeneration community action schemes, commonly known as HARCAs. Their pioneering work may become a model which will be widely copied across the United Kingdom.
  However, the fact that those schemes are the first of their kind has led to unforeseen problems and real difficulties for leaseholders, who are denied a vote in the transfer process. Provision was made for an indicative ballot, but the results can be ignored. It may be useful to revisit sections 32 and 43 of the 1985 Act, which deal with disposal of land and the form of consent required for large-scale voluntary transfer. Leaseholders certainly feel that there should be a statutory requirement for a ballot, which is currently merely encouraged. I hope that that issue will be addressed in the consultation paper.
  The Social Landlords Mandatory Reduction of Service Charges (England) Directions 1997 require social landlords to charge no more than £10,000 for the same property over any five-year period for repairs, maintenance or improvements where ERCF money is received. To many of my leaseholders, £10,000 is a huge sum. No one could have foreseen the prospect of ordinary working people being hit with bills of up to £10,000 because of the policy of regeneration of their estates to which the Government are committed in their attempts to deal with social exclusion.
  Increased service charges resulting from ERCF works will not necessarily reflect an increase in the value of leasehold property. As the Department of the
  990
  Environment recognised in its 1995 report, "The resale of former council homes", right-to-buy purchasers experience difficulties in reselling. Where a buyer can be found, banks—and those increasingly rare animals, building societies; I am a member of the Nationwide—are often reluctant to lend money for a mortgage on such properties. I understand that that is known as red-lining, and that it often results in leaseholders being obliged to live elsewhere and to let their properties to recoup the cost of charges.
  My view is that leaseholds have had their time. If they ever worked well, that time has long gone. I am sure that reform of the law will be welcome, but radical change is required, perhaps including the introduction of the much talked about commonhold. I ask the Minister whether he can publicly announce today that the Labour Government appreciate the scale of the problem and acknowledge that leasehold law as it relates to right-to-buy leaseholders has profound flaws. I do not ask him to pre-empt his consultation paper, but perhaps he can share its direction with us.
  There are other problems about which my constituents have complained: rights to consultation, or lack of it; requests to be entitled to detailed accounting arrangements; the inadequate appeals procedures; and the absence of a clear definition of structural defects. All those relate to loopholes in the existing law. The refusal to allow local authorities to use receipts from sales to replace housing stock was another grave error.
  I am confident that future legislation will improve the position of leaseholders in the UK, although the position in Scotland is different. I have no idea what leasehold legislation prevails in Brazil, but I am sure that the House will wish the Scottish team well in the opening fixture of the World cup this afternoon.
  Tower Hamlets leaseholders association calculates that it is withholding about £3 million in service charges because of disputes with the local authority. This is not the famous 1922 rent strike, and I am certainly not George Lansbury, but it is a demonstration of how disaffected thousands of ordinary, decent, law-abiding citizens are in east London. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response, and I hope that we can deal with the problems that leaseholders experience.
  9.47 am
  Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on being lucky in the draw to secure such an interesting debate. He acknowledged that this issue crosses the party divide, and, like him, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on creating—rather, re-forming—the all-party group on leasehold reform, of which I am a member.
  I am glad that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town mentioned the consultation document, as I, too, look forward to its publication. It has been a long time coming. I remember talking to the Minister not long after I returned to the House, when he gave a guesstimate of spring for its arrival. The hon. Gentleman said it will come later this year, but I have heard June mentioned. I am not sure when it will finally reach gestation.
  During debates on my private Member's Bill on commonhold, the Minister said that a Bill on leasehold reform would be in the first Queen's speech of the next

  991
  Parliament. I have a copy of Hansard with me, and will be happy to show it to the Minister if he doubts that he said that.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I have never made a commitment to legislation in the first Session of this Parliament. If the hon. Lady gives me the Hansard column reference, I will check that point and respond to it.
  Mrs. Lait: It is with great pleasure that I give the Minister the Hansard reference. The quote is from 8 March 1996, when the hon. Gentleman said:
  "I have great pleasure in assuring him"—
  that is Mr. Dudley Fishburn, who was then the hon. Member for Kensington—
  "that the Labour party will be only too pleased to introduce a comprehensive leasehold reform Bill in the next Queen's Speech."—[Official Report, 8 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 610.]
  I look forward to welcoming the leasehold reform Bill whenever it is introduced, and I hope for the Minister's sake that it is introduced in this Parliament, but I have a horrible suspicion that it may not be.
  Will the Minister explain why he has not introduced the commonhold Bill drafted by the Lord Chancellor's Department before the dissolution of the previous Parliament? That Bill was put out for consultation, which is one of the processes that we now try to follow with most major Bills. It would be interesting to know why that Bill has not been introduced and whether the Minister thinks that it contained any flaws.
  I do not want to go over the issues again in great detail because those of us who are involved know them in enormous detail. There is agreement that we should move forward on commonhold. I said publicly long ago that leaseholding is an outmoded form of land tenure, but several issues need to be resolved. I hope that the Minister will make it clear in the consultation document whether his Government believe that there should be any element of compulsion in the change from leasehold to commonhold, whether there will be any element of retrospection in any change and how the Minister plans to treat the issue of marriage value. Many well-intentioned attempts at reform have foundered on that issue, because we have to recognise that freeholding is a form of property ownership.
  Moving on to more practical elements, will the document cover those who are caught by what is acknowledged to be very tortuous and painful legislation such as the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987? I have constituents who are, unfortunately, caught by that Act and who are going through the usual tortures and agonies experienced by leaseholders when there are difficult freeholders.
  The hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town talked about leaseholders and social housing. The Minister will know the Broomleigh housing association well because I understand that he was its adviser when it bought Bromley council's housing. I follow in the footsteps of my predecessor, Piers Merchant, who was very active in trying to solve the leaseholders' problems. [Interruption.] I shall not pursue that intervention.
  992
  Broomleigh has told me that it would welcome the introduction of commonhold and, as a freeholder, it does not foresee any problems with that. It would want to take a share for each of its tenants in a block so that it would be an active member of the commonhold association.
  Broomleigh is involved in an active programme of upgrading its properties, which is where problems arise. My predecessor used to have many constituents complaining to him about bills for renovations of up to and sometimes more than £20,000. I am glad to say that the complaints that I receive concern renovation bills of about £8,000. Even so, that is a huge sum for many people.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town that many of the people who bought leasehold did not receive the correct advice at the time. However, we must deal with the present situation. It would be helpful if the consultation paper included proposals for housing associations to be able to deal with leaseholders in a less legalistic manner. For example, while Broomleigh does its best to help by providing methods of paying bills over time and assistance with mortgage advice, it would be helpful if there were a relaxation in the amount of money that Broomleigh is able to use to fund the repairs so that it would be easier for leaseholders to pay it back.
  The Association of Broomleigh Leaseholders was recently formed to deal with the troubles, and it is becoming very active. Broomleigh housing association has said that although, under the Housing act 1996, there are problems in recognising a leaseholders' association as a registered association because it does not fall into the definition of a residents association, it is very happy to work with the leaseholders to try to solve some of the problems. We need that flexibility built into any future development for social leaseholders so that housing associations can deal with them humanely.
  Leaseholding in social blocks is still a way for people to gain a foothold on the property-owning ladder. In Bromley, people are still enfranchising at the rate of a couple of blocks a year, and I would not want to stop that. People genuinely want to be able to own their property. I hope that when we receive the consultation document and, in due course, the Bill, this becomes a cross-party issue on which we can all agree so that we allow as many people as possible to have access to property ownership.
  9.56 am
  Ms Karen Buck: I had not expected the debate to divide on gender lines, but I fear that, for several weeks, all debates will be divided between the gentlemen in the Chamber, who will manage to weave a football reference into every speech that they make, and the women, who will not.
  However, my sense of sisterly solidarity with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) was somewhat diminished by her claims that the Government deserve criticism for failing to introduce proposals for leasehold reform after 13 months in government. The Conservative Government were unable, over two decades, to resolve that difficult problem and made at least three botched attempts to do so, leaving leaseholders deeply dissatisfied.
  Mrs. Lait: The hon. Lady might acknowledge that the Government are, perhaps, realising that there is no simple solution to the problem of leaseholding, and that it will

  993
  take time to find one. That is why I have some sympathy with the Minister. Although I was teasing him about his promise to bring in a leasehold reform Bill, I believe that he has realised that the problem is infinitely more complex than one thinks in opposition.
  Ms Buck: The hon. Lady cannot have it both ways.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on his success in securing this important debate. I echo his congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on his work for the all-party leasehold reform group, which has been tremendously successful and tapped into Members' recognition that this is a difficult problem.
  In the two boroughs that my constituency covers, there are 24,000 leaseholders—one of the highest figures in the country—who are roughly evenly divided between private and social landlord leaseholders. I shall discuss both those problems.
  For lessees of private and social landlords, the core problem is that the power relationship between the landlord and the lessee is fundamentally unbalanced. At best, the imbalance relates to information about costs and services and, at worst, with a minority of landlords, it descends into nothing less than extortion, bullying and fraud. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have people coming to my surgery with harrowing tales of their experiences with private landlords. Only last week, a gentleman who has a lease on a property in Edgware road brought several complaints to my attention. He wrote:
  "Life threatening faulty wiring has been extended and left hanging".
  He added that lights on the staircase were not installed for many years,
  "as the wiring was never repaired or maintained."
  The letter continues:
  "I persistently complained over the years, but to no avail Ö At no time were we furnished with estimates"
  for the cost of works, as required by law. He clearly thinks that the freeholder was
  "anxious to gain control of all five flats, doing so for their own financial gain."
  Among his experiences of intimidation over the years, the upstairs flat
  "was rented to prostitutes, 24 hours a day. I had no lights or staircase and clients were tramping up and down the stairs all night long. I got no sleep! I felt they were doing their best to push me out."
  Furthermore, in the mansion blocks in Maida Vale and St. John's Wood, which I represent, there are cases of work being left half completed for a decade, which not only blights the lives of the residents but means that they are in an almost impossible position if they want to sell and move on.
  Hon. Members have addressed the policy issues surrounding leasehold reform. I support early action on the right to manage and on the introduction of commonhold. I also urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take a message from the debate to the Lord Chancellor to that effect, so that we can introduce proposals on commonhold as quickly as possible. I look forward to the publication of the consultation document.
  994
  Two areas of local authority responsibility should be addressed, and I hope for support from my hon. Friend the Minister. The case that I outlined is one in which local authorities have legal responsibilities. Some have taken a strong line against landlords who fail to provide proper summaries of cost and access to inspect service charge accounts. Brighton and Hove council has an excellent record and, to give credit where it is due, Westminster city council, part of whose area I represent, has a team that has done some, but not enough, good work with lessees in taking action against their landlords.
  However, other boroughs appear to be less rigorous in using the enforcement powers available to them through the law. My colleagues who serve on the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea council have drawn to my attention the fact that only one landlord was prosecuted last year, despite property in the south of the borough being heavily skewed to lessees in mansion blocks. Westminster prosecuted 12 landlords. I congratulate my colleagues on bringing the issue to public attention.
  Kensington and Chelsea council points out that it invests a considerable sum in advice and mediation services for private tenants and leaseholders; indeed, it is more generous than Westminster in that respect. Resources for mediation and advice, and a hard line on enforcement, are undoubtedly necessary. The mediation approach is less effective when local authorities are not sending out a signal that they are prepared to take tough enforcement action against landlords who abuse their relationship.
  I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister promoted best practice, especially in the consultation document, and encouraged local authorities to take a firm line on enforcement. Given that legal powers are underused and that many lessees, especially in small blocks, do not have the expertise or the money to take legal action, or exhaust their resources in doing so, people need a powerful friend. Some local authorities are doing a wonderful job, but most have probably not invested resources in such work.
  Council leaseholders have been mentioned, and it would be extraordinary if I did not draw attention to the acute problems experienced by Westminster council leaseholders, who bought from the council over the past 15 years. There are 6,500 council leaseholders in Westminster, many of whom bought flats in tower blocks, thereby creating a problem that is much more concentrated in London than in other parts of the country, because of the particular problems and costs of such properties. That was linked to the aggressive home ownership policies pursued in the late 1980s and the problems of gerrymandering, which have been brought to the House's attention.
  Many people make it clear at my surgeries that they purchased their property in good faith, but with very poor and misleading advice, and that it was the worst decision they ever made. There are not a few instances over the past year of people who had bought a flat at a reasonable price losing their home—being made homeless—as a consequence of the crippling cost of service charges and major works bills.
  Ms Oona King: Does my hon. Friend share the disgust of one of my constituents, who described the Conservatives' offer of the right to buy

  995
  as the right to die? She thinks that her husband's death was brought on by the stress, strain and unreasonable pressures placed on them by the scheme.
  Ms Buck: I am sad to hear that story. Unfortunately, such experiences are mirrored in a number of other areas. I have constituency experience of terrible stories of people who have gone through breakdowns or attempted suicide as a consequence of the financial pressures placed on them by home ownership.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem in Westminster has been compounded by the difficulties that leaseholders face because of the inadequacy of the investigation procedures? There was an internal inquiry, which was a complete whitewash, following the rather more satisfactory internal audit report.
  Does my hon. Friend also agree that part of the problem is that the ombudsman will not investigate any collective complaint on behalf of leaseholders generally, and that a problem with the district auditor's investigation is that dealing with the gerrymandering of the granting of leases and with failure to bill is taking many years? As a Westminster resident, I submitted objections several years ago. I have repeated those objections, and the district auditor has only just started to look into them.
  Ms Buck: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I agree with every point that he made, and I shall touch on a couple of them later.
  I bring to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister some of the bills that have been brought to my surgery recently. Three weeks ago, a lady from the Avenue Gardens estate in Queen's Park, who bought her flat in 1993, brought the estimate of her major works bill to me. The estimate is £43,000. I echo the comments of my hon. Friends: there is no conceivable way in which ordinary working people could meet such financial obligations. Most people would not have taken on leases if they had expected such bills to come through.
  The impact on lessees of estate action and the estate renewal challenge fund has been mentioned. A resident of the Mozart estate, which is in an estate action programme, was given an estimate of works two years ago, when the next phase of the work was under way. He was told that he would be billed for
  "general works including landscaping and fencing".
  The bill was expected to be about £3,000, but when the final estimate came through, the cost had risen to £30,000. Those "general works" included the construction of a new road.
  Several problems are tied to that, the first of which is the general point that no council leaseholder, unless he is very lucky or wins the lottery, could possibly meet such financial demands. There are caps on the cost that can be recouped from lessees on estate action programmes, but, even so, the amounts are unreasonable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said, the legacy of managerial incompetence and political abuse of the leaseholder situation going back over a decade has made it impossible for people to plan with security.
  Another lady, who bought her flat on the Lilestone estate in Church street, expects to have to pay £8,000 for works on a property that cost her £19,000, although her
  996
  neighbours are escaping with a bill for a quarter of that sum. The reason is excessive delays in starting the major works, which have tipped her over the 10-year indemnity period, leaving her with full liability. The situation is further complicated by the fact that 37 different leases have been issued by the council over the past decade, which further weakens the position of individual leaseholders because they find it difficult to develop common strategies in response to the problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon mentioned the problem of the ombudsman. I particularly wanted to ask the Minister to address that. My colleagues and I have sought to refer a number of lessee cases to the local government ombudsman, but have been refused on the ground that the lessees have redress in law. We seriously doubt the feasibility of that in many cases and believe that justice is being denied to lessees as a consequence. I should be grateful if the Minister would examine that problem and find out whether anything can be done to ensure that lessees do have some redress.
  The Minister has repeatedly demonstrated a sympathetic understanding of the plight of council leaseholders, and we look forward to seeing the specific measures that have been promised, but I also ask the Government to give sympathetic consideration to some specific policies that are being developed by the council, belatedly and in response to its mismanagement, including, in particular, the option of development on the Brinklow, Oversley and Polesworth blocks, or the BOP estate, which was at the heart of Westminster's leasehold mismanagement policy. That development would provide long-awaited redress and a solution for those lessees. I know that the proposed solution is imperfect, but the need is desperate, and I hope that the Government will give sympathetic consideration to the project.
  Council lessees have been let down by Westminster council in particular. Other council lessees throughout the country have been victims of policies that were not thought out, with councils finding it extraordinarily difficult to develop the complex management processes that are necessary for them to undertake the job. Private leaseholders have waited decades for justice. I am pleased that, after only a year, we can very shortly expect a consultation paper which will begin to provide justice for people in that position.
  10.11 am
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate. I am glad that he and I are on the same side, supporting the same cause, although, this afternoon, like any self-respecting Torquay United supporter, I shall naturally be cheering on the team in yellow and blue.
  Leasehold reform is a serious issue which affects thousands of people's lives throughout the country. It is estimated that there are nearly 1 million leasehold flats in Britain, a large proportion of which are in London and most of which are in urban areas. Many leaseholders have a satisfactory relationship with their freeholders. Works to properties are agreed in consultation, charges are fair and accounts are kept in good order—but, for many more, the experience of leaseholding is unpleasant and frustrating. Unscrupulous freeholders can condemn their lessees to a life of constant disputes over charges, building repairs and building alterations.

  997
  People may purchase a property for a large sum, in the belief that they will become an owner-occupier, when they have bought little more than a timeshare. A leaseholder may invest a significant sum in a property and the freeholder a fraction of that sum, but it is the freeholder who retains the real power. Rather than gaining the freedom and security of home ownership, leaseholders may end up becoming involved in costly court cases, or at risk of eviction for failing to pay inflated charges for services that transpire. Alternatively, leaseholders may find themselves with a well-managed but wasting asset. Refusal by the freeholder to extend a lease and refusal by a mortgagee to lend on leases that he considers to be too short trap leaseholders in a home that they no longer want, or force them to sell at a discounted price.
  Leaseholders who are unfortunate enough to find themselves at the mercy of incompetent or criminal freeholders must feel greatly aggrieved. Those leaseholders' dream of home ownership ends in the knowledge that they have little. Endless Government endorsements of the benefits of a home-owning democracy must ring a little hollow.
  In 1997, the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service Ltd. dealt with 10,000 inquiries from people who were dissatisfied with their freeholders. They were probably the tip of the iceberg. How many more people go straight to lawyers, sell their property and move on, leaving the problem to someone else, or just put up with the misery and cost because they do not know what else to do?
  Despite the obvious failings of the current leasehold system and campaigns by newspapers such as the Evening Standard, which highlighted some of the worst cases in London, the Government have so far failed to act. The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 was viewed by some people as a significant change to property law, which would end the tyranny of bad freeholders. At last, it seemed, leaseholders could become enfranchised or more easily extend their lease. It would tip the balance between leaseholder and landlord and create a more level playing field. It would give owner-occupiers the power, if they wished, to buy their freehold and to take control of their property. We are having this debate because the Act has failed. Under the Act, enfranchisement has proved complex and costly. Extending a lease, although more popular, is still a lengthy, difficult and costly business.
  Earlier this year, the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association wrote to me saying that, although, in theory, most leaseholders have a right to extend their lease, in practice, there is so little confidence in the legislation that estate agents often refuse to take on the marketing of a flat unless the vendor extends the lease first. It also said that when people ask for advice on selling a lease that is too short to be mortgageable, it has little choice but to explain that there are only two options: the leaseholder can engage in a lengthy and time-consuming battle to extend the lease, or sell the property at a discount.
  Provisions in the Housing Act 1996 and legislation dealing with leasehold valuation tribunals which was introduced last year attempted to strengthen leaseholders' hand, but they only tinkered with an unworkable structure. The Under-Secretary who is to reply to the debate was reported as saying recently:
  998
  "I believe the existing leasehold law in this country is fundamentally flawed and there is no question in my mind that the time has come for comprehensive reform."
  In a written answer, the Minister for Local Government and Housing said that the Government were
  "considering the scope and practicability of possible new measures"—[Official Report, 20 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 4571]
  to assist leaseholders. She also stated that the Government expected to make an announcement about their proposals and to invite comments from interested parties in the spring.
  At the time, I assumed that the Government meant spring this year, but we are still waiting to hear the announcement and to see the proposals. The Under-Secretary has blamed the delay on the complexities of the issues and on the need to ensure that any future legislation really works—an aim which I am sure every hon. Member supports—but the continued delay means more misery for leaseholders and more opportunities for unscrupulous freeholders to line their pockets. The Government now hope to issue a consultation paper later this summer, but make no promise of when legislative changes can be brought before the House. Will the Minister please clarify the Government's timetable for bringing forward their proposals to reform this deeply inequitable situation?
  Liberal Democrats believe that the Government should phase out the leasehold system as a matter of urgency. England and Wales are the only places in the western world where a leasehold system exists. It is archaic, unfair and more suited to feudal Britain than to cool Britannia. The Government should replace the leasehold system with one of commonhold, which would give occupants total control over the properties in which they live. Anything short of that will only replace one bureaucratic system with another. The Government must find the time and commitment to make leasehold reform a priority. The current system is a shambles and should have no place in a country that espouses the benefits of home ownership so forcefully.
  10.18 am
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: The history and traditions of this Palace of Westminster have evolved, and revolve, around a central conflict—a conflict that has continued down the centuries from Magna Carta until today, when we have a Government who propose to do away with the hereditary rights enjoyed by their lordships in another place. It is the struggle for power between privilege and the common people, and in that struggle, your office, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of Madam Speaker, represent the claim of the common people—the claim of the many over the few.
  I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker for allowing this Adjournment debate on leasehold reform, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on having submitted the proposal for the debate to Madam Speaker for her attention.
  The fundamental reason why leasehold reform is necessary is that it confers on the freeholder, or landowner, exceptional and unwarranted privileges and powers. Those powers concentrate wealth in the hands of the few rather than the many—but that is not why they

  999
  are wrong. They are wrong because they fundamentally distort the proper relationship of power and investment, of equity and control, in a property.
  Imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have just made the second largest investment of your life and bought a new car from the garage. It may have cost you £15,000 or £20,000, and as you drive away you are pleased with your purchase. Only one doubt lingers in the back of your mind—the fact that you bought the car under a 99-year leasehold scheme. But you comfort yourself that the car probably will not last that long anyway, and even if it did, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—although I would it were otherwise—probably would not. You therefore reassure yourself that the leasehold arrangement should bring no unforeseen problems with the car. After all, you do own it, do you not?
  Now imagine that in six months' time, long before the car's first annual service is remotely due, the garage writes and tells you that it intends to put four new tyres on the car and respray the roof. "But," you protest, "It doesn't need it." "Well," says the garage, "Now we have given due regard to your views, which is all that the law obliges us to do, we will proceed with the work at a cost of £1,500." "But it's my car," you protest. "No; you merely have the right to drive around in the car for 99 years."
  We would not, Mr. Deputy Speaker, consider that a sensible way of owning a car. Nor, I contend, is it a sensible way of owning a house or a flat. The value of a 999-year freehold interest on a property may be a matter of only a couple of hundred pounds on a property for which the leaseholder has paid £50,000 or more. Yet it is the freeholder who has the effective power and decides how a property is run and managed on a daily basis. I repeat, the proper relationship of power and investment—the greater the equity, the greater the control—has been distorted. The party with the least financial stake in the property has become the party with most control.
  Adam Smith is not the political philosopher most frequently quoted by Labour Members, but he surely understood the inequities of the leasehold system when, in "The Wealth of Nations" he declared:
  "Landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed."
  I shall now chronicle some of the ways in which landlords reap where they have not sown. Some of the ways are legal, some are illegal, but the reality for the leaseholder is the same: exploitation.
  I am sure that all hon. Members wish to see more than the simple closing of the huge gaps in current legislation. What point would there be in making exploitation illegal if it continues unabated because the remedies of the law are so difficult for leaseholders to obtain? Radical reform of the legislation is overdue, but it must bring effective relief.
  Let me tell the House about a new breed of landlord, which I call the ground rent grazers. Grazing animals require vast areas to feed on and they make up in bulk what they lack in quality. Simarc, Castle New Tower Holdings, Shenstone's and Estate and Management Ltd. are all ground rent grazers that have bought up literally hundreds of thousands of freehold interests, usually at auction in the north-west of England.
  The freehold interests are sold for a few pounds each and, unlike in the south of England, most of the leasehold properties involved are houses rather than flats. The
  1000
  ground rent grazers have little interest in the ground rents themselves, as they are usually a minimal annual sum of a few pounds. Unlike a service charge, however, a ground rent is due whether demanded or not, and on a house, unlike on a flat, the right of forfeiture can be pursued by the landlord for arrears of ground rent. For the sake of a £20 ground rent that is a day overdue, and has not even been demanded or invoiced, the ground rent grazer can start recovery proceedings, and on top of that £20 can charge a fee for the recovery costs incurred. That is what those companies want.
  Let us take the case of Mr. Mitchell of Rugeley in Staffordshire. His ground rent of £20 was overdue, and although he paid promptly when reminded, his freeholder, Castle New Tower Holdings, is now demanding £698.78 for its time and trouble in sending him an overdue notice, and his home is under threat of forfeiture.
  Mr. and Mrs. Leyland of Heysham in Lancashire have a ground rent of just a few pounds, but Simarc, their freeholder, discovered that they had built a small conservatory years ago, long before it purchased the freehold interest. Under the terms of the lease a consent should have been obtained from the freeholder, and Simarc is now demanding £493.37 for retrospective consent. That is legalised extortion.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: As well as the companies that my hon. Friend has mentioned, there is also the Compton Group and Helpfavour. Does he agree that when such companies send letters that sometimes make what appear to be offers, but that go way beyond their powers as defined in the original document, that can be extremely worrying for elderly people living alone? Should not those people see their Member of Parliament, a solicitor or the citizens advice bureau before responding to some of those offers, which are totally fictitious and are an attempt to extort money from them under false pretences?
  Mr. Gardiner: Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that timely intervention pointing out how the freeholders are abusing their power and intimidating the leaseholders, who expect to be treated fairly and reasonably. Many people who find themselves in that situation have no idea what to do when they discover that money is owing, and they are bullied into paying up, which is what the companies intend.
  I trust that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the abolition of forfeiture. It is an outdated and unnecessary remedy. Other remedies are clearly available to freeholders, and it would be better to apply them.
  The ground rent grazers have another trick. When they encounter resistance to their exorbitant demands, they have taken to approaching the mortgage lender behind the back of the leaseholder and, under threat of forfeiture, demanding that their costs are met. Sadly, many mortgage lenders simply pay up without even consulting their mortgagor, and add the sum to the balance of the outstanding loan. I say many mortgage companies—thankfully, that does not apply to all of them.
  I pay singular tribute to Mr. John Driscoll, who works for a major mutual building society. He has investigated and chronicled abuses by freeholders and, with exceptional courage and in the face of much abuse, he has resisted their demands. He has brought such scams to the attention of his own building society—Britannia—and has

  1001
  informed other building societies and financial institutions of them. As a result of his campaign, the ground rent grazers are going through a lean patch. Unfortunately, like all grazers, they tend simply to move to pastures new.
  I should add that Britannia building society has asked me to say that as yet it has no formal policy in that area. None the less, it has cause to be immensely proud of its employee, who has shown great initiative, courage and tenacity.
  If there is a ground rent grazer, there is also a service charge shark. That beast has a huge variety of scams. Capital works programmes are systematically over-specified by tame surveyors and then systematically under-performed by in-house or arm's-length contractors.
  At my constituency surgery on Monday, I was approachewd by a leaseholder who showed me what even to my, by now, somewhat cynical eyes appeared an extraordinary variation of the capital works scam. She showed me the list of quotations provided by her landlord for roof repairs. Each was duly shown as so many thousand pounds plus value added tax. The quotation recommended by her landlord, however, was recommended not on the basis that the figure was lower or that VAT was included in the price shown, but because VAT would not be charged. Presumably, the work would be cash in hand. That quotation is being referred to the police.
  The service charge sharks avail themselves of the right contained in the lease for freeholders to arrange insurance on the property. The practice of abuse is well established. Landlords set up off-the-shelf insurance broking companies, which arrange wholesale insurance with the insurance company and receive a commission for doing so. Then, as landlords, they charge a second fee for arranging insurance for their tenants with the broking company. The cost of the insurance to tenants is often hugely greater than that available to them as individuals on the open market, despite the bulk purchasing power of which the landlord has availed himself.
  I am extremely grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for his Department's response earlier last week on the question of the reasonableness of service charges, in which the arguments that I made during the debate on my ten-minute Bill on 10 March were taken on board. They are to be enshrined in a statutory instrument.
  Tenants have a limited time in which to respond to the reasonableness of capital works that are proposed. The landlord must inform tenants of the nature of the work to be done and provide copies of at least two tenders. Tenants then have only one month in which to comment.
  Regulations cover how accounts for service charges must be presented. The 1987 amendment to the regulations states that there must be a fair summary and that it must include certain information, which is divided into three sections: costs paid in the period in respect of bills not presented in the period; costs paid during the period relating to bills presented in the period; and bills presented in the period but not paid in the period. A further stipulation states that funds still outstanding to tenants must be declared at the end of the period.
  The landlord must produce the summary within six months of the financial period ending. Once the six-month period is at an end, the landlord has a further month to
  1002
  produce the summary. Failure to do so is a criminal offence, and the local authority has the responsibility to prosecute.
  Unfortunately, there are two major weaknesses with that aspect of the legislation. First, tenants can ask only for the latest year's accounts. If they have not asked for accounts before, they have no way of checking that their money was spent as their landlord claims. Secondly, experience suggests that giving local authorities the role of prosecuting corrupt landlords is simply not appropriate. They lack the necessary resources, knowledge, experience and sometimes the inclination to exercise their powers. Of course, there are exceptions—notably Brighton and Westminster. However, the local authority with the biggest concentration of leasehold flats—Kensington and Chelsea—is unable to provide any statistics in that area. When asked by Councillor Rima Horton whether the council had ever successfully prosecuted on the ground of non-provision of access to relevant accounts, the reply from the tenants' public relations officer was that that information was not available.
  Despite the piecemeal attempts to protect tenants' rights and to legislate against unscrupulous landlords, the law has clearly failed. Landlords continue to misappropriate tenants' funds. They unjustly spend their money and abscond with it in the almost certain knowledge that they will not be prosecuted.
  To illustrate the problem, I shall cite one final example given to me by Mr. Nigel Wilkins. He lives in a block of flats in south-west London managed by a firm of managing agents called Monkton and Co. of 23–24 Margaret street, London. Under sections 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, Mr. Wilkins wrote to Monkton and Co. asking to inspect the set of accounts for the previous financial year and to see supporting documents. On his first visit, he was given a pile of invoices in no particular order, and took photocopies, for which he was charged the reasonable price of l0p a copy. Upon inspection, Mr. Wilkins wrote to Monkton and Co., saying that he did not believe that he had been shown all of the documentary evidence that supported its accounts for the given financial period. Monkton and Co. replied, agreeing that despite it being his clear legal right, he had not in fact seen all of the supporting evidence. The accountant had bank statements and cheque stubs that Mr. Wilkins had not seen. He was allowed to make a second visit.
  Surprisingly, on his second visit, Mr. Wilkins was still unable to see all of the supporting evidence. Monkton and Co. said that it had lost the pay book for one of the accounts, and that the bank statements were held by the solicitors and would be made available if he would like to see them. On his third visit, Mr. Wilkins was still unable to see all of the supporting evidence. Invoices were not supported by bank statements, and where invoices and cheque stubs matched, receipts were not produced to guarantee that payment had gone where it was alleged to have gone.
  Payments were also made before the period. Bank statements showed the period to have begun with cheque No. 61, but Mr. Wilkins was shown an invoice for £18,745.07 for a staged payment for replacement lifts which related to cheque No. 44. Also listed was a transfer and a bank statement for an alleged payment of

  1003
  £56,000 to the lift company, but Monkton and Co. was unable to produce any supporting evidence that the money had gone where it was intended to go.
  Prior to the visits of Mr. Wilkins, a major programme of capital works had begun. Alan Ward Architects drew up the original specification and employed Mr. Geoffrey Tagg, whom tenants were informed was a member of the Institute of Building, to conduct the survey. A programme of works was decided on, based on Mr. Tagg's survey.
  Mr. Wilkins was curious because a member of the Institute of Building should now be calling himself a member of the Chartered Institute of Building, which it had become on receiving a royal charter. On investigation with a member of the Chartered Institute of Building, Mr. Wilkins discovered that Mr. Tagg was a total fraud and was lying about his credentials. The institute failed to prosecute, but obtained a written assurance from Mr. Tagg that he would not claim to be a member in future.
  Other hon. Members want to speak in the debate. I could chronicle many more instances, but instead I will provide my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with information so that he can pursue them.
  10.39 am
  Mr. Alan Clark: I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I was not in attendance at the beginning of the debate, I was watching it simultaneously while, rather unsatisfactorily, attempting to conclude a long-standing appointment in my office. I have, therefore, seen the earlier stages of the debate out of the corner of my eye, so to speak.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on getting the time to ventilate this highly important subject, which is of great importance to those of us with many leasehold properties in our constituencies. I also express my general accord with certain aspects of the speech of the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), which I watched from my office. I do not know whether it is in order to refer to watching the currency of a debate from one's desk, but as you have allowed me to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that the House will accept my apologies for not being in attendance for the whole debate.
  There is no doubt that serious abuses are being visited on tenants in a range of different contexts. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has cited some of them, many of which are horrific. Every hon. Member will have had tenants coming to their surgeries telling them stories that arouse their indignation, but about which they can do very little because there is no redress available. The hon. Member for Brent, North gave a shocking example of someone claiming false credentials and using the label that attaches to that to help the landlord, or whoever is trying to get possession of the property, to give them extra prestige and status. That is a form of intimidation. Every example that has been cited in the debate has been replete with intimidation against which we, as Members of Parliament, regardless of party, should be able to defend our constituents.
  1004
  Before turning to the consultative paper, I want to follow an analogy that the hon. Member for Brent, North took up. It was a vivid and compelling example of someone buying a car, which he drove around, confident in the knowledge that it was his property. However, because of the small print in the lease, he found himself with a bill for respraying and new tyres, which the car did not need, and there was nothing he could do about it.
  What about the obverse of the argument? Let us suppose that a car owner, who has bought his car, decides to rent it to a neighbour to do the school run, or whatever, for a small sum. Perhaps he is a member of the services and is being stationed abroad for a while, so he sets up proper arrangements and insurance. Let us assume that the neighbour pays the hiring fee and all goes well for a while, but he then allows his teenage children to drive the car. It may be bashed around; perhaps it disappears and then reappears; or, parking tickets and fines may accumulate. At that point, the car owner may decide that he wants the arrangement to end and to have his car back. But however hard he tries, and whatever devices he uses, he finds that he cannot repossess his own property.
  That happens all too often—in many cases to people at the bottom of the range. I know that owning a second home is thought by the Labour party to be a disreputable form of material possession, but sometimes people invest in a second home, which they let, but then they cannot get the tenants out. Tenants may stop paying rent or sublet the property and pocket the money. The original saver, whose house it is, has little redress. I know that there are legal measures that can be taken, but the law grinds along and people find it practically impossible to repossess their property. It is still frightfully difficult for ordinary, humble people to seek redress. They do not have the resources of major landlords to use intimidation, small print, lawyers, surveyors, architects and general leverage against their tenants.
  There is another category of people who desperately need to recover their own tiny property—it could be a house, flat, or even a couple of rooms or the basement of their own house—but cannot do so.
  Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) knows that the spokesmen on the two Front Benches have only 15 minutes to contribute to the debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): There seems to be some unawareness on the part of right hon. and hon. Members that the debate is time-limited. If it is to have any value, Front-Bench spokesmen must make a contribution.
  Mr. Clark: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for raising the matter.
  The document being prepared by the Under-Secretary of State should consider the need for a total overhaul of leasing arrangements. The guiding principle should be that tenants who generally conform to the terms of their lease, who behave decently, pay their rent and look after their properties, should not be subject to the sort of victimisation of which we have heard. However, it should be much easier for owners to recover their property and rapidly to evict tenants who abuse their terms.
  10.45 am
  Mr. Tim Yeo: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar on securing the debate, despite his reluctance to approach the issue in the bipartisan spirit for which I had hoped, and which the subject deserves.
  The issue concerns many thousands of people. I declare an interest as the leaseholder of a flat not far from the House of Commons—a leaseholder who gained rights under legislation passed by the previous Parliament, and which rights might be further affected by the outcome of the consultation process on which the Government are embarking.
  The hon. Member for Poplar concentrated on the position of leaseholders who had acquired their leases through the right-to-buy scheme. He correctly identified the rather eccentric approach of Liberal Democrat councillors in Tower Hamlets.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick: My constituents in Canning Town may be offended if I do not advise the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that my constituency is known as Poplar and Canning Town.
  Mr. Yeo: I am glad that the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) had the opportunity of putting that on the record.
  I was referring to the rather eccentric approach adopted by the Liberal Democrats when they controlled Tower Hamlets. I was interested to note that the problems highlighted by the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town arose primarily from the landlord—the local authority—confirming that the difficulties in such matters are by no means confined to the private sector, although clearly they extend to the private sector.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) on her excellent contribution. She spoke with much authority and expertise on the subject, as illustrated by the quotation she dug up from the Minister when he was in opposition two years ago. She referred to the slipping timetable for the consultation paper. There is something of a competition in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to see which papers can be put back the longest. I am trying to help the Minister by saying that the integrated transport strategy is taking even longer than this matter. I am emphasising that we do not want to be churlish, but are prepared to be patient.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Yeo: No, I must give the Minister time to respond.
  The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham confirmed that we in the Opposition recognise that abuses still occur and that further reforms are still needed.
  The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) listed some of the reforms facing leaseholders who exercised their right to buy. I was not sure whether a trace of the old Labour opposition to the right to buy was lurking somewhere underneath the surface of her remarks.
  Mr. Dismore: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, given all the abuses outlined at Westminster city council,
  1006
  the Conservative party has signally failed to condemn the way in which that council abused the position of leaseholders who exercised their right to buy and the council's designated sales scheme?
  Mr. Yeo: As a resident in the Westminster city council area, I have voted for Conservative councillors in each of the four elections in which I have been resident. I note that this year, the council gained seats from the Labour party, which was a resounding vote of confidence by the voters in Westminster in support of the Conservative council that has managed its affairs in an outstanding fashion.
  To return to the subject of the debate, I agree that some buyers have proceeded with the purchase of their leases without fully foreseeing the costs that might subsequently arise. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) drew attention to some examples of continued abuses by freeholders. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) was able to contribute to the debate; he drew attention to a slightly separate, but nevertheless important, point—landlords have rights that can be abused by ruthless tenants. Undoubtedly, in the long term, that operates against the prospective tenants' interests because it means that other landlords will be reluctant to make their property available.
  The Opposition, when in government, adopted two broad principles on leasehold reform. First, we believed that leaseholders must be properly protected against the risk of incompetence and exploitation by unscrupulous freeholders. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) acknowledged the fact that many freeholders adopt a perfectly responsible attitude and respect the position of their leaseholders. However, we recognised the fact that abuses were occurring, which is why legislation was introduced in the previous Parliament.
  Service, repair and renovation charges—perhaps I should say overcharges—are the obvious areas of possible malpractice. For that reason, we gave leaseholders several new rights. The basis on which we operated was to try to reflect the balance of interest between the leaseholder and the freeholder. Where leaseholders' interests were clearly more important, greater rights should attach to their position.
  Secondly, we believed that, in any rights granted to the leaseholder, we must recognise the fact that the freeholder had a legitimate interest in such matters. That principle is easier to state in general than to translate into a simple financial formula, but it is important and should be recognised in any further changes that are made.
  The Opposition are prepared to be constructive and we look forward to learning more about the Government's thinking. During our term of office, we set up the leasehold enfranchisement advisory service with public money. It has been helpful in identifying some of the difficulties that arise in current legislation, not least the excessive complexity of the process that faces leaseholders hoping to exercise their enfranchisement rights. The impenetrability of much of the detail of calculating figures, such as marriage values, is enough to deter anyone from even embarking on the process. Other problems, such as those of eligibility, also arise.

  1007
  We are ready to consider what the Government have to say. I hope that the Minister can share with the House a little of his thinking today, and we recognise the fact that the leaseholders are continuing to experience abuses.
  Dr. Iddon: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware that, in 1991, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) raised all the matters that have been referred to in this debate, and your party in government promised that all the problems would be corrected and that commonhold would be looked at. You lost the election in 1997.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the Chair.
  Mr. Yeo: Some progress was made after 1991. Legislation that addressed some of the issues was enacted in 1993, but I realise that further reforms might be needed. That is why I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
  I conclude by joining other hon. Members in welcoming the work of the all-party group on this matter, which has a valuable contribution to make. We are prepared to be constructive in responding to the Government.
  10.53 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on his success in securing this debate and providing the opportunity for us to focus on this most important issue. I shall not be able to respond properly to all the concerns that have been raised this morning because of the shortage of time, but I assure the House that the Government are well aware of them and committed to comprehensive reform.
  There are over 1 million leaseholders in England and Wales. Although they may be legally regarded as tenants, most of them would consider themselves to be owner-occupiers, having invested substantial sums in their homes. Unfortunately, as we have heard today, too often, leaseholders do not have the security and the degree of control over their homes that owner-occupiers normally expect to enjoy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) admirably said, it often comes as a great shock to people who think that they have bought their homes to discover that they simply do not have the rights and control that they expect.
  The key to the problem is that the balance of control between landlords and leaseholders is unfair. In most cases, it bears no relation to the respective shares of the equity in a building. In many blocks of flats, the value of the leasehold interests can amount to £1 million or more, but a landlord who has acquired the freehold, for perhaps a few thousand pounds, can exercise total control over its management. With some leasehold houses outside London on very long leases, the value of the freehold can be a minute proportion of the total value. However, the landlord often has rights to exercise considerable control over the leaseholder—for example, permission may be required for alterations, extensions and the like. Landlords might insist on a fee for giving that permission.
  1008
  They might also insist on a particular insurer, from whom they often receive lucrative commissions. That unfair balance of control has resulted in a variety of problems for residential leaseholders in recent years.
  Although many landlords are good managers, there is an all too significant minority whose management styles range from the incompetent to the criminal, with all the attendant misery which the leaseholders have to endure. Some are absent or neglectful, so that essential work remains undone and the buildings deteriorate. Others are lazy, keeping on contractors or agents for year after year without testing the market, so that the leaseholders who pay for those services do not get value for money. The more unscrupulous charge for work that has not been done, undertake work that is unnecessary, or charge inflated prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North cited many examples of the activities of people whom he graphically described as ground rent grazers or service charge sharks. The out-and-out criminals misappropriate service charges and sinking funds.
  The problem is not confined to difficulties with the management of buildings. At the start of a lease the cost of a leasehold property can be comparable to a freehold one, but the leaseholder acquires a wasting asset. As the time remaining on the lease gets shorter, it becomes more difficult to sell. In many parts of the country, mortgagees will not lend on leases that have less than 60 years remaining.
  There are, in theory, a number of safeguards for leaseholders, but it can be difficult and expensive for them to exercise the rights they have. Unscrupulous landlords can often exploit such difficulties and intimidate leaseholders. I have no doubt that existing leasehold law is fundamentally flawed. I have said so on several occasions, and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) has quoted me saying such. I confirm my view that the current arrangement is flawed and that the time has come for comprehensive reform.
  I know that some hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and for Torbay, have expressed concern about the time taken to produce detailed proposals. I fully appreciate the concern of leaseholders for early action. I assure leaseholders that their concerns have not been forgotten. However, the subject is very complex. There is a history of legislation on the hoof that has not always worked./
  The previous Government had good intentions when they introduced legislation in 1985, 1987, 1993 and 1996. However, I suspect that not even Opposition Members would claim that those measures were as effective as they would have liked. They contained problems and were often ill thought out, because they were prepared in a hurry. Both the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 have proved to be seriously deficient. Therefore, we must ensure that we get it right this time. We do not want to create new anomalies or difficulties to replace the current problems.
  We plan to consult on proposals later this year. The consultation paper will spell out the range of options and the Government's proposals. On some matters, we shall put forward proposals; on others, we shall put forward options to deal with the enormous range of subjects. The hon. Member for Beckenham asked specifically

  1009
  about marriage values. That will be covered in the consultation paper, and other technical issues will be considered.
  We will legislate as soon as we can when we have assessed the results of our consultation. However, I am sure that all hon. Members will appreciate that there is considerable pressure on parliamentary time, with a large number of other important measures pending.
  I know that the House would like to hear details of the scope of our reforms, but I regret that shortage of time, plus the fact that we are still working up the proposals, means that I can make no specific commitments this morning. Our overall objective is to provide leaseholders with the opportunity to reap the full benefits of owner-occupation and, individually or collectively, to have control over the way in which their homes are managed.
  After many false dawns, we intend to create a new framework that works and gives leaseholders the protection that they deserve. In conclusion, I should like to thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. They have graphically highlighted, from their own constituency experience, many of the serious problems in the current arrangements that justify the comprehensive reform approach to which the Government are committed.

  Preventive Health Care
  11 am
  Dr. Peter Brand: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of preventive health care and home insulation. People might wonder why I want to discuss home insulation in June, but the purpose of the debate is to take the crisis out of winter. Each winter, many people suffer from illness and even premature death because of drops in temperature—much more so in this country than in, say, Scandinavian countries or even Siberia.
  I am pleased that a Minister from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will respond to the debate. However, I am disappointed that the Minister for Public Health is not gracing the Benches this morning. The Government's public health statement was full of warm words, and there is an opportunity this morning for them to make a commitment to warm homes; that would do much more to help people than the leaflets, advisory papers and so on that are made available to keep people warm.
  Many initiatives have been taken by local health authorities, often working with local authorities. Such schemes are commendable, but they are just drops in the ocean. It has been estimated that about 8 million households in the United Kingdom suffer from fuel poverty. People cannot afford to heat their homes properly, which means that about 10 million people shiver unnecessarily in the winter. That is a matter for the individuals concerned, who should be our priority, and it is also amazingly wasteful of energy resources, which are finite not only in this country, but elsewhere in the world.
  There have been commendable initiatives. The home energy efficiency scheme was a good start. Unfortunately, its funding has been pegged.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Cut.
  Dr. Brand: Cut, in real terms.
  The regulations have been changed, so that people can no longer use the schemes to improve the insulation that their properties so desperately need. Homes need to be fitted with materials and appliances that stop energy loss and provide sufficient heating. I come across too many homes where people cannot afford—or believe that they cannot afford because of the uncertainty of fuel payments—to use the heating that is installed. They rely instead on paraffin heaters and gas-bottled heaters, with all the accompanying danger that goes with such appliances.
  A proper scheme for home insulation and proper heating would save money in the long run. It would cut costs, not only for the national health service, but for the Department of Social Security. We rightly pay much lip service to keeping people in their own homes, which is where they want to be. We must make sure that their homes are fit for them and, unfortunately, we are failing to do that. The debate is supported strongly by several organisations, such as the Association for the Conservation of Energy, the Child Poverty Action Group, Friends of the Earth, Help the Aged, the National Housing Federation, the National Right to Fuel Campaign, the National Energy Association and Unison. Those groups have banded together to emphasise the multidisciplinary

  1011
  nature of the problems of cold homes. It is a health problem and also an environmental problem. It is a problem for the most vulnerable members of our society—the very old and the very young.
  The Government have an opportunity to do something dramatically useful. The new deal correctly identified opportunities when people who have been unemployed or young people who have not found employment can work in environment task forces. It is important that those task forces learn from the experience of the home energy efficiency scheme and that they are resourced properly to carry out the work that we all know needs to be done. It is also important that the change in the rules for the home energy efficiency scheme is reversed, so that people can return to homes where only minimal work has been done.
  Each winter, we have heated debates—I am sorry, that is the wrong phrase; we have concerned debates about the effects of cold weather on our constituents. It is interesting that at least four of the long list of private Members' Bills relate directly to that issue, such as the Energy Efficiency Bill which is promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). There is also the Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill, the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation (Fifteen Year Programme) Bill and the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill. I am proud to be a Member of the House of Commons where such an issue is so important. Many of us are very concerned about it.
  As I said, the Government have an opportunity to take action. We must ensure that materials are made available and, if they have to be paid for by people who can afford them, let us exempt such materials from value added tax. It is nonsense to charge a tax on materials that stop us using finite fuel resources. During the next 15 years, there should be a proper programme of action to insulate the 1.5 million homes that need to be insulated. The new deal programme and environment task forces must work together with HEES and, if we can get that package together, the Government can show that they are truly committed to public health.
  11.7 am
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on introducing such an important debate. The issue has a great deal of cross-party support and the list of private Members' Bills to which my hon. Friend referred clearly shows that. The matter combines social poverty, health care and environmental concern, about which I speak for my party. It draws attention to the fact that, if we are to have a society that is environmentally sustainable, it will also be socially and economically sustainable. The environment is not isolated in that sense; it links up with other issues.
  It is extraordinary that as many as 8 million people in the United Kingdom are still suffering from fuel poverty. It affects some families more than others; single-parent families are particularly affected. Almost half of Britain's 1.5 million lone parents, let alone the 2.3 million children for whom they care, are on incomes of less than £100 a week. That often leads to cold homes. One in five lone parents report dampness; one in five lone parents have no central heating.
  It is not just a personal issue of being cold in the home. It costs the Government and the NHS, in particular, vast sums. At present, the Secretary of State for Health is
  1012
  wrestling with the monster of increasing waiting lists. This is not easy to tackle, but those hon. Members who care to visit hospitals will be told that they are overwhelmed in winter with patients who are cold at home and who are therefore suffering the associated health problems.
  It is estimated that the NHS wastes £1 billion a year on extra hospital admissions—let alone the knock-on impact of increasing waiting lists. Government figures show that, every winter, between 30,000 and 60,000 people die prematurely as a result of the cold. We might think that that is inevitable. Of course, when it is cold, wet or damp, people suffer increased health problems.
  We might think that would be true anywhere in the world, but statistics from other countries show that they do not have the same level of problems. Of course, they have an increase in ill health during the winter, but not on the same scale as us. For instance, Sweden suffers a 14 per cent. increase in deaths in winter; in Norway, it is 10 per cent.; and, in Germany, 12 per cent. In the United Kingdom, it is 31 per cent. That is a great worry.
  Tens of thousands of people should not die prematurely because they cannot keep themselves warm at home. I have already mentioned the environmental impact of the energy that is wasted through the roofs of those who are fruitlessly attempting to warm their homes. The unnecessary burning of fossil fuels costs money, and it also harms the environment.
  Several systems are in place to tackle the problem, but they are not adequate. The cold weather payments scheme suffers not least because it is based on statistics rather than the reality of how cold people are at home; it takes no account of wind chill. We all know that a biting wind makes us feel far more cold than the ambient temperature about which we hear on the television news. That problem needs to be tackled. A private Member's Bill on the subject has been tabled. I hope that the Government will accept the case for taking account of wind chill.
  The home energy efficiency scheme is brilliant in principle, but it is underfunded and suffers in the way in which it is administered. In particular, only one corrective measure is allowed per house. That leads to a waste of resources. A team enters a property to assess what needs to be done to insulate the home and then carries out the work. It seems nonsensical that, if the team lays insulation in the roof, it cannot cover the cracks around the doors and windows; if it does the cracks around the doors and windows, it cannot insulate the roof; and, in either case, it cannot lag the water tank.
  Once a team has started work, it makes sense for it to do a comprehensive job—obviously within limited funding—and to do a range of work, rather than only one job. The irony is that, although the funding is limited, in those properties that need a mix of work to be done the money available cannot be spent because no more than one piece of work can be done. It is not necessarily a question of limited finance; it is merely one of bureaucracy.
  Worst of all, the work of the Energy Saving Trust remains massively limited by the gas regulator's block on a levy being raised to carry out that work. The Government urgently need to undertake to change that through legislation. A utility regulation Bill should be introduced before too long; it could reverse that block and put a clear obligation on the regulators to take account not only of price but of environmental and health issues.

  1013
  The previous Government, when setting up the Energy Saving Trust, promised a programme amounting to as much as £1 billion a year. They secured the Treasury's acceptance that the levy would not count as Government spending. The Conservative Government did the necessary background work, but they failed to deliver by not ensuring that the money was made available and by not overcoming the problems caused by the gas regulator. As yet, we have seen no progress on the matter from the Labour Government.
  I hope that the Minister will say not only that the Government are aware of the problem, but that they intend to overcome it. The industry has the potential to invest vastly more money than has been put into home energy insulation. It should particularly target the poorest groups, who need it most.
  VAT is charged on energy-saving materials. It is a great disappointment that the Government have not felt able to carry through what the Labour party said before the general election, although some Government schemes—we do not yet know which—will be exempted. All schemes should be exempted. Although the Government claim that European Union rules prevent that from happening, I note that at least one other European country has not found itself so restrained, but has already implemented such a policy.
  The Government frequently refer to the new deal, and the environment programme within the new deal, as an opportunity to carry forward home energy insulation. Indeed, when questioned on the matter, the Prime Minister and other Ministers spoke of a massive programme of home energy insulation. I have spoken in detail with those administering the new deal, I have met the head of the agency involved, and I have detailed statistics.
  I shall not bore the House with those statistics, but they amount to a few programmes being signed for home energy insulation under the new deal, which involves a small number of people. The programmes are handicapped above all by the fact that there is no funding available for the extra material costs, other than the small amount allowed for those participating in a new deal programme. It makes no sense to do that, unless a great deal more material is made available. Indeed, it is most likely to result in different people carrying out the same old schemes, rather than more people carrying out many more schemes.
  There is plenty of room for Government action. From all that the Government have said, I believe that their heart is in the right place, as do many Labour Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy), who will shortly seek to speak, has been an outstanding campaigner on the matter before and since the election. I am sure that she will reinforce many of the points that I have made. I hope to hear a strong and robust statement from the Minister supporting what we have said and showing that the Government will take action at the earliest possible moment.
  This afternoon, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will introduce the Preventative Health Care and Home Insulation Bill. It has cross-party support, and I hope that it will be taken up in the next Session of Parliament—by
  1014
  a member of any party—and that it receives Government time. It would require health authorities to assess their role in getting people warmer homes, and how to carry through a programme of preventive health care to prevent people from having to go to hospital.
  Several local health authorities have already done that on a trial basis. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority has spent £300,000 insulating the homes of people with asthmatic children. That has led to a significant and dramatic reduction in the incidence of severe asthma attacks, as a result of which children have not had to take time off school, and have not had to go to hospital or receive so much treatment. That sort of preventive health care, rather than the traditional role of health authorities insulating homes or even simply identifying problems, has a lot going for it. I hope that the Government will take a positive attitude to a Bill that commands cross-party support in the House and has huge support among the relevant organisations.
  11.19 am
  Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I warmly welcome the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand). I also welcome the Preventative Health Care and Home Insulation Bill referred to by the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). It certainly has the backing of the campaign for warm homes. Indeed, we discussed it at recent meetings and hoped that it would come to the attention of the House. I welcome this early opportunity to debate the matter. It is certainly necessary to engage all public agencies and private businesses. I pay tribute to the Association for the Conservation of Energy, which supports us all in our work. As has already been mentioned, the matter enjoys cross-party support, as evidenced by the Bills that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight read out, including my Warm Homes and Energy Conservation (Fifteen Year Programme) Bill.
  In the fight against fuel poverty, the Government have an enormous task, which I think is recognised by all hon. Members present, but we must put that message across to others. Mention has been made of 8 million households—hence the 15-year programme envisaged in my Bill, to tackle that problem by measures for 500,000 houses during each year of the programme. We have examined both what needs to be put in place to achieve that and the programmes that were developed under previous Governments.
  Our recent estimates suggest that about half the resources required for the purposes of my Bill are already available and dedicated to such work. The challenge is to ensure that we get every penny of value out of such programmes, as well as identifying and dedicating new resources to the fight. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), has attacked the problem with great passion and focus in the Government's early months.
  The initiative to engage and focus health authorities and trusts, which is the subject of this debate, is most welcome, because the size of the challenge is truly daunting. We have mentioned the 8 million households that are thought to have to spend 10 per cent. of their income to achieve adequate warmth. However, we should also bear in mind other figures, such as the 1.5 million

  1015
  people who live in severe poverty and who would have to spend 20 to 30 per cent. of their disposable household income to achieve adequate warmth, and the 1 million people in extreme poverty who would have to spend more than 30 per cent. to do so.
  I invite hon. Members to consider what that would mean in terms of our disposable incomes, and to imagine the effect that would have even on us, were we to be presented with a bill for £3,000—if it were to be 10 per cent. of disposable income, or thereabouts; hon. Members' circumstances vary. Imagine a bill for £7,000 to £8,500, which would reflect 20 to 30 per cent. of expenditure from disposable income.
  That is enough to cause a sharp intake of breath. I suggest that it might increase hon. Members' blood pressures significantly. The incidence of coronary heart attacks might rise suddenly—we do not want to promote by-elections, so I sincerely hope that that will not happen. However, it could drive some hon. Members into deep depression; everybody's reaction is different. However, that is happening for real to many of our constituents who are in far more straitened circumstances and have far less disposable income remaining after paying their fuel bills. In the part of the country from which the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell and I come, water bills add to the pain of that experience.
  The relationship between ill health and inadequate heating has been known for a long time. When I worked for Age Concern Scotland in the 1970s, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) was one of the first people to publish a study on hypothermia and excess deaths in winter. When I was involved in organising conferences across the country, working with colleagues in Age Concern in England, Wales and Northern Ireland on the manifesto on the place of the retired and elderly in modern society—more than 20 years ago—a paper by my hon. Friend was developed. Sadly, although some progress has been made in the intervening years, the issue is not taken seriously enough. We are about to engage on a conference with a similar theme, "The Debate for the Millennium", with much progress still to be made.
  In the 1970s, Jack Benny, the comedian who was then only in his 80s—he lived to be 100—said that age was a case of mind over matter: if people don't mind, it doesn't matter. I used to use that a great deal in the talks that I gave for Age Concern. However, what must be added to that is, "as long as you have your health," because health is probably the key issue that makes for a happy and fulfilling old age. A key factor in maintaining that health, and in relieving ill health, is warmth, with the relief of fuel poverty and the promotion of energy efficiency.
  Engaging health authorities and agencies is an idea that has been mooted for a number of years, but actions speak louder than words. It is good to hear of an increasing number of places where practical projects are being developed. Mention has been made of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority; I pay tribute to what it is doing. Initiatives are also being developed in Birmingham, Doncaster, Northampton, Eastleigh, Nottingham and Shropshire.
  This morning, I asked the local energy advice centre in Plymouth how its work was going and whether it was engaging in such activities. It informed me that, yesterday,
  1016
  it spoke to about 20 health care professionals in Plymouth, outlining the services that local energy advice centres offer.
  I am sure that hon. Members recognise, as I do, the great service that more than 30 such energy advice centres provide throughout the country. Health authorities can help, working jointly with local energy advice centres. I understand that the energy advice centre in Solent has a programme working closely with its health authority on such issues.
  I am reminded of a constituent, for whom I recently sought help from the energy advice centre in Plymouth, an 80-year-old lady who had inherited a rather dilapidated property, with all the usual accompanying energy efficiency problems. She made a plea to me for help. She was going out during the winter looking for wood to burn in a fire to augment her heating. When the energy advice centre visited her, it found that her property had a standard assessment procedure rating of only 1. I am glad that it can work with her. Another organisation that contributes a great deal working with health authorities as we envisage is Care and Repair. It will work with my constituent to try to deal with her heating problems to ensure that her next winter is more comfortable and, I hope, more healthy for her.
  Hon. Members might expect me to be slightly more effusive in acknowledging what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and other Ministers have already done. We have taken the issue of fuel poverty seriously. We have cut VAT on fuel to 5 per cent., which is worth £18 a year to an average family. We have introduced special winter fuel supplements for pensioners this year and next, which of course is worth more to the poorest and to people who struggle to pay fuel bills. We should not underestimate the capital receipts initiative, which channels more money into housing investment. Much more work is in hand. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to remind us of what is in the pipeline, emerging from the consultative document "Our Healthier Nation" and the Green Paper on utilities regulation, which has been mentioned.
  I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight for initiating the debate and for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I look forward, as I am sure he does, to working with the Under-Secretary and her team throughout this Parliament to ensure that we make significant progress.
  11.30 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy). My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) corrected himself when he said that every winter in this place there is a heated debate about insulation of people's homes and deaths. He need not have done so, because there is such a heated debate. I have been in the House for 15 winters and questions have been tabled on a regular basis, especially from colleagues who represent Scottish constituencies. The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) is noted for campaigning for proper recognition of the colder climes that people in her part of the country experience. My colleagues in Wales have done the same. The winter issue has arisen every year I have been here, because that is what constituents and news, radio and television reports tell us is important. We know that people die in this country because they are cold.

  1017
  My constituency is different from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, who introduced the debate. One of the great benefits of this Parliament is that we have a sprinkling of medical doctors which we did not have in the previous Parliament. They have brought with them practical experience of their surgeries and their hospital and public health backgrounds. My hon. Friend made it clear that we must get our public health priorities right—he has made that point to me at more meetings than I wish to remember. He represents what seems to me to be a relatively affluent constituency off the south coast of England.
  Dr. Brand rose—
  Mr. Hughes: I was being careful to say that it seems to me to be relatively affluent. That is my perception from one of the most deprived inner-city constituencies. No doubt my hon. Friend is about to say that rural and coastal areas of Britain have as many problems, including those of public health, as areas that are identified as centres of regional or national deprivation.
  Dr. Brand: My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to put it on record that the Isle of Wight has a gross domestic product of 64. The European average is 100. We have the lowest male wages in the country and the highest unemployment on the south coast. Only 3 per cent. of the population are higher-rate income tax payers. We have real problems and I am certainly aware of the problems of fuel poverty.
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) and his predecessor used to make similar points. My former hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, Mr. Bellotti, and all my hon. Friends who represent southern seats, which are perceived as being relatively affluent, have also made similar points. When I was canvassing in the Christchurch by-election I met elderly couples who were complaining about the issue. I put the matter in that context because I know that one of the paradoxes of my constituency—I represent more council tenants than any other English Member—is that people spend a great deal on heating their homes. However, most of that heat goes out the window and through the doors.
  The hon. Member for Sutton made the point very well. The bills that some people run up are phenomenal and they get into terrible financial predicaments. Their fuel supplies are eventually cut off in spite of the protections in the system and their children suffer. Those people experience terrible stress and mental health problems, and families can break down. I am sure that the hon. Lady has the same undercurrents in her constituency. The alternative, especially for single or elderly people who are afraid of the cost, is not to turn on the heating. They sit in their homes doing—if I may say so—the Edwina Currie act of putting on a woolly hat and another blanket. That may be fine for a couple of hours, but it is not fine through the night and into the morning.
  The issue is real. I am glad that we are debating it in June, and I share the views expressed. I think that the Government want to address the issue. I was with the
  1018
  Minister the other day when she came to my constituency to launch the showroom of an environmentally sustainable building suppliers. It was so good that, when I do the bit of building work that I have to do on my house, I intend to go back there. However, it may not be as cheap as other supplier. If we are to have environmentally sustainable buildings, let us have environmentally sustainable results, with good public health.
  There are good practices. Like most hon. Members who have been in the House for a while, I get invited—I think every year—by the neighbourhood energy action group to visit one of its activities in a constituent's home during Neighbourhood Energy Action Week. I have done that regularly and have seen that the suggestions make a great difference. Last year, I watched a simple process of insulation in which relatively cheap strips were put around windows and doors as draught excluder. Even those of us who are privileged enough to be in fairly good circumstances really notice a draughty place in the winter.
  This is a good debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has done us a service by introducing it. I am glad that there is such consensus. I should like to flag up a couple of the health aspects associated with the issue, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell said that I have an interest. We hope to combine our concerns with those of other colleagues who have put the issue on the agenda.
  Before I do that, however, I want to make a specific objection. I did not think that I would have to make it without the presence of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). By blocking the Bill promoted by our hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), the right hon. Gentleman is doing the House and many old people no service. That Bill concerns mortgage valuation and energy efficiency.
  I have looked at the list of Bills to be debated on 3 July. To do service to the business on that day, we would have to sit for about year because of the number of private Members' Bills tabled, which includes the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Sutton—the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation (Fifteen Year Programme) Bill. Those are not silly Bills that people are introducing for party political purposes; they all have cross-party support and wide backing outside the House. I hope that, in protecting the interests of Back Benchers, we will not allow them to abuse the interests of a huge number of our constituents and citizens when we are trying to improve their health and welfare.
  My Bill, which I will present this afternoon—the Preventative Health Care and Home Insulation Bill—adds to the Bill that my former hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, who is now Baroness Maddock, got through the House as a result of the private Members' ballot in the previous Parliament. I have entered the private Members' ballot for 15 years and have never got near the top 20. She managed to promote two Bills in her four or five years in the House. Life is not fair, even for Members of Parliament.
  Dr. Brand: Especially for Members.
  Mr. Hughes: As my hon. Friend says, especially for Members.
  My Bill would do for health authorities what my former hon. Friend did for local authorities. It would require health authorities to include in their annual reports best

  1019
  practice and what they could do to improve matters. They would have to state the benefits and practicality of possible measures. The purpose of the Bill is to establish a preventive health care scheme to improve the health of people by tackling the problems that cause ill health. It would set out how a health authority, working with the local authority, should proceed.
  Six matters are specified which have health consequences. We are always reading and hearing about health outputs not inputs—it is not what is spent, but what is purchased that counts. That is true. We need to reduce the risk of hypothermia and the number of people who suffer from it. That is an output. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight explained that in much colder Scandinavian countries hardly anyone dies prematurely in winter; in our country, which is much warmer, people die prematurely all the time. That is unacceptable. I know that the Minister would agree and I hope that we will have made progress by the end of this Administration.
  We need to deal with circulation problems, which have a huge effect on people; stress and mental health problems; cold-related illnesses, such as bronchitic and asthmatic conditions; and hospital admissions. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight knows the reality as well as I do. I often visit Guy's hospital and see people who regularly go in and out of it. They are discharged to places that are not good for their health. That is unacceptable. I am not an expert on the demand for general practitioners' services, but my hon. Friend could no doubt produce an assessment of how we could reduce the demand on surgeries.
  There obviously has to be consultation. A local health authority would consult the community health body and local authority with the intention of working with them. That could be done. It is consistent—I am sure that the Minister and even her absent colleague the Minister for Public Health would accept this—with the Government's public health strategy to ensure that the health of the nation is improved.
  I want to make a couple of points that have telling conclusions. First, an assessment was conducted by Dr. Brenda Boardman of Oxford university—it was not conducted by my party and it has no party political base—which showed that the NHS spends £1 billion a year from its budget of £45 billion on additional admissions, visits and prescriptions because appropriate work is not being carried out. That significant sum, which constitutes 2 per cent. of the health service budget, could be saved and redeployed to support policies for which we argue all the time.
  Secondly, the Department of Health could promulgate good practice among health authorities and share it around. It could pick up an initiative in one region and convey it to another region. The hon. Member for Sutton rightly said that the saving to households that resulted from the Government's cut in VAT is already about £20 a year, which is welcome. A similar point is made in the briefing that I received—and I still remember last year's briefing. My understanding is that, if a home insulation programme began with the lowest-income households—my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell has more knowledge of this matter than I do—one could reduce a household's cash expenditure by about £85 a year, although the same costs were involved. Taking appropriate action is relatively cheap.
  1020
  The Minister may be in a better position than I am to comment on the fact that plenty of good practice is around—many health authorities, for example, have good practice. The hon. Member for Sutton discussed the general position in Nottinghamshire. I gather that Newark and Sherwood district council, which covers a relatively small area, estimated that home insulation could save the local health authority £4 million a year, which is a valuable saving.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell has first-hand experience of a pilot programme that his county's health authority established in the Isles of Scilly, which was targeted at children with asthma. I do not have first-hand experience of it, although I am interested in it. No one knows exactly how asthma is brought on, but we know which factors appear to trigger it. Quite honestly, the figures are amazing. The programme examined a group of the islands' children, who suffered from asthma, before and after their homes were insulated. Those independent statistics show that the number of days off school that those children took reduced from 4.1 days over the study period to less than one day—0.6 of a day.
  I was privileged the other day to spend our most recent half-term week in the Isles of Scilly, which I visited for the first time. It is a beautiful place, but in winter some of the cottages on those islands would not be the warmest places on earth if they were not heated. The same is true of coastal areas, and we must make progress in that regard.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments on health authorities, and I shall read the Bill's details carefully. Does he agree that one of the problems affecting local energy conservation programmes is often the fact that key stakeholding organisations have not worked in partnership with one another? Will not health improvement programmes, which are a key reform in the Government's White Papers and Green Papers, help to encourage partnership between local authorities and to spread good practice, of which he gave isolated examples?
  Mr. Hughes: In the interest of straight talking, my answer to those questions is yes. My local authority has a different priority, although it has a health action zone, which the Government designated and which I welcome. I hope that I shall carry the hon. Gentleman with me on this issue. I believe that in our near political lifetimes the logic of running together health and social services will become overwhelming, and that we shall wonder why it was not done previously. That will also save much management money. If we take that step, the experts on the ground and the people's democratically elected representatives will be able to plan together.
  I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman's views are, but I hope that I will carry him with me and persuade the Government that health and local social services authorities need to work together to plan services. They should also involve the same people, as they do in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, who sits on the Select Committee on Health, studied the situation in Northern Ireland, and I believe that the Committee will produce its report before the summer.
  We are getting used to the fact that people can go to their doctors to get a prescription not for drugs but for something else—they might be sent to a local health

  1021
  centre or fitness centre, or they might be advised to carry out insulation. The Minister for Public Health described the situation clearly earlier this year. One scheme allocated money to general practitioners, which enabled them to write a prescription that allowed people to cash in a receipt to pay for insulation. That is lateral, intelligent thinking and it helps to meet people's needs. Instead of giving a patient a drug to cure his bronchitis, the cause of the problem is being faced.
  We have an opportunity to get our act together and to establish a coalition, and we thank all the people who have encouraged us, including our constituents. I hope that we can serve them well and that between us—whichever Bill is lucky enough to make progress—we might persuade the Minister and her colleagues to persuade the Government to make such legislation one of the goodies in the next Queen's Speech, which I am sure still contains some spaces. We cannot consider constitutional legislation and nothing else during the coming year. The Bill is a prime contender for one of those spaces, and, if the Minister wants us to join a small lobbying group, we shall be happy to oblige her.
  11.46 am
  Mr. David Drew: I begin with an apology for not being here at the start of this debate—I had an urgent meeting at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which overran slightly. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on what he is trying to achieve, and should like to add some brief points on this important subject.
  I want to continue the debate about fuel poverty which was initiated some months ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), who highlighted the fact that people's inability to heat their homes is an important aspect of poverty. In that debate I spoke about home improvement agencies.
  I should declare an interest: for the past 10 years, I have been a member of a home improvement agency in my constituency, Care and Repair England, and I still sit on its board. In a speech in May, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who is to reply to the debate, emphasised the importance of energy efficiency measures. Partly in response to that speech, Care and Repair England wrote to her suggesting how advances could be made in home improvements and especially energy efficiency. I shall repeat some of the points that it made, in the hope that my hon. Friend will respond to them.
  Home improvement agencies, including Care and Repair England, emphasised the need to secure funding in the longer term. The part of the voluntary sector that works in capital repair—and, indeed, the voluntary sector generally—finds it hard to organise one year's funding at a time. It is therefore asking not necessarily for more money but for funding that is secure and stable: a three-year programme might be one way to achieve that.
  Secondly, although Care and Repair England has a good relationship with local authorities, the danger is that cuts may have to be made because of the problems that local authorities currently face. The organisation therefore asked whether some kind of ring fencing should be considered, especially as it has to rely on grant funding, which is an elastic way of providing funds. It has asked
  1022
  not necessarily for arbitration between local and central Government but that there should be the possibility of appeal in cases where local government does not provide the funds for the voluntary sector that it should.
  I am sure that my third point was raised earlier but I want to emphasise it in my own way. There is a need for appraisal and for the assessment of quality, which will help us to measure outcomes. The National Energy Audit suggests that there should be one measure—which I am sure was discussed earlier—the idea being that we can promote energy efficiency only by dealing with the whole house: the household as well as the house. Educating people in the use of central heating and other methods of ensuring that their property is warm and dry is an important part of the process. When appealing, as always, for funds, we need to recognise that informing and educating people is important. I am sure that the Government will be take that on board.
  I referred to the impressive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North, and anything that can be done to help is important. We know that there is real poverty out there. Fuel poverty is something that we can identify and do something about. I am sure that the House will play its part and that the Government will reply accordingly.
  11.50 am
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on securing the debate. The subject is most important and obviously gives him a certain amount of work in his constituency. While he was referring to the statistics it occurred to me that he is probably one of the hardest-worked Members of the House, being the Member of Parliament for the most under-represented constituency in the United Kingdom. So that he may represent his constituents more effectively in future, I hope that he will argue for a smaller constituency in the Isle of Wight—but that is a controversial matter and I shall not pursue it.
  The hon. Gentleman identified the crux of the problem: we need to ensure that more homes are properly insulated and fitted with energy-saving appliances. He was attracted to the idea of exempting from VAT energy-saving materials. It is ironic that, when our hands are tied by the European Union, the Liberal Democrats conveniently ignore the constraints and remain the most enthusiastic party for further integration into the European Union. That is one of the luxuries of being a Liberal Democrat.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) concentrated on the impact on the health care system and highlighted the number of winter deaths. I am told that one should only ask questions in the House to which one knows the answer. I have a question to which I do not know the answer. There is a suspicion in my mind that the statistics used for international comparisons are not strictly comparable. In a genuine spirit of inquiry—that is allowed during Wednesday morning debates, which are effectively held in private—I should like to know whether any work has been done on the international comparability of the statistics. I should be interested to see the results of any such work.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell, who is now in his place, referred to the environmental impact of wasted energy. That must be included in our consideration and I shall return to it later.

  1023
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to the cold weather payments scheme and said that it takes no account of wind chill. I hope that he will not think that I am souring the atmosphere with party political debate if I say that many hon. Members who now occupy the Government Benches, and even one or two on the Opposition Benches, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), campaigned very hard for the wind chill factor to be taken into account. Many of those Labour Members have now gone rather quiet on the subject. In the heated party political pre-election atmosphere, the issue was exploited to the full, but the Government now seem to have no intention of taking any action on it. We considered the matter when in office, but we remain to be convinced that it is the answer, so we reluctantly support the Government's attitude on the inclusion of the wind chill factor. We need to take into account the difficulties of measurement and of deciding how much compensation should be provided, and the difference between different houses in different locations suffering different degrees of wind chill. The matter is very complex. I would not begin to question the Government's sincerity in dealing with the problem of poor people paying their fuel bills: accusations of cold-heartedness or callousness benefit no one.
  The hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell said that not enough money is being devoted to the Energy Saving Trust. Money seems to be one of the main issues in this debate. It is easy to call for more money to be spent, but it is irresponsible unless we can identify where the money will come from.
  Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the step taken by the Minister to restore funding to the Energy Saving Trust? I intended to refer to that when speaking of the local energy advice centres, which welcome that restoration of funding.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am coming to the hon. Lady's remarks. The energy advice centres were set up by the previous Government and have proved to be very successful. We welcome the money that is being devoted to energy advice centres.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: May I clarify the Conservative party's position on funding the Energy Saving Trust? When it was set up by the previous Government, they intended to introduce a levy on gas, which would have provided much higher funding for the Energy Saving Trust. That was the then Government's policy. If, as I hope, the new Government amend the position through the utilities Bill and restore the potential for that levy, will the official Opposition support that?
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that we considered the matter when in government. It was a fantastically ambitious project and it saddened us that we could not proceed with it. The plans foundered on the attitude of the Director General of Gas Supply, which was that regulatory bodies were not set up to become tax collectors. If that problem can be solved, we shall consider favourably any proposals from the Government, but not until we have seen those proposals. I recognise the nifty little trap that the hon. Gentleman is setting and 1 shall not fall into it.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the difficulty was caused by the way in which the legislation creating the regulatory system provided an individual regulator with the capacity to take that view? When the Conservative party was in power, that was contrary to its stated policy, but because the then regulator said that he did not agree, the legislation setting up the regulator gave him the power to make that choice and so defeated the then Government's laudable aims.
  Mr. Jenkin: One of the delightful features of the Labour Government is that they are now engaging, responsibly and constructively, in the debate about how the privatised utilities are managed. Had they engaged in constructive debate when we privatised those industries, instead of showing blanket opposition and blocking their ears to the benefits of privatisation, I might be more inclined to take the Minister's comment as an admonition. Those privatisations were hugely successful. They contained a large experimental element and there is no doubt that, like any other legislation, they can be perfected and improved. If the Government bring forward proposals to that effect, we shall consider them, but will not commit ourselves to any hypothetical proposals.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke of his 15 winters in the House dealing with this subject. I was a little wary of the concept of directly involving the health service too much in the process of home insulation. GPs are busy enough as it is without making them consultants on home insulation. Perhaps, in forming commissioning groups, a GP should be appointed with responsibility for home energy efficiency. However, I imagine that people who work in the health service will think that the ability to compartmentalise such problems is essential for the efficiency of the health service, and that it is the responsibility of other bodies to ensure that people are not queueing up in doctors' surgeries because they have home energy efficiency problems.
  Dr. Brand: I agree that GPs have neither the expertise nor the will to take on that expert role, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that members of the primary health care team go into people's homes, day in, day out, and know the real consequences of fuel poverty. We can make enormous steps, by providing access through the primary health care team, which nominally includes GPs, and by allowing health authorities and local authorities to do that sort of work, provided that they are properly funded. There is nothing worse than identifying a problem and finding that the only thing one can do to alleviate it is to hand out an advisory leaflet. That is not helpful.
  Mr. Jenkin: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Funding is inevitably part of the debate, and one to which I shall return in a few moments.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: May I make two quick points? First, health authorities, the public health bodies responsible for ensuring the general public health of the community, can have responsibility for saying what is good practice, and should promote and sell that as the evaluating body.

  1025
  Secondly, in some practices—I believe that Birmingham is one example—grants were made available from public funds, and GPs nominated which of their patients should be the recipients of those grants. They did no more than that, but they said, "This person should qualify for this insulation scheme because it will be more useful to her or him than to others." So there are two different areas of potential responsibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) said, it may involve other primary health care members, who may not be GPs, but there are functional things that health service practitioners can do.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am bound to say that the way in which the hon. Gentleman explains that now is less scary than the idea of GPs being asked to write out prescriptions for home insulation, which is how he described it before.
  I am extremely wary of putting additional statutory burdens on the NHS, which is already deluged with bureaucracy and obligations. This is not my portfolio and I should probably shut up, but there is a case for considering how we can deregulate the health service so that it can better get on with its job, rather than Members of Parliament—bless their cotton socks—looking for good headlines by introducing new measures which may be wholesome in principle and intent but which do not make life easier for people.
  I concede to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the problem is that so much of the energy that poor people burn in their homes goes out of the window. There is an instructive page in the Library brief on the Energy Efficiency Bill about how much simple measures save. Although the leaflet on its own may be frustrating—if one thinks that nothing will be achieved by handing over the leaflet—it says that loft insulation, which might cost £75 as a DIY job, will save £35– £40 in a single year. Draught proofing a whole property may cost £50, but will, on average, save £15– £25 a year. Those are two or three-year paybacks on the investment, which makes it a good investment—certainly better than leaving money in the building society, which is what many elderly people do. They leave money in the building society instead of having the information explained to them and perhaps having someone younger and more able to help them with those simple tasks. The new deal has a role to play in getting young people to come into elderly people's homes to help them with simple tasks that need not cost any public money. Information and voluntary help, or help from another Government programme, are perhaps a more practical answer.
  The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) spoke of the need to assess the quality of what we do. That is always a problem with Government programmes; there is a fanfare of intent and the allocation of money, then weaknesses occur in the implementation. That underlines why public money is not always the answer.
  This debate is primarily motivated by the record of terrible suffering, particularly of elderly people, and the huge implications for the NHS. The figure of £1 billion mentioned by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is not one that I have heard before, but it is a useful reminder. We all know that our local casualty
  1026
  departments become choked with elderly people because GPs are no longer able to cope with the influx of people into their surgeries. If energy efficiency can contribute towards reducing that misery and suffering, we should all join forces to tackle the problem.
  The previous Government set up the home energy efficiency scheme grant, and since 1991, 2.3 million vulnerable homes have benefited from grants. So it is not as if nothing happened under the previous Government, and I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that in her reply. However, I suspect that her greatest problem is the Treasury, and that the message she receives from the Treasury is the same message that I am trying to give—that more money is not necessarily the answer to the problem. In some respects, the Government have already cut off their nose to spite their face. Yes, we know that VAT on fuel was politically suicidal, but there was something rational about it in terms of increasing energy costs to encourage energy conservation and to make more money available for the Exchequer, which might, perhaps, contribute to such schemes.
  Against the background of privatisation, VAT on fuel was perfectly rational. According to the Library, electricity prices have fallen by 9 per cent. and gas prices have fallen by 8 per cent. over the past five years, even taking account of the residual VAT on fuel that still exists. Indeed, gas prices have fallen by 26 per cent. since 1987. The danger of those falling prices is that people start to believe that it is no longer worth insulating. If we had continued to gather the revenue, we could have spent it on the information and the extra grants that most hon. Members who have spoken this morning seem to think necessary—that would have been a better use of resources.
  The Library briefing paper on the Energy Efficiency Bill states:
  "the introduction of competition in electricity and gas markets is leading to falling energy prices",
  which must be good for alleviating fuel poverty. It continues:
  "According to DTI evidence received by the Trade and Industry Committee, every 10 per cent. drop in energy prices stimulates demand by 2 per cent."
  We should consider the extent to which falling prices and the reduction of VAT on fuel have contributed to the amount of fuel that is wasted.
  Mrs. Gilroy: I believe that VAT has significantly helped those who are poor to afford warmer homes. Another figure that the hon. Gentleman can find in briefing papers—it is significant to the health debate that we are having—is that people in the poorest households tend to take 50 to 60 per cent. of the benefit of energy efficiency works in added warmth. The decrease in VAT has helped people immediately, whereas other measures may take longer to implement.
  Mr. Jenkin: I question that judgment, although we are talking about water under the bridge and I do not intend to dwell on the subject.
  Our role as an Opposition is to scrutinise Government policy, but one of the glories of being in opposition is that we can start with a clean sheet. [Interruption.] The Labour party cleaned the sheet a few times in opposition,

  1027
  and much good it did it—Labour became a good deal more palatable as a Government than it would have been a few years ago.
  I conclude my remarks by inviting representations to the Opposition from all the organisations that are concerned with energy efficiency and poverty, and from those who have to struggle to pay their fuel bills. Our policies are in a state of flux, and we want to include all points of views in our debate about the future of policy—if people want to contact me, they are extremely welcome to do so.
  12.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on securing this debate and on drawing our attention to the role of preventive health schemes in reducing the number of people who live in uncomfortable and unhealthy surroundings. I also take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) to the Dispatch Box in his new role. I hope that he continues to revel in the glory of opposition for a long time. He may think that he is starting with a clean sheet, but the Conservative party has form on these matters as long as all of our arms put together, as we shall continue to point out. However, I would be the first to say that not all that form was completely bad—we inherited some good practice as well as some things that we wish we had not.
  I assure the hon. Member for Isle of Wight that I am working closely with my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health—although she is not sitting beside me at the moment, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that there is much co-operation between our Departments on this matter. The hon. Member for North Essex did not seem fully to appreciate that we are trying to switch spending from the symptoms of a problem to its causes—a theme which ran through what I believe has been a worthwhile debate on one of the most important issues that we face.
  Being cold at home in winter and unable to do anything about it is clearly a form of social exclusion—it reduces the quality of life for many people, including the most vulnerable. Moreover, it represents a barrier to progress towards achieving our Kyoto environmental targets, which form a background to the whole debate; those targets will force a change in the way in which we live and behave, and will be the focus of much Government policy. How can we expect the conservation message to be successful when too many families are facing an increased risk of ill health because they cannot keep warm at home, even if they consume fuel at a rate that they cannot afford?
  When we came to office, I was deeply concerned about the problems associated with fuel poverty. I quickly set up an interdepartmental group of officials—they come from a surprising number of Departments—to take a hard look at the issues surrounding fuel poverty and to work up imaginative policy options. We are looking from all directions and angles for the best ways forward, which I hope will lead in the medium term to a more coherent and integrated strategy for dealing with the problem. To extend the discussion, I invited interested bodies to enter into a national debate about the best ways in which to overcome the problem of too many cold homes.
  1028
  The inability of households to enjoy adequate heating without spending disproportionate amounts of their income means that they lack affordable warmth. As hon. Members have pointed out, that means that there is an increased risk of ill health, with all the consequent economic and social costs. Typically, 30,000 more people die in winter in the United Kingdom than would be expected at the average death rate for the year. Several thousand of those deaths are likely to be associated with cold conditions in homes.
  The hon. Member for North Essex asked about the statistics. The statistics that countries bandy around are national ones—we have not been able to find any internationally comparable statistics on cold-associated deaths. We can make comparisons only by using the figures that are collected nationally, which may be incompatible. Nevertheless, we must accept that, as a nation, we have an unacceptably high excess winter death rate, if I may use the jargon.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) may not like everything about European organisations, but, as it is difficult to find good comparables, the collection of statistics is exactly the sort of job that we could reasonably devolve to either the Community statistical office, the Council of Europe or one of the other European bodies. Such comparative figures would be useful—the information could enable European Union social policy to be targeted at helping the countries that are at the bottom of the league table.
  Angela Eagle: I do not disagree with that. International statistics are always interesting and sometimes—if they are coherent and justifiable—very revealing.
  As I was saying, several thousand of the 30,000 deaths are likely to be associated with cold conditions in homes. The excess is highest in the elderly—the main causes are heart attacks, strokes, respiratory illnesses and accidents. There is good evidence that temperature contributes to winter mortality—there are more deaths in colder winters, and in colder spells within winters, and there are known physiological mechanisms by which temperature can affect the major causes of excess deaths. Excess winter mortality may arise partly from acute exposure outdoors, but it is greater in the United Kingdom than in countries that have colder winters but warmer homes. It has decreased as home heating has improved—that is another sign of its causes—and many deaths occur among those people who do not go outdoors, which must also be taken into account.
  In a typical winter, 2.5 million households in England occupy homes cold enough to increase the risk of ill health—in very cold weather, that figure rises to 3 million. Below 12 deg C, there is an increased risk of cardiovascular disorders and hypothermia. Up to 15 deg C, there may be a risk to cardiovascular and respiratory health, but a less acute one than at below 12 deg C. Illness and death could be reduced if living room temperatures were at least 16 deg C. Those risks apply to all people, but certain groups—elderly people, infants, and people with long-term illnesses who do not work—are especially vulnerable to cold-related ill health. People in those groups are found in half of all households, and, because they are more likely to be at home all day, their homes can be assumed to require heating for longer periods than those of other households, so their bills start to rise.

  1029
  The prime causes of fuel poverty are lack of income and energy efficiency, and the size of the home. In the poorest households, keeping warm in housing of typical size and energy efficiency can easily take more than 20 per cent. of income, and more than 1 million households—about 6 per cent. of all households—spend more than that amount. Many households are neither able nor willing to spend that much, so those homes will be under-heated, and the occupiers cold.
  A household may be cold because less is spent on fuel than a satisfactory heating regime in that home would dictate, so actual expenditure on fuel as a proportion of income is not necessarily an indicator of fuel poverty, or its degree. We consider that households in cold homes that need to spend more than 20 per cent. of their income on fuel to achieve satisfactory heating are in severe fuel poverty. Households that need to spend more than 30 per cent. of income may be described as being in extreme fuel poverty. In setting priorities, those households are obviously our prime target group, and there are about 2.5 million of them in England.
  Big homes are an important, and largely ignored, factor contributing to the large number of households in fuel poverty. The fuel-poorest people tend to have larger homes on average than those who are not fuel poor. That is of particular concern in local authority housing, where most "under-occupation" involves low-income households, especially lone-pensioner households. As many vulnerable households seem to be concentrated in the least energy-efficient types of houses, allocation policies and housing management could help to tackle fuel poverty, as well as physically improve the stock.
  If we are to examine effectively the effects of housing quality on health, we need a reliable yardstick against which to identify housing that presents the worst health risks. Earlier this year we issued a consultation paper on the housing fitness standard. The main proposal is to develop and test a fitness rating approach as a replacement for the current fitness standard. A rating approach would give an overall rating to a dwelling rather than using the current pass-or-fail test. It would encompass the important health risks in the home and distinguish between their varying degrees of severity. It should provide a more effective mechanism for identifying and targeting action on the worst housing, including the worst-insulated and the worst-heated housing. Responses to the consultation paper are still being considered.
  People in extreme fuel poverty tend to occupy housing with low energy efficiency. In 1991, the mean energy rating of their homes was 17 points as measured by standard assessment procedure, against a mean rating for all housing of 35 points. Since then, the overall picture has improved a bit. The latest English house condition survey suggests that the mean value has risen by about four points.
  Part L of the building regulations dealing with energy conservation matters is currently under review, with the aim of establishing the maximum possible contribution that building regulations can make to carbon dioxide reduction targets while still observing proportionality, allowing flexibility for designers and avoiding unreasonable technical risk or excessive cost. In addition to reviewing measures affecting new construction, we
  1030
  want to see how the existing stock of buildings can be brought more under control. All that will help us to improve the energy efficiency of buildings.
  In terms of absolute numbers, half the fuel-poorest are owner-occupiers, but that reflects the fact that most households are in the owner-occupied sector. In percentage terms, the incidence is greater in the rented sectors. Ten per cent. of owner-occupiers, 18 per cent. of social housing tenants and no fewer than 30 per cent. of private rented tenants are in severe or extreme fuel poverty. Hardly any of them actually spend more than 20 per cent. of income on energy to achieve a satisfactory heating regime, so most of them live in cold homes.
  There is a clear correlation between severe fuel poverty and household type. Lone pensioners account for 44 per cent. of all households in that category, and for 37 per cent. of the total. Most of the rest are pensioner couples, lone adults and single parents.
  Mr. Drew: Surely one of the key issues is education. There has been significant success in using home safety checks to help pensioners to make their homes much safer. A similar co-ordinated approach on energy efficiency could make a useful hit.
  Angela Eagle: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, and those of everyone who has spoken and who has fed ideas to my Department's review. We have clearly identified the problems, and, as I have said, we have begun to deal with some of them. We came to Government determined to do more to tackle poverty—both general poverty and fuel poverty. We have cut VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. That is worth around £18 a year to an average family and impacts most effectively on those in severe or acute fuel poverty. We introduced winter fuel supplements for pensioners for this year and next, and those, too, are worth more to the poorest pensioners.
  We have started to deliver on our promise to increase energy efficiency activity and investment. The capital receipts initiative is channelling £750 million more into housing investment, and our welfare-to-work programme is making more activity possible through help with employment and training costs. Very soon, there will be a reduced rate of VAT on energy efficiency grant schemes, which will increase their output by about 10 per cent. As the hon. Member for North Essex said, there is the question of European Union regulations and potential further reductions, and we are bringing that matter to the attention of our EU partners. We hope to make some progress, but I have none to report yet.
  I am particularly keen to see how existing programmes might do more to get to the heart of fuel poverty. The main one concerned with improving the insulation of homes is the familiar home energy efficiency scheme, which has already given extra insulation and other measures to 2.5 million homes, giving benefit worth an average £45 a year to each household through a combination of more comfort and reduced energy consumption. The scheme is at present improving the energy rating by about 3.5 standard assessment points on average.
  Last year I agreed to the changes announced by the previous Government, because they were almost implemented when we came into office. However, I said that I would review the scheme as soon as possible to see

  1031
  if it was meeting customers' needs. That review is not complete, but it is becoming clear that we could do more to direct benefit to people in the worst fuel poverty, rather than to those who are simply poor. A large proportion of grants goes to people whose homes are more energy efficient than the average for the housing stock, and many of the recipients are not in any degree of fuel poverty in terms of actual expenditure on heating. The scheme is not successfully reaching private tenures.
  The scheme was recently examined by the National Audit Office, whose report was considered by the Public Accounts Committee. As a result, we are committed to making a number of changes to the way in which the scheme is administered. Changes that I expect to emerge from the present review will address those issues. I want to make a good scheme even better, and will look carefully at the present structure of the scheme to see whether there are any barriers to giving real help to the most fuel poor. I want to consider particularly whether we can target grants better, and achieve greater improvements to the insulation standards of the very worst homes.
  I have no doubt that my present review will conclude that there are arguments for modifying the home energy efficiency scheme to make it work better.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the hon. Lady hope to be able to lift the gas regulator's block through changes that are due in utility regulation?
  Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman will know what our Green Paper said about that. We hope to ensure that Ministers will be responsible for that policy. The consultation process is not complete, and it would be wrong for me to make any announcement about what we intend to do. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have a great deal of sympathy for his points.
  1032
  The task ahead is to integrate present policies and programmes into a strategy for a concerted and coherent assault on the social exclusion that fuel poverty causes. We will consider whether it might be more cost-effective to concentrate more on the quality of housing, and to make houses easier and cheaper to heat, rather than to help people with the cost of fuel. We might in that way be able to take more households out of fuel poverty, thus improving their quality of life while making a real impact on the consumption of energy, which will help us to achieve our challenging Kyoto target, increase people's health and do something about social infrastructure.
  A strategy with investment in more energy-efficient housing at its heart would succeed only if it brought the homes of the fuel poorest up to acceptable standards. We would have to bear it in mind that, for some households, energy efficiency is not the major factor causing fuel poverty, and other solutions would still be necessary to help them. However, for people for whom energy efficiency is a solution, we need to consider how much we would have to improve their homes to take them out of fuel poverty.
  I agree with much of what was said about linkages to health authorities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I are seeking innovative ways to pursue those.
  I have launched a national debate on how we might best achieve our aim of getting rid of the evils of fuel poverty. My officials are actively studying how we might produce coherent and integrated strategies that go to the heart of the problem and we are reviewing existing programmes to see if they can be targeted better. We have not been helped by the Conservative party's legacy of years of under-investment, and we intend to address that neglect.

  Sports Grounds
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Ian Pearson: As we rapidly approach World cup kick-off time, if, by some miracle, football fans could divert their attention from that, they would undoubtedly cheer on the Government in their actions to implement their manifesto pledge to stop the sale of playing fields, which schools and communities need. Where will we find the next Alan Shearer—or, perhaps I should say, the next Duncan Edwards, who started his football career in Dudley schools—if we concrete over all our school playing fields? I am glad that the Government are giving the issue their serious and determined attention.
  The Government's actions to date have focused on local authority-owned playing fields. I should like to raise the issue of privately owned sports grounds and highlight a loophole in the law that allows their owners to take them out of public use and use scorched-earth tactics, deliberately allowing the grounds to go to rack and ruin and, in effect, turning them into bomb sites in an attempt to get planning permission.
  As I understand it, there is nothing in the town and country planning Acts or other legislation to prevent owners from deliberately and systematically dismantling or demolishing properties used for recreational purposes. There is nothing in the landlord and tenant Acts to prevent owners from refusing to renew a lease to football or other sporting clubs. National planning policy guidance does not help; nor does the local development planning process. The planning system can prevent a change in usage from sport to commercial or housing development, but it cannot prevent owners from stopping all sporting activity on their property.
  There is a growing national problem. Privately owned sports grounds are being taken out of recreational use and sold to developers who put the assets into a land bank until they can get planning permission for housing or commercial development. The only game now being played at those grounds is a waiting game as owners wait for the community to get sick to the back teeth of the dereliction that they have created and for the local authority to agree to a planning application, which will allow the owners to make a financial killing.
  I shall illustrate that general problem with two specific examples in my constituency. The first is Round Oak stadium. The site was originally owned by the Earl of Dudley, and I understand that he donated it for use by the workers at the local steel mill. It has been used as a sports ground since at least the 1920s by successive generations of steelworkers and their families. The stadium was built up to include a football pitch, a covered stand and terracing, a substantial clubhouse—which was used by organisations such as Age Concern for tea dances and other events—and a bowling green. Cricket, netball and tennis have all been played there. The facilities were there for the local community to use and it was rightly proud of them.
  The ground has been paid for many times over with the blood, sweat and tears of the community, particularly the steelworkers, in Brierley Hill, Brockmoor and Pensnett. With the closure of the steelworks in the early 1980s, problems started to arise. British Steel began to look for somebody to take over the running of the sports ground
  1034
  and, in 1986, was in discussions with Dudley metropolitan borough council, which helped to obtain a grant of £35,000 from the Sports Council to fund partly the purchase of the ground. If Dudley council had purchased and taken control of the site, none of the present problems of dereliction would have occurred.
  However, a gaping hole appeared in the pitch at Dudley Town football club. Such holes appear with depressing regularity in the black country, where there are many old mine workings. Obviously, Dudley Town football club could not play at the ground and looked around for a home. With the council's assistance, it was agreed that the Sports Council grant would be transferred to the club, and it took ownership of the Round Oak stadium. It was explicitly intended at that time that the football club—a duly constituted members' club—would hold the land in trust, and a restrictive covenant, which formed part the sale agreement, stated that the site should be used only as a community sports ground and social club for the next 80 years. That restrictive covenant is still in force.
  Problems have arisen since 1994 when Dudley Town's duly constituted members' club transferred its assets and liabilities to a private limited company owned by two local business men—Philip Edwards and Trevor Lester. The circumstances surrounding the transfer were, to say the least, not entirely satisfactory. At that time, the club had estimated debts of £100,000. Those were more than covered by the asset of the ground, but members felt coerced into agreeing to the transfer of ownership. They were told:
  "if this proposal is not accepted the liabilities of the club then fall upon you the members".
  That was a deliberate use of scare tactics by the two new owners and it is indicative of some of the tactics that they have employed since then.
  The ground was transferred to Philip Edwards and Trevor Lester in May 1994 and it seems that from that point they aimed to market it as a development site. A deal was quickly concluded with a developer to purchase the site for £1.3 million if planning permission was obtained. The original planning application is interesting. Philip Edwards and Trevor Lester tried to get local community support for it by saying that Dudley Town football club was in debt and the only way to ensure its survival was to sell the ground. The fact that the club is still playing proves that that was not true.
  The business men tried to persuade local residents that if the plan did not go ahead, they would have to turn the clubhouse into a night club, or the whole property would be sold, and 20 or 24 floodlit five-a-side soccer pitches would be created on the site. That threat was also a deliberate use of scare tactics, and shows that the owners have no regard for the local community.
  Dudley council, to give it credit, stuck to its guns and said that the land had value as a community resource and refused to give planning permission to the owners. Since then, it has taken the case to appeal and the planning inspector has, rightly, also said that the land should remain a sports ground.
  I understand that the latest reports are that the debts of Dudley Town Football Club Ltd. stand at £600,000. I fail to see how they could so quickly have escalated to that level. It seems abundantly clear to me that Philip Edwards and Trevor Lester have not invested any money in the club for a considerable time. I seriously question whether

  1035
  they have the club's interests at heart. It is said that the limited company is constituted so that the two men cannot benefit financially from it. What is obvious to me, however, is that it would require only a clever accountant to convert the sponsorship money that they have put into the club into directors' loans. They would get out of it all the money that they have put into the club, and would probably make more money in the process. They should not be allowed to get away with it, and I do not believe that they have the right to sell the ground, which should be held in trust for the local community.
  It is clear that the owners have no interest in maintaining the ground as a sports ground, so I challenge them: sell it to someone who will. I repeat my offer to get the money together so that the ground can be placed in trust and used for the benefit of the local community. I say directly to Philip Edwards and Trevor Lester, "If you love football, and if you have any commitment to the local community, sell the ground at a fair market value as a sports ground, not at some inflated price based on the assumption that planning permission will eventually be given if you turn it into a sufficiently disgusting eyesore that the council and the local community get sick to the back teeth of it."
  The second issue is Dudley Wood stadium, which is another difficult case. Nothing has happened to it since November 1995, when the owner terminated the lease of Cradley Heath speedway club, which is an internationally renowned team. It was one of the leading clubs, nationally and internationally, and it operated from Dudley Wood stadium from 1947 until 1995. The team managed to ride the 1996 season at Stoke-on-Trent, but, since then, riders have had to be contracted out or loaned to other clubs. In effect, Cradley Heath is not in existence.
  That is a terrible shame. Cradley Heath is the only world-class sporting team in Dudley borough. It won two league championships; eight knock-out cups, which is a record; six premierships, which is also a record; two four-team knock-out trophies; one inter-league knock-out cup; and one British trophy. It has produced three riders who have won the world championship—Bruce Penhall, who won it twice; Eric Gundersen, who won it three times; and Jan Pederson—and I have watched them all. In the year that Cradley Heath was kicked out of the ground, it finished third in the premier league, won the four-team knock-out final and —reached the semi-final of the knock-out cup.
  The current owner has terminated the lease and concluded an agreement with a developer, subject to planning permission, to build houses on the site. The planning application was turned down by Dudley council and was also lost on appeal. The council has tried every way that it can to bring Cradley Heath speedway club back into existence. The owners turned the council down flat, rejecting a land-swap deal which I discussed with Ministers in the previous Administration.
  The stadium has not been used for three years, and it is as if a sign has been put up saying, "Open for vandalism". Little has been done to protect the property, and there have been numerous arson attacks. There is little usable structure left, with the result that most of the ground is obsolete. Nothing is happening to the stadium, and the owners are again talking to developers, even though the appeal went against them.
  1036
  Hon. Members should consider those two cases. Round Oak stadium has been completely demolished and destroyed. The clubhouse was sold off—piece by piece and, eventually, brick by brick—after the planning appeal inspector ruled that the site could not be used for residential development. There is nothing there, and it looks like a bomb site.
  Both cases are mirrored up and down the country, and the practice of deliberate dilapidation, dereliction and devastation is a growing problem. If we are to protect our sports grounds, we must take action. I have several suggestions that the Minister might consider. First, the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 gives local authorities the power to intervene where houses are to be demolished, but not to protect recreational facilities. The Government should consider such controls, to give local authorities the power to intervene where sports grounds are to be demolished.
  Secondly, it is at least worth considering whether the Government should require owners of sports grounds to keep them fit for the purpose for which they were intended. There could be problems with that, but the Government might consider a duty of care.
  Thirdly, we should consider giving leaseholders or, failing that, another bona fide sporting organisation, rights to continued use or the right to buy out a lease if the landlord wants to use the property for purposes other than the sporting purposes for which it was intended.
  Fourthly, we should consider legislation on compulsory purchase powers and allowing not only local authorities, but public bodies or trusts, to buy sports grounds at an open-market valuation if the owner fails to keep it fit for public use.
  The use by owners and developers of scorched-earth tactics—the deliberate and systematic vandalising of their own properties—is an abuse of the planning system. It should not be tolerated. I hope that the Minister will assure us of the Government's determination to stamp that practice out and their total commitment to protecting sports grounds for community use.
  12.46 pm
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) for allowing me to make a brief contribution.
  My hon. Friends will be aware of my concern over some time about this issue, especially in respect of the home of my football club, Brighton and Hove Albion. I do not want to go over the ground that I discussed in the House last Friday, but I should mention one issue to the Minister: the possibility of the Government's developing and supporting planning policies that allow sports grounds to be developed for local communities.
  Far too often, sports clubs involved in football, cricket, speedway and rugby union that are trying to gain planning consent are held up by local planning committees or by Departments. The Government should tackle the issue in a way that would make it easier for sports clubs to develop in their communities. That would avoid some of the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise that issue.
  12.47 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) on initiating the debate. I fully understand why he has raised the important issue of the threat to urban sports and recreation grounds.
  My hon. Friend will appreciate that the disposal of private land is, in the first instance, a commercial matter. The Government have no powers to influence such disposals directly, but they are subject, where appropriate, to planning controls. Any application for the development of land is subject to the normal planning procedures. In respect of playing fields and sports grounds, the relevant guidance to which local authorities must have regard is in planning policy guidance note 17.
  My hon. Friend will be aware that the planning applications in respect of Round Oak sports ground and Dudley Wood stadium, the home of the former Cradley Heath speedway team, were both considered by the local planning authority. Planning permission was refused, largely because they would be contrary to the guidance in PPG 17. As he said, both applications were subject to appeal, and public inquiries were held. In both cases, the inspectors upheld the decision of the local authority and refused the appeals. I understand that new applications are likely to be submitted, so my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be proper for me to comment further on the merits of those individual cases; to do so might fetter the impartiality of the Secretary of State, should the case be referred to him later.
  Although I cannot say more on the individual cases—despite the powerful case that my hon. Friend has made in respect of both sites—I am pleased to be able to use the debate to explain our planning guidance for the use of sports and recreation grounds. I hope that I will be able to reassure him that we are dealing with the issue with the seriousness that it deserves.
  Under the previous Government, local authorities were placed under severe pressure to find alternative resources to support their normal functions. That led many local authorities to sell sports grounds, playing fields and open spaces. Many private owners and operators of sports and recreation grounds also faced pressures—mainly commercial—to sell their grounds in favour of more profitable uses.
  This Government believe that it is wrong to sell and to develop sports and recreation grounds that communities need, and we propose that the practice should be subject to greater scrutiny. We acknowledge that there are growing pressures with regard to the potential use of sports and recreation grounds. Those pressures could increase, for example, in the light of our need to accommodate a growing number of households.
  On 23 February, the Government issued their policy in "Planning for the Communities of the Future", which shows how authorities should manage planning for household growth. The policy aims to ensure that, as far as possible, new housing development is located within existing urban areas. That will help to promote more sustainable patterns of development and to reduce the pressure for development in the countryside.
  However—this is important—we also want to ensure the availability of good-quality playing fields and open spaces, so that urban areas are attractive places in which
  1038
  people want to live. Urban quality should not be sacrificed; indeed, in many places, we must enhance it. That means that sports and recreation grounds, including playing fields and open spaces, need greater protection.
  We believe that sports and recreation grounds are important components of civilised life and are vital for maintaining the quality of communities. It is important that such facilities are close to where people live, so that they can participate in sports or spectate; my hon. Friend drew attention to the role of the two sites as a location for people both to play and to watch football and speedway. We attach high importance to retaining sports and recreation grounds in urban areas. In the past 20 years, too many of our sporting facilities, in particular playing fields, have been lost and grass-roots sports have suffered as a result.
  It is part of the function of the planning system to ensure that adequate land is allocated both for organised sport and for informal recreation. As I have said, the policies are set out in PPG17 on sport and recreation. That emphasises the special significance of all sports and recreation grounds, including those that are privately owned, and the fact that they should normally be protected. It advises local planning authorities to distinguish in their development plans between sports and recreation grounds—including playing fields, parks and other open spaces—that need protection from development, and sites that are temporarily in recreation use, and unused open land, that may be suitable for development.
  Local planning authorities should prepare development plan policies and proposals that cover specific needs for both mainstream and specialist sports grounds, including local motor or air sports, and football stadiums. Sports and recreation grounds should not be developed for other uses unless it has been established that the sites will not be required in the longer term for community use, or unless alternative replacement provision is to be provided as part of the proposed development.
  The emphasis is on identifying whether there are local deficiencies in provision and, where there are deficiencies, protecting such grounds by local planning authorities adopting clear strategies for sports and recreation. Local planning authorities should have clear plan policies that show the sites that will be protected. That is the most effective way to ensure their survival.
  On 16 January, the Government announced how we will fulfil our manifesto pledge to stop the sale and development of playing fields that schools and communities need. The Deputy Prime Minister announced that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions would tighten planning controls in respect of development of all local authority-owned playing fields, which include sports grounds, where the English Sports Council advises against proposed developments. We will require a local planning authority to notify the Secretary of State of any proposal for development of a local authority-owned playing field, where the English Sports Council has objected because it considers that it would have a detrimental effect on the provision of playing fields.
  We consulted all local planning authorities about the proposed arrangement and there was overwhelming support for the proposal. We will shortly issue a direction under the General Permitted Development Procedure Order to bring the arrangements into operation.

  1039
  In 1996, my Department commissioned research into the effectiveness of PPG 17 in protecting and promoting sporting interests. That research confirms the growing concerns about the redevelopment of sports grounds and suggests revising the guidance. We will shortly publish the report on the research, and we will announce how we propose to respond to its recommendations. Clearly, we wish to ensure that planning guidance is up to date and relevant.
  Local planning authorities are required to determine planning applications in accordance with their development plans. For planning applications involving the development of sports and recreation grounds, local authorities should take into account the longer-term needs of the wider community and consider whether there is, or is likely to be, a deficiency.
  If the application is likely to result in a local deficiency in the supply of sports and recreation grounds, there should be a presumption in favour of rejecting it. If there is doubt about whether there is a deficiency or whether the application is likely to result in a deficiency—in other words, where a local planning authority and the English Sport Council disagree—the application should be referred to the Secretary of State, who will decide whether to leave the application for the local authority to determine, or determine it himself.
  Once developed, sports and recreation grounds are gone for ever. Therefore, stringent scrutiny of proposals to build on them is vital. That is what we are providing and, in so doing, we are delivering our manifesto pledge.
  My hon. Friend raised four specific questions. The first was control of demolition, on which there has been an interesting case in recent months involving the Thames Ditton lawn tennis club, where similar issues to those that my hon. Friend has highlighted were raised. We have been considering carefully the implications of the judgment in that case and whether further action is required by the Government.
  My hon. Friend's second point was about the maintenance of properties. It is essentially for the owners to ensure that properties are maintained, but, where there is a serious threat to public health as a result of deterioration, local authority environmental health departments do have powers to take action.
  1040
  On the third point that my hon. Friend raised, leaseholders' rights are an issue with which I am familiar, having already dealt with a debate on the subject this morning. Different rules apply in respect of residential, as against commercial, leaseholds. The Government's commitments to leasehold reform are explicitly in respect of residential leases. My hon. Friend has, however, raised the precarious position of sporting clubs with a leasehold interest and highlighted their vulnerability. That certainly deserves further consideration.
  Finally, on my hon. Friend's concern about compulsory purchase powers, he will be aware that the Government have been considering both the current working of compulsory purchase procedures and the blight on properties that may arise from the use of such powers or from other factors. I cannot give him any commitments this morning, but I assure him that the whole issue of the use of compulsory purchase powers is under careful consideration by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning.
  Mr. Pearson: Will my hon. Friend specifically say something about what I call scorched-earth tactics—a deliberate tactic by owners and developers systematically to dilapidate their properties in the hope and expectation that, eventually, they will get planning permission?
  Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend raised that matter in his speech, and I hoped that I had conveyed the fact that the existing planning powers available to local authorities, if properly applied, provide a safeguard, in that there should be no presumption by a developer that he or she will secure planning consent simply by allowing a site to fall into disrepair.
  If a site is necessary for the provision of local recreation space and open space for the community, that is a legitimate community need which the local authority can and should properly take into account in considering any application submitted by a developer for a change of use.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin) asked about the interests of sports clubs. Of course, he will understand that the Government have to give equal treatment to all applicants for development, whether they be sports clubs or not, but I assure him that the Government are very conscious of the needs of sports clubs and the need for sports provision, and we are keen to ensure that we develop the appropriate facilities.

  Magistrates Courts (Suffolk)
  1 pm
  Mr. Richard Spring: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to introduce the debate. I also thank the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, for being here, and for his considerable courtesy in receiving my hon. Friends and myself on more than one occasion to discuss this important issue in the life of Suffolk.
  Five of the 10 existing courthouses in Suffolk are under threat. Two are in my constituency, and the others are in the constituencies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), both of whom, I am sure, will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), and I have here messages of support from my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard).
  Throughout Suffolk there is a universal view that closure would mean a terrible breakdown of the criminal justice system locally, and would have a detrimental effect on local communities. There is a simple principle at stake here—that local justice should, if at all possible, be done locally, in local magistrates courts, by local magistrates.
  The question at the heart of the issue is: is the proposal to close the five courts justified? I have to tell the House that I do not believe that there is any justification whatever. Suffolk is a rural county and settlements are geographically spread out. The public transport infrastructure is poor, and to the extent that it exists at all in many areas, it hardly works. It would certainly not be convenient for those seeking to use the courts. The small towns and rural communities of Suffolk are often self-contained, and very different one from another.
  The working party report of the magistrates courts committee in Suffolk sought to justify the proposals. Under the heading, "The National Background", it says:
  "In Suffolk we are fortunate that the County Council, the Police, the Prosecution Service and the MCC share the same boundaries. Nevertheless, we cannot be complacent and if we are to remain as an independent unit as one of the smaller MCCs we will have to be financially viable. We consider that a serious attempt by the MCC to prepare itself for the 21st century is essential."
  I do not believe, and I am sure that the Minister does not believe, that there is any fundamental reason based on national criteria for the MCC to take that view, because it is not confirmed by reality.
  The report highlights economies of scale, as follows:
  "It cannot be considered either effective or efficient use of resources to have court staff travelling around the County when we already have a problem with the number of court clerks actually sitting in courts."
  That reminds me of the story in which, at the turn of the century, someone was shown all the great yachts belonging to Wall street bankers—"This is Mr. J. P. Morgan's yacht, this is Mr. Rockefeller's and that is Mr. Vanderbilt's." That individual turned round and asked, "Where are the customers' yachts?"
  The courthouse system of local magistracy exists not for the convenience of court clerks but for the carrying out of the criminal justice system in local communities, and for defendants, witnesses, magistrates and solicitors.
  1042
  Those are the people primarily concerned with making the system work well. Local magistrates know their communities and areas well, and the difficulties of recruiting magistrates are already well known. Everything would be put at risk.
  Magistrates, the police, defendants, witnesses and solicitors would all incur substantial additional costs if the courthouses were closed. Here, I am delighted to have the support of the commander of the western area of the Suffolk constabulary, who entirely shares my view about additional policing time and costs.
  The public purse would lose far more money through the closure of the courts than would be gained by any possible savings highlighted by the magistrates courts committee. Indeed, the North Essex and Suffolk Law Society says that additional costs for solicitors alone, primarily because of legal aid costs, would outweigh any possible savings, without even considering all the other cost pressures on the public purse.
  In a letter to me dated 24 March, the justices' chief executive wrote:
  "The Courts Committee has had regard to the poor facilities at those courthouses".
  The Minister's predecessor as Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), visited the courthouses in my constituency in January last year, and saw for himself what the facilities were like. There was no question of criticism of their fabric. Furthermore, I have never heard any criticism from magistrates, members of the public or anyone else in the local communities about the facilities.
  The working party report says:
  "Many rural courts are cramped and not conducive to the dignified delivery of justice."
  That is a matter for magistrates and those involved in the local criminal justice system to decide, and those people are entirely happy with the fabric of the courthouses. That argument, like all the other arguments advanced by the MCC, does not wash.
  Another argument that the MCC has hinted at is access for the disabled. I have yet to have a complaint from any disabled person about access to the courts, where arrangements are made should the necessity ever arise in the first place. No local magistrate believes in the closure of the courthouses—that is an essential element in the situation.
  One of the two courthouses in my constituency is in Haverhill, a town with a population of more than 20,000 and growing rapidly. Surrounding villages bring in another 8,000 people, and recruitment of magistrates has been especially difficult. Such is the real concern in that community about the potential closure of the courthouse, that I have had sackloads of letters from people there on the subject. The town council is prepared to spend £9,000 of its minuscule budget to help to keep the courthouse open.
  The reason for that support from the local community lies in the campaigns, to which I pay tribute, by the Haverhill Echo and the Haverhill Weekly News, which have been most supportive. Both papers point out that it would be impossible for them to send a reporter long distances—to Bury St. Edmunds, say—to report what happens in the magistrates court, which is an important part of the local criminal justice system.

  1043
  Newmarket, the world headquarters of racing, has a population of 20,000, soon to be increased by 5,000 in the nearby village of Red Lodge. Already, one prominent local magistrate has resigned because there is no adequate public transport between Newmarket and Mildenhall. There is a huge wave of public fury in Newmarket at that, and I salute the Newmarket Journal, the local newspaper, which has been running a coupon campaign. The fabric of the building concerned contains cells; it is adjacent to the police station; it is complete; and it works extremely well.
  The Parliamentary Secretary has seen the correspondence, and he will know that the magistrates courts committee has a budgetary surplus this year and next year. All of the salient points that I have sought to raise in correspondence with the chairman of the MCC have been ignored; he has refused to answer those points.
  That brings me to my final point, which concerns the consultation process—or rather, the lack of it. Solicitors in the county of Suffolk have been extremely angry at the lack of full consultation with them. We as Members of Parliament sought meetings with the chairman of the magistrates courts committee. We offered to meet him in London; we offered to meet him in Suffolk; we offered to meet him privately; we offered anything for his convenience; but he flatly refused to see us. That reflects an attitude of utter contempt for the democratically elected representatives of the people of Suffolk.
  It is a matter of judgment for the magistrates who sit on the magistrates courts committee whether, knowing how the matter has been conducted, they would want the chairman and vice-chairman of the committee to continue in their jobs. If I were a magistrate, knowing how the public in Suffolk have lost confidence in the MCC, I would seriously consider their future/
  The Minister will know that the county council has appealed. Every district council in the county shares its view, which is one of opposition. The local daily paper, the East Anglian Daily Times, has been magnificently supportive. There is no basis or justification for the closures. Our country, of course, comprises urban and rural areas; people must have no perception of an urban-rural divide. I know that the Minister will agree with that. If magistrates courts are closed in a rural county such as Suffolk, that will be regarded as a body blow to the fabric of our rural communities and our rural county. I therefore beseech the Minister to reject the proposals to close the magistrates courts.
  1.12 pm
  Mr. Jamie Cann rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Does the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann) have the permission of the Minister to speak? In an Adjournment debate, the Minister must give his authority for that.
  Mr. Cann: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I will not speak for long.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) on initiating this Adjournment debate, and on the work that he has put in on the issue. I am not quite as harsh about the members of the MCC as he has been; they are honest, decent people trying to do the right thing. It is perfectly appropriate for them to review costs and
  1044
  levels of service. My problem with them is that they have produced candle-end savings, at great cost to the service provided to the people of Suffolk.
  It may be thought odd that I am speaking in the debate; there is no proposal to remove the magistrates court in my constituency. However, we must recognise that under the proposed reduction in the number of magistrates courts, more and more people will use the court in my constituency. There is a great danger that the process of justice, which in many cases is already too slow, will be further slowed by such closures. It is of interest to everyone in Suffolk if the police budget will be affected in the way that everyone to whom I have spoken tells me that it will. More people being transported greater distances means fewer people on beats; it is as simple as that.
  I am therefore against the MCC's proposal, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will listen to us.
  1.13 pm
  Mr. John Gummer: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for allowing me to speak briefly.
  There are two magistrates courts in my constituency. One is in Felixstowe, the population of which and neighbouring parts is more than 25,000. The court has a proud record; it is busy, and perfectly adequate for the magistrates who want to sit there. Certainly there is no room for more cases in Ipswich without considerable changes in the Ipswich courts. I have occasionally argued with the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), but we are united on this matter. It is not sensible for either Ipswich or Felixstowe. It is important that there should be a magistrates court, which is of the town in Felixstowe and to which people can relate. That is what local justice is about.
  At the other end of my constituency, in Saxmundham, there is a rural court, providing a crucial part of the service. We are talking about a rural area, so people are supposed to go to Lowestoft. But very few people use Lowestoft. Excellent though the town is, it is not part of people's normal run. It is hard, if not impossible, to get to Lowestoft by public transport from any of the villages. To go from Aldeburgh or Leiston to Lowestoft is a day's journey. It is far too complicated for most witnesses to want to bother. I am worried about having a justice system with witnesses being unavailable. They will not attend because it is all too much trouble. I am also worried that justice will be seen as something for the towns but not for the countryside.
  The court at Saxmundham is excellent. It has all the facilities, and good access for disabled people. It is part of the town's fabric, and means that there are branch offices of solicitors in Saxmundham. All of us who defend rural areas know that, when such institutions, especially courts, are removed, all sorts of infrastructure is removed as well.
  I am deeply opposed to the change, and want to add my considerable embarrassment that we have had to have this debate. The Minister has been extremely kind in using his time. But why, when the Minister has been prepared to see us twice and to allow this debate, will the magistrates courts committee not meet us at all? So rude was that committee that, when I offered to have a private meeting in my own home, the invited individual did not

  1045
  even bother to say whether or not he was coming. That is the local situation, and we have been unable to solve the problem.
  The money involved is not much, but it is far outweighed by costs for the time of the police, solicitors and witnesses. The costs to the public purse will be considerably greater. When one part of the public system feels that it can save money by making another service in the public system more expensive, the only person to whom to turn is the Minister. It is his job to say that it is not sensible to save £70,000 on one part of the public system, given that twice as much will be spent elsewhere.
  Will the Minister do what he can to ensure that the magistrates courts committee's proposals, which are opposed by all three political parties in Suffolk, the district councils and the county council, are overturned, and that we can continue to have the excellent court service that we now have?
  1.17 pm
  Mr. David Ruffley: May I place on record my appreciation of the courtesy, the time and trouble that the Minister has taken in addressing the concerns set out by my right hon. and hon. Friends? It is more courtesy than has been extended by the Suffolk magistrates courts committee.
  I shall be brief, because the Minister will need time to respond. I am concerned about the future of Stowmarket courthouse. Stowmarket is a small market town in my constituency. In the past few months, there has been a movement of rural people who feel, with some justification, that rural values and interests are under threat. They see that in the health settlements that have been doled out, and they are unhappy about education funding. The issue of local justice is on all fours with their concerns about schools and hospitals. In Stowmarket, there is no local support whatsoever for the closure. The Stowmarket citizens advice bureau does not want it. Stowmarket and Needham Market town councils do not want it; nor does the local inspector, Inspector Davies. The reason why they are so opposed to the proposed closure is that it will undermine local justice.
  We are in a new age of politics, when community is becoming increasingly important—no more so than in the case of Stowmarket. The magistrates in Stowmarket say passionately that only they are the best magistrates to dispense local justice. In a small town such as Stowmarket, they know many of the individuals, witnesses and local policemen. It is no use asking them to travel to Bury St. Edmunds or Ipswich to sit on cases of which they have not much knowledge. My constituents, whether witnesses or defendants, might have to travel long distances to go before people who simply do not understand them, the area or the local concerns. It is that fundamental undermining of localism that is the most offensive aspect of the closure about which we are protesting.
  As my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, the magistrates courts committee has argued that it is seeking to introduce so-called economies. That argument is entirely bogus. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has eloquently said, the cost to the public purse will far outweigh any minor savings resulting from the closure of Stowmarket magistrates court.
  1046
  The closure will result in higher demands on the legal aid fund and on police time, as the local police force in Stowmarket has said. For those reasons, and for the reasons adduced by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I urge the Minister, if this case comes before him on appeal, to weigh those arguments very carefully, not least because rural areas will be hugely appreciative if he finds in their favour.
  1.21 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I grateful to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for the opportunity to deal with this matter once again. I met him, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) two days ago. I note the observations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann).
  The provision of magistrates courts in Suffolk, in common with the rest of England and Wales, is the responsibility of a locally managed service. Each area is administered by a locally based magistrates courts committee, which is made up of local magistrates. Under legislation enacted in 1994 by the previous Government, those committees have a statutory responsibility to provide for the effective and efficient administration of the magistrates courts in their areas. Those responsibilities are now set out in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.
  It is for the individual magistrates courts committee, in consultation with its paying authority—in this case, Suffolk county council—to determine both the number of courthouses it needs and where they should be sited. If an MCC decides to close a courthouse, the paying authority has the right of appeal to the Lord Chancellor under section 56 of that Act. In determining its needs, both now and for the future, an MCC might consider it prudent to close one or more old, ill-equipped or otherwise unsuitable courthouses. Of course, that might be part of a continuing programme, which includes plans for new courthouses with improved facilities.
  I emphasise that whether a court should close is, in the first instance, entirely a matter for the local MCC, which takes the decision in the light of local needs. The Lord Chancellor has only a limited role in the provision of magistrates courthouses. First, he may determine any appeal that a paying authority makes to him. That is the limit of the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction on closures. Secondly, he may approve any bid for inclusion in the Lord Chancellor's Department's private finance initiative programme for new courts. Again, that must be supported by the local paying authority.
  The Government are committed to the better distribution and use of the public resources that are allocated to MCCs as an integral part of the process for delivering justice. We want to provide a modern system of justice, with well-equipped and secure court rooms, and to reduce the time taken for cases to proceed through the courts, so honouring our manifesto commitment. We are committed equally to remaining within the spending limits that we have inherited. I cannot say, therefore, that more money will be available in future for a particular magistrates courts committee. It is the responsibility of the local magistrates court committee to manage within its existing resources.
  The magistrates serving on the courts committees and those who sit in courthouses regularly are local people. Therefore, they are best placed to decide whether a

  1047
  particular court is helping to provide an efficient and effective system to all court users. Over the past few years, Suffolk magistrates court committee has made savings of some £287,000 by streamlining administrative processes. The MCC felt it appropriate, therefore, to begin examining other areas of its expenditure.
  I remind hon. Members that, before decisions were made locally, a formal consultation process was carried out by the Suffolk magistrates court committee. It consulted on two occasions, and did so much more widely than the law requires. It invited comments on its proposals from 705 individuals and organisations, seven local MPs, eight criminal justice agencies and other court users, seven district councils, 70 local solicitors, 230 parish councils and 364 magistrates, as well as carrying out the formal statutory consultation with Suffolk county council.
  I understand that hon. Members who represent Suffolk were, during the second round, given six weeks in which to comment on the MCC's current proposals.
  Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is right to say that the letters were written and replies were sent, but, as he will know as a Minister, the only way in which to discover why people have done things is to ask direct questions. The MCC refused on all occasions to answer any such questions. It insisted that they were written questions, and, when they were written, the MCC did not give any answers. It was a consultation process without any consulting; it was a one-sided consultation.
  Mr. Hoon: I am simply pointing out that the MCC exceeded the requirement to consult that is placed upon it by the legislation. It consulted more widely than required under the law, and, to that extent, it has fulfilled its responsibilities under the statute.
  The MCC has produced a document that provides a great deal of information. The working party's report includes a description of the accommodation of the courts in question, together with a comparison of the court where it is proposed that the work is to go, a survey of users at each court, including the percentage of actual appearances from those scheduled, modes of transport, and the times and costs of local buses and trains. The MCC received 187 responses before it reached a decision about the closures.
  As a result, Suffolk magistrates court committee made a formal determination to close Felixstowe, Haverhill, Newmarket, Saxmundham and Stowmarket magistrates courts, with effect from 31 December 1998. The work is to be transferred to existing courthouses at Ipswich, Sudbury, Mildenhall, Lowestoft and Bury St. Edmunds.
  Hon. Members will also be aware that Suffolk county council has now appealed against all five closures, and those appeals have yet to be determined. It would
  1048
  therefore be inappropriate for me at this stage to comment in detail on the proposed closures of those courts. I can, however, describe the process and the matters that will be taken into account. The issues are presented by each party—in this case, the MCC and the county council—and each may comment on the various points that have been raised. The Lord Chancellor's Department will receive representations from several other interested parties, and I reassure the House that all those representations will be considered in detail when the appeal is decided.
  The comments that Opposition Members have made to me during our two meetings, together with their observations in the debate, will be of great assistance in resolving such questions. Each appeal is considered separately and on its merits. It follows that there is no set formula by which the appeals are decided. However, certain considerations are common to every appeal. Account is taken of the accommodation that is offered, not just at the court that is subject to appeal but at the court to which the work will be transferred. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich will accept that that is taken fully into account.
  For example, is the building fit for the purpose? What are the security arrangements in relation to violent offenders or those in custody? What facilities are provided for separate waiting areas for defendants and witnesses, and for access to telephones? What facilities are available for disabled people? What renovations are needed to bring the courthouse in question up to a modern and acceptable standard?
  We also know of the distances that people have to travel, the cost of that travel and the time that is taken to complete the return journey. I know that that last element will be of particular concern to those right hon. and hon. Members who represent Suffolk constituencies. I am aware of those anxieties, and I shall certainly ensure that they are taken fully into account.
  Local justice is not simply about the local delivery of justice; it is about local management, through the magistrates courts committee. Most important, it is about justice by local people for local people. Magistrates live locally, and they know that their communities are the bedrock of the local justice system. However, we must be open-minded about new ways of organising the business of magistrates courts. Just because things have been done in a particular way for many years does not necessarily mean that they are being done in the best way.
  I am aware that difficult choices will continue to confront all the MCCs in England and Wales. I am sure that, in resolving those matters, the Government will derive considerable benefit—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now come to the next adjournment debate, entitled, "Mr. Ray Herring and the Merseyside Police".

  Mr. Raymond Herring
  1.30 pm
  Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: This debate revolves around the requirement to resign that was imposed on a former sergeant of the Merseyside police, his unfair treatment and the bias shown to him by senior personnel and the police service as a whole. The man in question is Raymond Ravenscroft Herring, a constituent of mine. Mr. Herring is a 41-year-old man, who has served in the Merseyside police force for 20 years. He was qualified to the rank of inspector, and was twice commended for professionalism and dedication to duty. He held the position of custody officer in Liverpool's main prison detention centre, which is probably one of the most stressful and busiest posts outside London.
  Mr. Herring's misfortunes started in 1993, when a summer ball was held opposite his home at the Blundellsands tennis club. Mr. Herring had been in dispute with the club for some time over its apparent flouting of the licensing laws, the volume of noise and the coming and going of visitors.
  On the eve of 12 September 1993, the Blundellsands tennis club embarked on its summer ball. Mr. Herring rang the police to complain about the noise, but received no immediate response. He then crossed the road from his home to the lawn tennis club to complain about the noise. Mr. Michael Smerdon, a prominent character in the case, met Mr. Herring. Mr. Smerdon's wife was the president of the lawn tennis club, and Mr. Smerdon had the role of overseeing entry into the club and other managerial matters.
  Mr. Herring obtained no satisfaction from Mr. Smerdon, which led to a lengthy dispute between the two men and other patrons of the club. As he left the ball, Mr. Herring was still awaiting the arrival of the police. There, Mr. Herring and his wife were outnumbered by people who were, in the main, worse for drink. A scuffle ensued, resulting in Mrs. Herring being pushed to the floor and receiving injuries. Mr. Herring did not respond, however, preferring to wait for the police to arrive to settle matters, which they duly did.
  Even though Mr. Herring felt that the group had behaved in a disorderly fashion—in addition to his wife being pushed to the ground, his car had been damaged—he accepted the police decision that the matter should be resolved as a civil dispute, and that no formal action should be taken. Everyone was advised accordingly—and that should have been the end of the matter.
  At this point, the following facts should be noted. When Mr. Herring made his complaint against the tennis club, Mr. Smerdon was unaware that Mr. Herring was a policeman. Mr. Smerdon became aware of that only after the incident. During the dispute at the lawn tennis club, Mr. Herring said that he would oppose any future application for an extension to the drinking hours that the lawn tennis club might submit to the local licensing committee.
  Mr. Herring believes that those facts could have encouraged Mr. Smerdon to make a formal complaint against him. Mr. Herring believes that Mr. Smerdon wanted to discredit him, thus ensuring that any objection that he might raise with the licensing committee with
  1050
  respect to an extension of drinking hours would be placed to one side. Mr. Smerdon could thus assert that Mr. Herring had been disciplined as a consequence of a complaint against the lawn tennis club, and that any objection that he might raise against an application would therefore be based on malice and should be rejected.
  Some weeks after the incident, Mr. Herring was made aware that the members of the lawn tennis club, alleging that he had acted in a discreditable manner, made a formal complaint against him. The investigation by the Merseyside police complaints and discipline department was, to say the least, thorough. Numerous statements were obtained, with far more vigour than a more serious complaint would normally receive. On one occasion, Mr. Herring asked for details of the guests at the club, a fact that the police would have known, to help him in the preparation of his defence. That request was denied.
  The disciplinary case against Mr. Herring was held in the early part of 1995. Mr. Herring was unable to attend that hearing because of injury. The case proceeded in his absence; and from one incident, he was found guilty of four charges of discreditable conduct.
  On 12 June 1995, the chief constable of Merseyside, Sir James Sharples, ordered Mr. Herring to resign from the force. Mr. Herring was also fined. In effect, merely for making a complaint of disorder, he had lost his job and his livelihood.
  Is that a reasonable response to such a complaint? If so, will the Home Secretary explain why Inspector Andrew Lathom, who was convicted of assault, was merely reduced in rank? Why was Constable Robert Dunne allowed to retire on medical grounds, having been accused of indecency, only to repeat the offence in retirement and later be convicted? Why was Constable Neil Thompson, who was suspended from duty for fabricating a statement of arrest, later reinstated as, it was said, it was not in the public interest to prosecute? Why was Constable Michael Meadows, who was arrested for twice crashing his motor car while drunk and leaving the scene, only reprimanded?
  All the officers guilty of those misdemeanours served Merseyside police. The examples given are not exhaustive; the details given are a matter of record. Can it be said that Mr. Herring's so-called crime of merely complaining about a noisy party—after 20 years of service—ranks above those?
  Mr. Herring was devastated. After 20 years of service, and for such a trivial matter, he was now unemployed, financially unstable and completely isolated. With the help of the Police Federation, Mr. Herring appealed. A distinguished panel, including a retired judge and a chief officer of police, heard his appeal. The findings are a matter of record.
  Although it accepted that Mr. Herring might have acted over-zealously in his approach, the panel unanimously found in his favour. The panel criticised Merseyside police for the late serving of discipline notices, and for preferring four charges to one global charge. They also criticised the fact that a staff appraisal had been submitted at the hearing, which flew in the face of all other excellent reports—and was, moreover, prepared by an individual whom Mr. Herring had never met. In all, the tribunal felt that Mr. Herring should never have been dismissed, and that, even if he were guilty as charged, he should receive no more than a reprimand.

  1051
  Mr. Herring's relief was short-lived. The findings were sent to the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who chose to overturn them. Mr. Herring's appeal was dismissed. Mr. Herring firmly believed that that decision was the result of a direct intervention by the chief constable to ensure that he never had the chance to return to work, and thus be a potential irritant to the police on Merseyside.
  Unfortunately, that was not the end of the matter. In September 1996, the Blundellsands tennis club held yet another summer ball. Once again, Mr. Herring and his neighbours were disturbed by the noise of the ball. Mr. Herring called the police, and the music was turned down for a while. As the music level rose, Mr. Herring rang the police again, and, receiving no response, appealed to Mr. Smerdon, who, it should be remembered, had been a witness in the disciplinary hearing that led to Mr. Herring's dismissal.
  Following the advice of officers in the environmental services department—and fortunately for him, as it transpired—Mr. Herring took the precaution of carrying with him a small, concealed tape recorder so that there could be no dispute about what took place—the noise levels and so on.
  After Mr. Herring appealed to Mr. Smerdon, Mr. Smerdon responded by ridiculing Mr. Herring. He belittled him, and even taunted him about freemasons and about his own acquaintance with senior police officers who were also freemasons. Despite that, Mr. Herring acted in a restrained and dignified way, as he had in September 1993. However, just before the police arrived—the police Mr. Herring had summoned—Mr. Smerdon suddenly accused Mr. Herring of spitting in his face. That was nonsense, and all present knew it, including a bystander who commented to that effect at the time.
  When the two police officers arrived, they were apprised of the allegation, and immediately demanded that Mr. Herring go with them to the station. Knowing that he had done no wrong, Mr. Herring naturally agreed. Having been told that he was under arrest to prevent a breach of the peace, Mr. Herring was taken to Crosby police station. He was searched, given his rights and placed in a cell. Two hours later, the arresting officer returned with a statement from Mr. Smerdon alleging that he had been assaulted. Mr. Herring denied the offence, and was released without charge, awaiting the decision of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.
  Papers will show that the police decided to pursue the prosecution after noting that Mr. Herring had raised a complaint against them. On 14 February, the case was heard before South Sefton magistrates court in Bootle. In evidence, Mr. Smerdon, who was still unaware of the existence of the tape recording, confidently described how Mr. Herring had sworn and spat at him. He added that he was not given to aggressive behaviour.
  Sergeant Foulkes followed Mr. Smerdon. Sergeant Foulkes described how he went to Mr. Herring and did everything according to procedure: how he had cautioned him outside the house, how he had taken hold of Mr. Herring, and how Mr. Herring had verbally objected. The sergeant, when asked whether he was
  1052
  sure of all the circumstances, was adamant in his response. He was certain that he was telling the absolute truth. He was not mistaken, he could clearly recall the incident, and he was certainly not lying. A second police officer, WPC Martin, who was called to give evidence at a later stage, gave evidence identical in every respect.
  At this point, Mr. Herring then introduced to the court his tape recording, which clearly demonstrated that Mr. Smerdon, Sergeant Foulkes and WPC Martin had been lying. Having been told of the tape, Mr. Smerdon was instructed by the court clerk that he was not to inform anyone of its existence. He ignored this instruction and rushed out of the court at the first available opportunity to the lobby outside, saying loudly,
  "He's taped the whole bloody incident."
  In due course, Mr. Smerdon was brought before the court and fined £100 for contempt of court.
  The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon said that he was "exceptionally calm" and "never swore". The tape revealed that he said:
  "Bog off, pratt features, piss off."
  The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon said, "The defendant swore." The tape reveals that the defendant did not swear.
  The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon said:
  "Don't you dare push me."
  The tape revealed that Mr. Smerdon did not say that. In fact, the defendant said, "Don't touch me." The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon said that he told Mr. Ward, the commissionaire for the evening, to call the police if the defendant did not leave immediately. The tape reveals that this conversation did not take place. The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon stated that he was "truthful and honest". That comment is not consistent with the evidence heard on the tape.
  The court transcript records that Mr. Smerdon stated that, after the spitting incident, he went directly to make a phone call. The tape shows that Mr. Smerdon remained in discussion and made bird noises and impersonations. The court transcript records that Mr. Ward stated that Mr. Smerdon said:
  "Did you see that man spit at me?"
  The tape reveals that Mr. Smerdon said:
  "Did you see that, Sergeant?"
  The court transcript records that Mr. Ward stated:
  "I don't recall Smerdon being abusive—didn't hear him swearing."
  The tape reveals that Mr. Ward was present when Mr. Smerdon said:
  "Piss off, bog off, pratt features",
  and when he made bird impressions. The court transcript records that Sergeant Foulkes said:
  "Spoke to defendant opposite club—he came up to me when I pulled up."
  The tape reveals that WPC Martin stated that they met in the garden. The court transcript records that Sergeant Foulkes stated on arrival, "Defendant quite happy." The tape reveals that this was not the case. The court transcript records that WPC Martin stated that the music level was quiet. The tape reveals that the music was clearly loud.

  1053
  The court transcript records that WPC Martin stated:
  "Defendant seemed to be arguing with Smerdon";
  and also:
  "Smerdon said defendant was glaring and that there was an altercation."
  The tape reveals that this was incorrect.
  Sergeant Foulkes stated that he had cautioned Mr. Herring and arrested him immediately at the scene—he lied. Both officers said that they had made their detailed pocket notebook entries independently. Clearly, they lied. Both officers said that they had spoken to another witness, Mr. Ward, outside the club premises. Again, they lied.
  Following the playing of the tape recording in court, the case collapsed and a new complaint and discipline inquiry began. Mr. Herring, now the complainant, alleged perjury, unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution. Sergeant Foulkes said that his arrest took place outside his home address; he lied on oath, as his arrest took place in the police car. When he asked for an outside force to investigate the complaint to ensure impartiality, his request was denied. Only after 14 months, with the direct intervention of myself and a senior member of the Police Complaints Authority, was the inquiry passed to the Lancashire constabulary. An officer of appropriate rank is still to be appointed to investigate the case.
  But what have Merseyside police done to address the grave issues raised in Mr. Herring's complaint? Some 15 months after the collapse of the case, Mr. Herring has heard nothing, and the two police officers are still going about their business. Mr. Herring's life has been devastated by the sequence of events, yet he has nothing to show for what has happened to him, except extreme anxiety and a complete and utter loss of health and peace of mind.
  I cannot underestimate the consequences of this matter for Mr. Herring's family: they have been truly catastrophic. Having destroyed his life, Merseyside police are seeking to preclude Mr. Herring from gaining access to his pension. It is accepted that such action may be considered only against persons who have committed a grave and serious crime. Is complaining about a noisy party a grave and serious crime?
  I seek justice for Mr. Herring. I want the original complaint against him quashed in the light of the fact that one of the key complainants was a known perjurer. I want to know what action Merseyside police intend to take against the two police officers and Mr. Smerdon, and why they did not act earlier. I want to know why an officer who was found guilty of a minor incivility has been dismissed, while other officers, who have committed more serious offences, are treated more leniently. Is the Home Secretary confident that Merseyside police are capable of executing disciplinary procedures in a fair and equitable manner?
  I want to know to what extent freemasonry is a factor in Mr. Herring's downfall. It is rare for a person who plays the masonic card to be found out. In this case, a tape recording exists in which Mr. Smerdon is heard invoking the support of the freemasons movement. Has Mr. Smerdon enjoyed the assistance of Merseyside police in other matters? Are we comfortable that police officers
  1054
  who commit perjury are allowed to work among the public, and may be—and have been—called to give evidence on oath? Is it fair that the Home Secretary should be the final arbiter of police disciplinary and employment matters? Should he have the power to overturn the findings of a tribunal, which is what happened to Mr. Herring?
  I note that the Home Secretary has ordered a review of the PCA. I hope that it will consider the issues surrounding the discipline of police officers, the prosecution of police officers who have done wrong, and the role of tribunals and of the Home Secretary. I also hope that an open and fair system of police discipline will emerge for the benefit of other officers, but I suspect that it will be too late to help Mr. Herring.
  1.47 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on securing the debate, and on her coherent account of a complex matter. It is difficult to provide a response that is both brief and adequate. A short question often deserves a detailed answer. In the little time available to me, I will respond as fully as I can. I will, however, respond in more detail when I write to her. Each question that she asked at the end of her speech could provide a thesis for a chapter of responses.
  The issues surrounding police complaints, discipline and corruption are important and complex. The thrust of my hon. Friend's argument is that members of Merseyside police are corrupt and have committed perjury. Those are extremely grave allegations, and, if they can be substantiated, the Government will whole-heartedly support all efforts to bring such people to justice.
  My hon. Friend made a general point about the need for a reform of the system. I assure her that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has responded to the House on the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee. Steps are in train to reform and improve the police complaints system and disciplinary procedures.
  My hon. Friend specifically mentioned the existence of a tape recording. She underlined the importance of the evidence provided by it. I am informed that, to date, Mr. Herring has not provided that tape to the investigating officer, to the supervising member of the PCA or to an independent professional organisation for analysis. Through my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, I urge Mr. Herring to enable that tape to be examined. It is crucial for the consideration of the points that have been raised.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I want to raise one matter about the investigating officer, who has not yet been appointed. When he or she is appointed, the tape can be submitted, but until then it cannot be.
  Mr. Michael: It is a question of the pros and cons of the process. As to the appointment of an officer to undertake the work, there were substantial delays in progressing the investigation, which is regrettable. One difficulty is that, on being told that a chief inspector had been appointed as the investigating officer under the supervision of the PCA, Mr. Herring said that his complaint included officers of a higher rank, and a higher-ranking investigating officer had to be appointed.

  1055
  I believe that that difficulty has been resolved, in that a complaint against a superintendent has been completed and a report has been made to the PCA. No action will be taken on that report until the allegations against other officers have been dealt with. I understand that Mr. Herring accepted that a chief inspector is of a suitable rank for that investigation. However, a further difficulty has arisen, which suggests that it may be necessary to appoint yet another investigating officer. The PCA therefore set in train the necessary action to find an alternative.
  If a complainant fails to co-operate with an investigation within a reasonable time, the PCA will agree to undertake a limited investigation without that co-operation. In this case, the PCA was concerned about the nature of Mr. Herring's allegations, and it was well aware of the potential importance to the investigation of the tape that was made of the incident by the complainant himself.
  It is for those reasons that the PCA gave Mr. Herring an exceptional length of time to provide the tape. It also took the unusual step of enabling Mr. Herring to co-operate without handing his tape over to the Merseyside police, which would be the normal way forward. Handing over the tape is crucial for the completion of the inquiry. Two alternatives are open.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. If the hon. Lady wants the Minister—or any other hon. Member—to give way, she should stand up and ask him to do so.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I want to respond to some of the Minister's points. I receive all Mr. Herring's mail, and I am acutely aware of all of the correspondence that he has received and of what it contains. Moreover, because of Mr. Herring's health difficulties, I have undertaken to respond to his mail on his behalf. There have been considerable frustrations about the appointment of an officer of suitable rank, but, as far as I am aware, there are no outstanding matters between Mr. Herring and the PCA.
  Mr. Michael: My understanding is that there is one very important piece of outstanding business—the provision of the tape.
  Our debate shows that simple questions sometimes need complex answers, and that the Chamber is not always the ideal forum in which to do so. Mr. Herring has two options that will help to progress his complaint. First, if he agrees to meet the new investigating officer and the PCA supervisor to establish the precise complaints that he wishes to be investigated—and if he gives the investigating officer his tape recording of the incident in question—a full investigation will be completed, and the PCA will assess the investigating officer's report to ensure that the work was undertaken thoroughly and impartially. When the PCA is satisfied that that is the case, it will issue an interim statement to that effect.
  If there is a possibility of a criminal charge against any officer, the file will be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service for its consideration and action. If there is no criminal charge, the file will be submitted to
  1056
  the assistant chief constable of Merseyside police, who will prepare his recommendations for any disciplinary action or training for the relevant officers.
  These recommendations and the full file will be submitted to the Police Complaints Authority for a final decision on any disciplinary action.
  Secondly, if Mr. Herring does not agree both to a statement clearly specifying his complaints, and to handing over his tapes to the investigating officer, the investigating officer will complete a limited investigation on the information available. In that event, the investigating officer would write to Mr. Herring giving a clear deadline by which his co-operation would be required.
  I must reinforce the point that, unless the full evidence is in the hands of the Police Complaints Authority to enable the investigating officer to have possession of that evidence and to be able to undertake his inquiries, it is difficult to understand how progress can be made.
  That is only one element of the issues raised by my hon. Friend. I have a great deal of sympathy with Mr. Herring's situation. Whatever the rights and wrongs of his claims, the loss of his job, the stress of the court appearance on an assault charge, the separation from and recent untimely death of his wife are traumas from which recovery will inevitably be painful.
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: My hon. Friend made a comment that is factually untrue. Mr. Herring was never separated from his wife, although it is true that she suffered an untimely death. That is indicative of the sort of unsubstantiated information that has been passed around about Mr. Herring, and which does nothing to assist his character or reputation.
  Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting that factual information. She raised a debate covering complex and personal issues affecting an individual. She raised that debate in this Chamber, so I must try to respond in this Chamber, but it is not always the best place for proper discussion of complex and personal issues.
  It would not be productive in the time available to engage in an argument with my hon. Friend on precisely what happened outside the Blundellsands tennis club on the night of 11 and 12 September 1993. She will appreciate that other points of view exist as to the facts and their interpretation. The Chamber is neither a court of law nor a tribunal, in which different views can be adequately heard and adjudicated upon. That task must be undertaken through the police complaints procedure.
  The conclusion of an investigation of the complaint against Mr. Herring led to his being charged with four disciplinary offences. Following the events described, a hearing was arranged for January 1995, when Mr. Herring was represented by counsel, although he himself was unable to attend. There was an adjournment, and in May 1995 the hearing was resumed.
  After hearing the evidence, the chief constable found Mr. Herring guilty of all four charges, and there was a further adjournment to allow him to see the most recent appraisal report on him. At the resumed hearing in June 1995, the chief constable, having taken account of the circumstances of the offences, evidence of mitigation and

  1057
  Mr. Herring's record of service, required him to resign from the force for two of the offences, and fined him for the other two.
  That is when Mr. Herring exercised his right of appeal to the Home Secretary. As is normal in the majority of cases, the appeal was referred to a tribunal to inquire into the case. Appeal tribunals comprise three members. They are chaired by a lawyer, usually a QC, and the other two members are a retired chief constable and a retired member of the Police Federation.
  My hon. Friend implied that determination of the disciplinary appeal amounts to ratification of the views and recommendations of the tribunal. I assure her from personal experience that that is not so. The statutory position—it is a responsibility in law—is that the Home Secretary is obliged to make his own decision. I can testify from my experience since the general election that that is what actually happens.
  In determining the appeal, the Home Secretary took account of the tribunal's views, as he is required to do. He is also required to consider any matters of concern
  1058
  identified by the tribunal, and I understand that that is what happened. In his view, there was evidence of mistaken information, but, overall and most crucially, he was satisfied that none of the areas of concern identified by the tribunal was such as to have resulted in unfairness to Mr. Herring.
  The Home Secretary considered all the material that had been submitted with the appeal, including particulars of the offences, Mr. Herring's record of service and evidence of character, and evidence relating to Mr. Herring's mental state at the time of the incident. Mr. Herring also submitted a letter for consideration in his appeal.
  My hon. Friend said that the Home Secretary's decision not to accept the tribunal's recommendation to allow the appeal was suspected to have been the result of direct intervention by the chief constable. I can state categorically—
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  The Chancellor was asked—
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Official Duties
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: What involvement he has had in his official capacity with the city of Lancaster since May 1997.[43495]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): On 1 September last year, I visited Lancaster castle and magistrates courts and had discussions with the chairmen of the advisory sub-committees in Lancashire, lieutenancy staff and local magistrates. Last month, I was present at the installation of Eric Jones as the new constable of Lancaster castle, which was attended by many local dignitaries from the city of Lancaster and the county of Lancashire, and I was delighted to have the company of the two local Members of Parliament.
    Mr. Dawson: I thank my right hon.—my thoroughly honourable—Friend for that answer, for the skill and dedication that he has brought to the public service and for the knowledge and commitment that he has demonstrated in his unique role in relation to the Crown, the state and Lancaster. As someone who knows the city well, he will share my delight that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has explicitly ruled out any change in the title and function of the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that Lancaster is a beautiful city, abundant in history, a cultural gem, and a superb place to visit and in which to invest and do business? Does he further agree. that, when the mayor of Lancaster, the constable of the castle and I plant the red rose of Lancaster—rosa officinalis—in the grounds of Her Majesty's chapel of the Savoy next week, we shall be celebrating not only Lancaster's history but its future as the centre of a vibrant north-west region?
    Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend made sure that we are all aware of his pride, which I share, in the city that he represents and in which I worked for a number of years. I was delighted to be at the installation of Eric Jones who, as a soldier, a trade unionist, a city and county councillor, a magistrate and a freeman of the city, was an ideal candidate for the post of constable. I felt that we were giving a little bit of the castle back to the citizens.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Colin Pickthall: If he will undertake studies into the quality and timeliness of replies by civil servants to members of the public. [43496]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Departments generally have arrangements in place to monitor the timeliness and quality of replies to correspondence from the public. I intend shortly to place in the Library information on
    1060
    the performance of the main Departments and agencies in handling such correspondence and against the five other service standards for central Government. This will be the first time that such information has been made available. That shows our commitment to open government and to reporting transparently on our performance.
    Mr. Pickthall: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that some responses from civil servants in some Whitehall Departments to members of the public have taken the form of standard letters that are so old as to be irrelevant or are not attached to Government policy? As part of the programme that he outlined, will he encourage monitoring to ensure that replies from civil servants to members of the public are rapid, relevant and at least congruent with Government policy?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: As my hon. Friend knows, responsibility lies with the Departments and agencies involved, but if there are such instances—rare, I am sure—and he can give me details, I undertake to ensure that his views are brought before the Ministers responsible for the correspondence concerned.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: After the truly repulsive sycophancy of the question from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), does the Minister agree that it is not civil servants from whom our colleagues have trouble getting replies to letters but Ministers? In his review, which we welcome, will he undertake to draw it to the attention of Ministers and Departments when their standards fall lamentably short of those required by the common decency and courtesy of the House of Commons?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We intend to ensure that Departments that are not meeting their own targets are reminded of them: hence the publication of information about those targets, which is an increasing feature of the openness of this Government. Civil servants, in the main, act according to the directives given them by their political masters. Responsibility falls fairly and squarely on elected politicians to ensure that targets are met and that civil servants are duly motivated.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: My hon. Friend is right in his last remarks. Will he therefore examine carefully the habit, into which some Departments fell under the previous Government, of diverting correspondence to several agencies? That is not a good idea and not to be encouraged. Members of Parliament who write on behalf of their constituents are entitled to ministerial replies.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: As my hon. Friend asked, I undertake to bring to the attention of the responsible Ministers issues in which she is not getting the satisfactory form of reply that she has every right to expect.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I stress to the hon. Gentleman that it is the timeliness and quality of ministerial replies, which are, after all, often drafted by civil servants, that is causing widespread concern throughout the House. Will he undertake to investigate the time scale in every Department? I had a letter from

    1061
    the Home Office last week in reply to one sent in February. Such delays are unacceptable. Will he make his inquiries as wide-ranging as possible?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: We shall continue to monitor and evaluate the performance of Departments. I stress that, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the responsibility of Departments to ensure that the performance targets that they set are met.

    Freedom of Information
    Maria Eagle: What assessment he has made of the likely interaction between the process of discovery of documentation in civil proceedings or in contemplation of proceedings and the citizen's right to freedom of information where a potential party to proceedings is a Government Department or agency.[43497]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The process of discovery of documents in civil proceedings will not be affected by our freedom of information proposals. Departments that are parties to civil proceedings will not be unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged by freedom of information.
    Maria Eagle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that interesting reply. Is he aware that, in parts of Whitehall, there is some resistance to freedom of information? In introducing legislation to implement the new right of information for the citizen, will he be careful to ensure that that right is as wide as the White Paper said that it should be and that it will not be restricted by appeals to the law, and to the civil law in particular, about restrictions that currently apply?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: As I said in my original answer, it is absolutely our intention to ensure that no one is advantaged or disadvantaged. Of course we intend to publish the freedom of information Bill in draft. There will be an opportunity then for my hon. Friend to make her representations on any technical or drafting points that may or may not need to be improved.
    Mr. Barry Jones: What provision he has made for future consultation on his proposals for freedom of information legislation. [43498]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): I shall be publishing a draft Bill for public consultation and consideration by the Select Committee on Public Administration. That will continue the effective and successful process of consultation that began last December.
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Is it his certainty that, in the lifetime of this Parliament, we shall see legislation enacted?
    Dr. Clark: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I believe that open government is good government. As a first step towards that, I have produced a radical and ground-breaking White Paper. In our manifesto, we made it clear that we intended to introduce legislation on freedom of information, to sweep away the secrecy that
    1062
    has hindered good government in this country. I am working with colleagues to ensure that this long-overdue legislation is ready for consideration for inclusion in the Queen's Speech later this year. I emphasise that no one in the House wants to see that implemented more than I do.

    Electronic Government
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: What assessment he has made of the public response to his proposals for electronic government. [43499]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): Information technology is the key to improving services for everyone in our society. I firmly believe that the emphasis must be on ease of access. Great potential exists for the Government to deliver information and services to our citizens at the time and place of their choosing and by the method that is most convenient to them. I am determined to make the best of the technology on offer to make sure that service in the public sector is not second best to service in the private sector.
    Mr. Gerrard: If we are to have Government services delivered by electronic means, is it not important that they are easy to use and accessible? Is my right hon. Friend aware that significant numbers of people still cannot afford computers and that elderly people in particular do not feel comfortable using them? What is he doing to ensure that the needs of those people are not forgotten and that services available electronically are accessible to as many people as possible?
    Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. Technology is not an end in itself; it is there to make people's lives easier. I lay great stress on technology improving access for all. I do not want a society of IT haves and have nots to develop. I am formulating a range of initiatives to ensure that that does not happen. I was delighted that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport endorsed that approach. I should point out to the House that, in 10 to 15 years, in an age of digital television, people will have access to services from their own front room as a matter of course. I make the commitment from this Dispatch Box that, at no stage, will we phase in technology without making the paper alternative available for those who are more comfortable with it. We are also conscious that there are difficulties for people with certain types of disability, and we are taking those issues on board.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: Does the Chancellor accept that new technology can obfuscate as much as illuminate? For example, letters can be churned out by computer. The Benefits Agency seems to write to all claimants by computer-processed letters, which often are not clear and do not explain why benefit has not been granted. Will the Chancellor look at that? Often, the most vulnerable people in our society need to have information presented clearly to them and the fact that it is done by new technology does not necessarily make the information any clearer.
    Dr. Clark: I would not pretend for a moment that we can conduct Government business without using new

    1063
    technologies such as computers and processors, but I shall draw to the attention of the Benefits Agency the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. I know that it is a matter of concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House; our constituents continually remind us of it.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Any news on Genesis?
    Dr. Clark: In the beginning—but my hon. Friend and I both know what he is really talking about. I guess that he is referring to an innovative IT scheme being launched by the county of Cumbria. My Department is working with the county to try to expand the use of that technology, which will revolutionise access to services in Cumbria. Together with my hon. Friend and our hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), I was delighted to launch the scheme and to link up two schools which are in the same local authority district, but 100 miles apart. That made me realise the implications of such technology.
    Sir George Young: The House may recall recently seeing a photograph of the right hon. Gentleman holding a prototype of an electronic red box. How many of his colleagues have placed a firm order for this device and what improvements in public service should we begin to look out for?
    Dr. Clark: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post. I hope that he finds it worth while and enjoyable, and that he will have long tenure in it.
    The electronic red box, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, is a prototype—
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Ah!
    Dr. Clark: The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) recognises that, even if the hon. Gentleman does not. We are now looking at the next prototype, which will be much smaller—the size of a laptop. Within the next few weeks, we hope to be able to share its secrets with the world.
    We are now looking at the possibility of biometric recognition—reading a person's iris—to open up the red box. When that is up and running, I believe that it will revolutionise the work of Ministers and ensure that, wherever they are in the world, they will have access to the Government secure intranet.

    Internet
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: If he will make a statement about the use of the internet by Government Departments. [43500]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): I was staggered on coming to office to discover that Government Departments could not communicate with each other electronically; nor could they even e-mail each other. One of my key priorities was to put that right. I recently launched the Government secure intranet, which makes it possible for Government Departments to have safe, controlled and
    1064
    high-performance access to the internet. For the first time, Government Departments can communicate electronically with each other and also with citizens and business.
    More importantly, the service is being used. At the launch of the GSI, just over 4,000 civil servants had e-mail access—that was just six weeks ago. The number has now risen to more than 12,000, and it will continue to increase. By the end of the year, I hope that every Government Department will be connected.
    Mr. Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer in respect of Westminster and Whitehall. How can people such as those in my constituency who live in more sparsely populated areas expect the technology revolution to help and empower them, so that they, as citizens, can take part in government to the fullest extent?
    Dr. Clark: We are keen to use IT for the benefit of our citizens. I happen to believe that those, such as my hon. Friend's constituents, who live in more rural areas, will be among the main beneficiaries. Instead of having to traipse from one Government office to another—that can often mean from one town to another in rural areas—they will find that information technology, one-stop shops and highly motivated staff will allow them access to Government services across Departments, and even possibly across central and local government, at one point of access.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Would the need for electronic communication be less urgent if more senior Ministers were on speaking terms with each other?
    Dr. Clark: Under this Government, Ministers speak to each other both electronically and personally.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend mentioned the number of civil servants with an e-mail address rising from 4,000 to 12,000. What provision is being made to archive e-mail communications, which might otherwise disappear into the ether and be lost to history?
    Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point and the matter is one with which we have had to wrestle as we develop our freedom of information legislation. We have to try to ensure that electronic communications and electronic records are kept for the record and we are making provisions for that to be done.

    Property Holdings
    Mr. David Heath: If he plans to require (a) Government Departments and (b) public bodies to establish, maintain and make available to public inspection computer-held terriers of property holdings. [43501]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Individual Departments, agencies and other public bodies are responsible for establishing and maintaining proper records of their property holdings, following central guidance. All such information held by those bodies would come within the scope of the proposed freedom of information Act.
    Mr. Heath: Is the hon. Gentleman as surprised as I am at the paucity of information on public bodies' property

    1065
    holdings? Would not a comprehensive property record held in an appropriate form have the potential to improve efficiency, reduce costs in use, increase occupancy rates and improve services to the public?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that there is such as thing as the national assets register, which was published initially on 24 November last year. Details of those assets, including property holdings, are published on the internet and are accessible to the wider public.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that there is such as thing as the national assets register, which was published initially on 24 November last year. Details of those assets, including property holdings, are published on the internet and are accessible to the wider public.

    Freedom of Information
    Mr. Ivor Caplin: If he will make a statement on the report of the Select Committee on Public Administration on the Government's proposals for a freedom of information Act (HC 398). [43502]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): I welcome the Committee's report, which sets out a clear general endorsement of our proposals for a freedom of information Act. The report is a key element in the overall consultation process and we are studying all of the Committee's detailed recommendations carefully.
    Mr. Caplin: I quote from the PAC report—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—which states:
    "A Freedom of Information Act is long overdue."
    We are allowed to quote.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should read the report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Caplin: Conservative Members should know better. Is that not symptomatic of 18 years of Tory rule?
    Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster give an assurance that the report's 40 or so recommendations and conclusions on freedom of information will be given the utmost consideration in the generation of a freedom of information Bill?
    Dr. Clark: I am particularly impressed by the Committee's report, because it raises certain important issues that have not been raised before. For example, its pertinent comments on coverage in Scotland following devolution and the interrelationship between freedom of information and data protection have certainly influenced my thinking.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the Chancellor accept that not only the Committee but most people who are anxious to open up and improve the quality of government welcome his White Paper, back his personal commitment to it and hope to see legislation at the earliest possible date? For the timetable on introducing legislation to slip would be a serious setback to the Government's goal of opening up decision making.
    Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman has a long record in this area, so I appreciate his kind comments. I repeat what I said earlier: no one in the House is keener than
    1066
    I am to get the draft Bill on to the statute book. No decision has been taken that will have delayed in any way consideration of that legislation for inclusion in the Queen's Speech later this year.

    Elderly People
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: What proposals he has to improve the delivery of Government services to the elderly. [43503]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Last week, we launched the better government for older people programme, which aims to improve public services for older people by better meeting their needs, listening to their views and encouraging and recognising their contribution.
    Mr. Blizzard: I welcome the better government for elderly people project. When the 28 pilot schemes have been evaluated, will the best examples be rolled out nationwide?
    Elderly people in my constituency complain from time to time that they have written to Government Departments and not received a reply. I have encouraged them to make their points through me, but I have sometimes had to wait up to three months for a reply, and then not received a reply signed by a Minister. Before I came to the House, the council that I led had to publish each year the percentage of replies that it had made within a certain period. Will my hon. Friend consider introducing league tables for Government Departments, so that they would reply within specified times?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The short answer to my hon. Friend's question about league tables is no, simply because we would not be comparing like with like. Nevertheless, we are publishing the material that has always been published on the efficiency of replies to hon. Members, and we shall shortly publish for the first time the figures for correspondence between the public and Government.
    On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is true that we shall roll out the lessons to be learned from the 28 pilots. Before then, we are networking those 28 authorities with the other 36 authorities that wanted to be part of such an adventurous pilot scheme, but could not be. As the schemes roll out for the first two years, those authorities will also benefit from the good practice.
    Mr. Eric Forth: If league tables are good enough for hospitals and schools, why are they not good enough for Government Departments? Following the excellent question from the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), will the Minister consider publishing the proportion of ministerial letters that hon. Members eventually get that are not signed by the Minister?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I recall crossing swords with the right hon. Gentleman in the past on the subject of league tables. He will recall that the argument always centred on whether they were meaningful comparisons. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), one cannot compare unlike Departments with each other. The comparisons would not be valid.

    Freedom of Information
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When he next intends to visit the Macclesfield constituency to discuss his responsibilities for freedom of information in government. [43504]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): Sadly, I have no plans to visit the fair constituency of Macclesfield but, if I were there, I should take great pleasure in highlighting the Government's proud record on their plans for freedom of information.
    Mr. Winterton: I am eternally grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that courteous response, but if he visited Macclesfield, I am sure that he would not be surprised to learn that my constituents wonder whether his responsibilities extend to other Government Ministers, such as Baroness Symons, who failed to declare that she had been fully briefed by Customs and Excise on the activities of Sandline before she made her statement in the other place.
    Dr. Clark: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is right, and that that is all that people talk about in the constituency of Macclesfield. We already have an independent inquiry into the issue, and we have an effective Select Committee. I am happy and satisfied that those two bodies will get to the truth of the matter.
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: When he expects to finalise his proposals relating to freedom of information; and if he will make a statement. [43505]
    Dr. David Clark: We are making good progress in turning the policy proposals set out in our radical White Paper on the freedom of information into draft legislation. I greatly welcome the support of the Select Committee on Public Administration in its recent substantial report on our proposals. My colleagues and I are now considering carefully the Committee's detailed recommendations. When we have done so, we shall publish a draft bill, again for consultation with the general public and the Select Committee.
    Mr. Canavan: Would not freedom of information be enhanced by ensuring that all Ministers and their permanent under-secretaries told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to Parliament and to parliamentary Select Committees without having to be warned that, if they did not, they will be in contempt of Parliament?
    Dr. Clark: Yes.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Do the Chancellor's freedom of information proposals require him to tell the House what witnesses will be called before the Legg inquiry?
    Dr. Clark: No, they do not.
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on his proposals for freedom of information legislation. [43506]
    Dr. David Clark: My proposals for a radical freedom of information Act set out in the White Paper "Your Right
    1068
    to Know" have been widely welcomed both in public consultation and, more recently, in a report by the Select Committee on Public Administration. I am considering those views and will publish a draft Bill as soon as possible to take forward the whole process.
    Mr. Chapman: I join the Select Committee in welcoming the proposals for the freedom of information Act. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the radicalism encompassed therein will be carried through when a Bill is brought forward?
    Dr. Clark: The Government have a manifesto commitment to bring forward a freedom of information Act, and we shall do that. The White Paper set out our commitment to the basic tenets contained in that document, which remain the same today as when they were published last December. We are currently engaged in translating them into draft legislation so that the Select Committee may examine the Bill word by word and line by line in the pre-legislative stage. That will ensure that, when we bring forward this very complicated legislation, it will not only serve its purpose but be in line legalistically.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Don Touhig: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today. I hope to keep an eye on the Scotland-Brazil game, and I am sure that the whole House joins me in wishing the Scottish and English teams the best of luck in the World cup.
    Mr. Touhig: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the statement made by a Conservative that he would be proud to act like a football hooligan in defence of the rights of the hereditary peerage? I am sure that all hon. Members believe that football hooligans are a mindless lot and would want to condemn that statement. Will my right hon. Friend condemn it and, further, assure the House that the Government are determined to end the right of hereditary peers to sit in Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: I confirm that. It is not just the injustice of hereditary peers sitting in the other place and making laws; there is an in-built majority of three to one in perpetuity for the Conservative party in the House of Lords, irrespective of who wins the general election. The Salisbury convention exists for that very reason and I hope that the Conservative party will not do anything to break it. I challenge the Opposition to deny that they will. If they do break it, that will be the greatest constitutional outrage of all.
    Mr. William Hague: The Prime Minister has always said that Ministers who knowingly

    1069
    mislead Parliament must resign. Last month, Baroness Symons said that when she answered questions on 10 March all she knew about an investigation into Sandline was what she had read in a newspaper. We now know from the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office that that was not the case. Has the Prime Minister asked for her resignation?
    The Prime Minister: No, I certainly have not. Furthermore, I believe that there is no evidence whatever that Baroness Symons has deliberately misled the House of Lords or anyone else.
    Mr. Hague: Does it not concern the Prime Minister that the Foreign Secretary has spoken several times about this affair in the House—the Prime Minister may not be aware of that as he is hardly ever here—yet every answer he has given has implied that no Minister knew about the investigation until mid-April? Is it not absolutely clear from evidence given to the Select Committee yesterday that at least one Minister was informed in early March? Did the Minister fail to tell the Foreign Secretary or did the Foreign Secretary fail to tell the House?
    The Prime Minister: No. Neither. First, on the subject of my attendance in the House—I point this out again to the right hon. Gentleman—I have answered more oral questions in my first year of office than did my predecessor in his last year in office. Also, I have made more statements and spent more time answering questions in the House. I say that so that we all get the facts.
    As for the Sandline matter, an inquiry is in place. From what I have seen, I repeat that there is no evidence—indeed, there is not a shred of evidence—that any Ministers have deliberately misled anybody, or any evidence in support of the original allegation, which is that they have taken part in a great conspiracy to supply arms in breach of a United Nations arms embargo. There is not a shred of evidence to support that allegation and there never has been. This is simply an example of an Opposition with nothing to say about anything serious.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister obviously hopes that he reaches his reshuffle before the truth catches up with his Ministers. Is not the worst thing about this entire affair what it tells us about the condition of the Foreign Office—a Department of state known for its diplomacy and professionalism that has been reduced in one year to a place where telegrams are sent but never arrive, where answers are given but have to be retracted, where papers are submitted but no one ever reads them and where Ministers do not know what is happening in their own offices, let alone overseas? And it is presided over by a Foreign Secretary who boasts that he does not need to finish the paperwork. Can the Prime Minister put his hand on his heart and say that he is proud of his Foreign Office team?
    The Prime Minister: Let me say what those questions indicate about the Opposition. We have India and Pakistan and all the problems of nuclear proliferation. We have Kosovo and instability in the Balkans. The middle east peace process is stalled and we have Eritrea and Ethiopia. We have the upcoming European Union summit.
    1070
    Those are the issues that I expect the Foreign Office to concentrate on. If we had a serious Opposition, they would concentrate on those issues.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week's increase in interest rates was greeted with dismay in areas such as he and I represent, which depend on exports and manufacturing for their prosperity? Is my right hon. Friend just a little afraid that in our two-speed economy employment growth in the hard-hit regions will always be undermined by monetary policy that is aimed at the overheating regions?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I understand the concern at any interest rate rise, but the very worst thing that could happen is that by not taking action to produce monetary stability and financial prudence we would return to the conditions that we had under the Conservative Government, when we had interest rates of 15 per cent. for a year, record repossessions, record borrowing and record bankruptcies. That would be the worst thing of all for British industry. There are difficult decisions, but they are the right decisions and we shall continue to pursue the right policies for the long-term strength of the country.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Prime Minister is aware that the decision whether to close four hospitals and a maternity unit in Cornwall now rests entirely with the Secretary of State for Health, and has done since February. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delay in taking a decision is severely lowering morale and that some staff are seeking alternative employment, which may effectively close the hospitals simply because there is delay in making a decision?
    Can the Prime Minister try to speed up the decision so that the four hospitals and the maternity unit can celebrate the 50th anniversary of the national health service in the knowledge that they have a secure future?
    The Prime Minister: I speak from memory, but I seem to recall that the chairman of the health authority has indicated that the health authority's original decision was not taken primarily on cost grounds. However, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that of course we want to ensure that a decision is taken as quickly as possible. There have been many representations about the matter and we want to ensure that the decision is taken in the right way.
    Mr. Bill Michie: When my right hon. Friend talks to his ministerial colleagues on the outcome of the consultation paper on the modernisation of local government, will he reflect on previous Governments' attitude that local government is an expensive luxury rather than an essential part of our democratic system? If the Government want people to vote in local elections and value local government, the House should set an example by giving credit where credit is due and refinancing the services that have been devastated for decades.
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to pay tribute to the vast majority of local government and local councillors, who do an excellent job on behalf of their local communities. As we have set out recently, it is obviously

    1071
    why important that we try to modernise the institutions of local government, but we are well aware that local authorities are essential in delivering the best public services for people, which is one reason why we have put additional money into schools for this financial year and hope to put in additional money in future years. We want to decentralise power to them, but we also want to reform and modernise them so that they provide efficiency and best value.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Our first and firm aim, of course, must be for a diplomatic solution in Kosovo, but is not one of the lessons of Bosnia that diplomacy seems to work rather better with President Milosevic if it is backed by a clear and credible threat of compulsion?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with that entirely, and it is precisely why we are trying to arrange the maximum support so that we can take military options should diplomacy fail.
    Mr. Ashdown: Then will the Prime Minister confirm that if President Milosevic refuses to respond to calls to silence the heavy weapons that he is using against his own civilian population, the international community might have to do it for him?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly that is my view. Obviously, we must build the maximum support in the international community. That is why we are having a series of meetings at the moment, culminating on Friday in a meeting of the G8 Ministers and a meeting of the NATO Defence Ministers. My own view, as I have stated clearly during the last couple of days, is that the only circumstance in which we will ensure that President Milosevic responds to diplomatic pressure is if that is backed up by the credible threat of the use of military force. The sole hurdle that remains in our way at present is obtaining the necessary support for that course of action. We are working as hard as we possibly can. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been having a host of meetings recently, and he will be having more meetings tomorrow and in the next few days to obtain that necessary diplomatic support. If we can do that, we will be in a position to make that diplomacy work, and if it fails we should be in a position to take the military action that is necessary.
    Mr. Roger Casale: Knowing my right hon. Friend's interest in tennis, I am sure that we shall soon be seeing him in the Labour-held constituency of Wimbledon for the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet club championships there. While he is there, will he take the time to visit Wimbledon Park first school in my constituency where, thanks to the Government's new deal for schools, all the children are already wired up to computers—[Laughter.]—and even helping their local Member of Parliament track down the Wombles on the internet?
    The Prime Minister: I had not realised that our school reform programme has gone quite that far. The £1.3 billion school repairs programme is helping us to get the internet and new technology into schools. That is tremendously important because our children need those skills for the future. They were denied them for a long
    1072
    time. The purpose of the programme is to allow schools to carry out the repairs that they need, which is often important if they want to build better classrooms and install new technology. That is precisely what will give our children the best chance of education in the future.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Quite apart from the fact that waiting lists are rising, is the Prime Minister aware that full ambulance cover was recently withdrawn in the largest town in my constituency, Haverhill? Is he also aware that for the first time in the history of the county of Suffolk school budgets are being cut across the board? Does the Prime Minister understand the growing disillusion about his failed promises on health and education, or does he merely dismiss my constituents' anxieties as "overblown hoo-hah"?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not dismiss them at all. I can tell the hon. Gentleman's constituents that we are putting more money into Suffolk—in hospitals and in schools—than the Government the hon. Gentleman supported planned to put in and, if we take the right decisions on public spending, we shall get more money still over the next few years. We shall meet our pledge on waiting lists and, after 10 years of rising class sizes under a Conservative Government, we shall get class sizes down.
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: Almost one in six of the people who have visited me in my constituency surgeries over the past year have been from the hard-pressed agriculture community. Does the Prime Minister agree, on hearing the remarks of Ben Gill, who is also a North Yorkshire farmer, that today's success in Brussels on the recommendation to lift the ban on British beef is due to the patient diplomacy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture—[Laughter.] Conservative Members laugh, but the concerns of many of my constituents are founded on the failure of Conservative policies over 18 years. All credit should be given to my right hon. Friend.
    The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend has done on behalf of the farming industry. The decision to lift the ban in respect of Northern Ireland was an important first step; the Commission's decision today is a very important further step because it applies to the whole of the UK. However, there is still a long way to go and I counsel caution until we are through all the various stages of the European negotiations. It is right to point out, however, that not only did the previous Government give us the BSE crisis; they ended up causing what has probably been the most diplomatically disastrous episode in the country's history.
    Mr. William Hague: Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to figures from the Library, a typical family is more than £1,000 a year worse off through tax and mortgage increases since the Government came to office? Is he also aware that Treasury Ministers have so far refused to publish official figures on that subject, presumably because they are scared to do so? Will he instruct the Treasury to publish up-to-date figures showing the tax burden on families?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Treasury Ministers have published the figures.

    1073
    As a result of the decisions that we have taken, we have managed to get rid of the huge Budget deficit that we inherited from the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman is right: the interest rate decisions have been difficult for people. The alternative—the policy proposed by his party—was no interest rate rises at all and no action to cut the deficit. Under the policies proposed by his party on the Finance and Social Security Bills, there would have been an extra £6 billion-worth of spending. Those are precisely the policies that would have returned us to Tory boom and bust which, thank goodness, we are escaping.
    Mr. Hague: How can the Prime Minister say that Treasury Ministers have published such figures when they have not, and everyone knows that they have not? We have now seen tax increases for pension fund holders, home owners, married couples, businesses, and now even for charity aid workers overseas. That is from a Prime Minister who said at the election that there would be no tax increases at all. Now the Government plan more taxes for people who drive cars, for people who park cars and, incredibly, for people who put out the rubbish. Is it not bad enough that the Prime Minister breaks all his early pledges without taxing people who put them in the bin? If he is to impose all those new taxes, should not he at least publish the figures that show what the tax burden on families will be?
    The Prime Minister: The rubbish that has just been recycled comes from the right hon. Gentleman. The measures that we have taken have been absolutely necessary to cut the Budget deficit. The choice is simple: either leave the huge borrowing and national debt that we inherited from the Conservative Government, which would put inflation back in the system and give us cycles of boom and bust again, or take the decisions that we have taken. We have taken the right decisions in the interests of the country. Long-term interest rates are now down to their lowest level since we last won the World cup. Those decisions have been difficult, but they have been absolutely necessary to deal with the economic situation and to ensure that we have the long-term stability that the country needs.
    Mr. Hague: Does it not come to something when, at Prime Minister's Question Time, the Prime Minister cannot even answer a straightforward question, such as whether he will publish a set of figures that until last year had been published for the past 17 years? The fact that the Government will not publish the figures shows that they are not straight with people about taxes. His pledges on taxes, which have gone up, are like his pledges on waiting lists, class sizes and inflation, all of which have gone up. Does he not understand that when he made those pledges people expected him to keep them and not to do the opposite?
    The Prime Minister: We shall keep each of the pledges that we made. [HoN. MEMBERS: "When?"] After years of rising waiting lists and rising class sizes under the Conservatives, we shall get them down. We are taking measures to ensure that we squeeze inflation out of the economy. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Now. We are taking the measures now to tackle the Budget deficit. As for broken promises, we remember the last Conservative Government. We remember the right hon. Gentleman and
    1074
    his colleagues who now occupy the Opposition Front Bench going into an election promising that they would never raise VAT and then raising it straight after the election. We remember them and their 22 tax rises that they promised they would never make. The Labour party made promises on tax, waiting lists and class sizes; when we go into the next election we shall have kept every single one of them.
    Angela Smith: May I refer the Prime Minister to today's report of the Office for Standards in Education, which shows that under the Tory Government the gap between the best and the poorest schools grew wider? May I also refer him to Essex county council, where the Tories lost a by-election in Basildon last week largely because of their poor record on education? The council has cut £3 million from the education budget and has closed schools in Basildon. The public know that they can trust Labour on education—not the Tories.
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to say that there is strong evidence that standards are getting better, but we are concerned about the widening gap between the best schools and those down at the bottom of the list. It is important to put investment into our schools, which we have done this year and hope to do again in future years, and to combine that with reform to tackle failing schools. We need to reform the structure of the teaching profession to get the best possible people into teaching, to maintain a school repairs programme to give our schools the facilities they need and to replace the nursery voucher system with proper nursery education. We have a programme of investment and reform that I believe over the medium and long term will give this country exactly what it needs: the best skilled and educated work force that we can possibly achieve.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: How many jobs does the Prime Minister believe will be lost in this country as a consequence of the withdrawal of the concession on duty-free goods for travellers by air and sea within the European Union, which was somewhat impetuously agreed by the previous Government and quite culpably confirmed by the present Administration, against the wishes of Labour as well as Conservative Members? How can the British people have faith that the UK presidency will protect their interests on this matter, on EU tax on arts sales in this country and on the issue of withholding tax on savings?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman's purpose was probably more to attack the previous Government's record on Europe than ours.
    It is extraordinary of Conservatives to come after us on duty free. In 1991, they agreed to the abolition. That abolition can be overturned only if all the other European Union countries agree to overturn it, and the majority have indicated that there is no prospect of their supporting such a move. It would be dishonest of us to pretend that we can get something changed when, as a result of a measure agreed by the previous Government, which the hon. Gentleman supported—well, more or less—we cannot. That is the truthful position. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make any proper complaint, I am afraid that he will have to direct it at the previous Government.
    Mr. Bill Rammell: Last Wednesday, we heard a good deal in the Chamber about

    1075
    corruption in local government. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this Government will take tough action to stamp out corruption wherever it occurs, and whichever party is in power?
    Does the Prime Minister recall the former leader of the Conservative party saying, in May 1995, that the party would condemn proven cases of malpractice and individuals found guilty in courts of law? In spite of that, when, six months ago, Dame Shirley Porter was found to have lied to the High Court and to the district auditor, we heard not a word from the Leader of the Opposition. Is it not about time that the Tories came off the fence, stopped prevaricating and gave us some answers about the scandal in their back yard?
    The Prime Minister: We shall be vigilant against corruption, from whatever quarter it comes. I will simply say that, after all the scandals involving Westminster council, we have still heard not one word of condemnation, not one word of apology and not one hint of action from the Conservative party.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: About eight weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment told Derbyshire county council that it could have an extra £1 million to spend on reducing class sizes. This week, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that he was capping Derbyshire to the tune of £1 million. It will cost more than £500,000 to re-bill every household in Derbyshire as a result of the Deputy Prime Minister's decision. Can the Prime Minister explain the logic of that?
    The Prime Minister: In fact, Derbyshire received £2.9 million more specifically for education, and it is receiving a great deal more than it could possibly have received under the spending plans on which the hon. Gentleman fought the last election. He is the last person who is able to attack the position with any credibility.
    Mr. Ben Chapman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, as elsewhere, vulnerable witnesses—at least one in 10, according to some estimates—are often subject to harassment and victimisation? Is he aware that that has an adverse effect on the administration of justice? Does he, like me, welcome the publication of a report today and the consultation period that will follow it, while also feeling that what we need is action—and soon?
    The Prime Minister: The protection of witnesses is of concern throughout the House. Today, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published a report containing more than 70 recommendations to improve the way in which vulnerable or intimidated witnesses are treated by the criminal justice system. They include more protection for rape victims, new measures to help child witnesses and greater use of technology such as closed-circuit television to help those who are vulnerable and may be subject to intimidation. I hope that, as a result of the
    1076
    report's recommendations, we shall be able to reduce the intimidation of witnesses. That would play a major part in securing more convictions.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: When does the Prime Minister intend to keep his promise—published in The Licensee and Morning Advertiser on 1 May 1997—to conduct a full, comprehensive and independent review of smuggling and illegal cross-border shopping involving tobacco and alcohol?
    The Prime Minister: We are carrying out that commitment. Within the European Union, as well as on our own account, we are taking concerted action to try to reduce such activity. We are well aware of the problem, but it can be tackled only if we are prepared to tackle it not just in our own country but across our borders.
    Mr. Tony McNulty: What would be my right hon. Friend's reaction if a Member on the Government Front Bench advocated the legalisation of crack, heroin or Ecstasy? Is the cause of the war against drugs helped or hindered by the existence of such an advocate on the Opposition Front Bench—in the shadow health team of all areas—or is it time for the Leader of the Opposition to reflect on his lamentable choice of personnel?
    The Prime Minister: I am a little in two minds about that since I think it is probably in our interests for the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to remain on the Opposition Front Bench. It is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to legalise drugs.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Is the Prime Minister aware that serious concerns are being expressed by general practitioners in my constituency and throughout the country about the introduction of primary care groups and the risk to general medical services funds which could devastate the further development of a primary care-led national health service? Will the Prime Minister hold a ballot of GPs on this issue and take lessons from the previous Conservative Government on giving GPs the opportunity to put the best interests of their patients first?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady must forgive me if I am a little hesitant about taking lessons on the NHS from the Conservative Government. There are concerns among GPs, including concerns about their budgets, and they are being discussed actively with them by the Health Minister. In the end, it is important to take decisions about the health service working, of course, in partnership with doctors and nurses and others who work in the national health service. Those decisions should be taken in the interests of the national health service as a whole to ensure that it delivers the best service for people. The purpose of the primary care groups is to ensure that we do not have a two-tier system, as we had under the Government the hon. Lady supported. We are also making the best use of the resources that go into the national health service—which, of course, have been increased under this Government, not cut.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Francis Maude: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise the issue of resources for the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, especially in relation to the burden that has been placed on it by the Paymaster General's affairs.
You will know, Madam Speaker, that the commissioner has already completed one investigation into the Paymaster General's offshore Orion trust and its dealings in the shares of Coventry City football club. There are two further investigations: one into his undeclared directorship of Swiss EDM Ltd., and one into his apparently undeclared directorships of three companies in the Robert Maxwell empire. To those three investigations has been added today a fourth complaint about two Italian property companies that are owned by the Paymaster General and of which he has been a director. It is clear that that level of activity was not envisaged when Sir Gordon Downey's office was set up. I raise this point of order to ensure that sufficient resources are available to the commissioner to enable him to carry out his investigations thoroughly and with expedition. The investigations that are already under way have so far taken three months—
Madam Speaker: Order. I regret having to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but, for a number of days, I have taken points of order that have become speeches, and I am not prepared to listen to long speeches any more. I think that I have the gist of the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises. The matter is for the Committee on Standards and Privileges. It has always been clear that it is open to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to seek additional resources when, in his judgment, that is necessary to enable him to carry out his duties. If he needs more resources, all that he has to do is to apply to me, and I shall see that he has the resources to carry out his job correctly.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it not the custom in the House that when individual Members are to be named by others they should be given written notification?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady is quite correct. May I inquire whether the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) gave the Minister notice?
Mr. Maude: I did not, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.] If I should have done so I apologise.
Madam Speaker: Let me make it quite clear that all Members—Front Benchers, Ministers, whoever they
1078
are—must notify an hon. Member when they intend to refer to him or her. Thank you, Mrs. Dunwoody, for reminding me of that.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Monday, the Government announced that they were to cap Derbyshire county council. They also said in the press announcement that a Committee would meet on Thursday—tomorrow—to consider the matter.
The Committee of Selection has not yet appointed any Members to that Committee, because it has not met. Indeed, the capping order was not included on the Committee of Selection's original agenda. The Committee of Selection is not due to meet until this afternoon. That means that any Members appointed by it will not be notified of their appointment until tomorrow morning, when the Committee considering the capping order is due to meet.
As a result of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, I have tabled some written questions which will be important to facilitating the debate. Unfortunately, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has not yet answered them. Is that really fair? Does the Government's taking of such a measure in Committee in the same week as the measure is announced allow for scrutiny? This is the first time in memory and on record that capping matters have not been debated on the Floor of the House.
Madam Speaker: I was very pleased to be able to call the hon. Gentleman during Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon, when he was quite rightly able to raise matters that concern his area. He may seek to catch my eye tomorrow to put a question to the Leader of the House when she answers questions on the progress of parliamentary business. I understand that no Standing Orders have been breached by what he has described, although I have some sympathy for him. He may, of course, wish to pursue the matter through the usual channels—of which he is himself a member, I believe.

BILL PRESENTED
  PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE AND HOME INSULATION
  Mr. Simon Hughes presented a Bill to require certain health bodies to draw up reports on the ways in which home insulation may assist persons living in fuel poverty to heat their homes, in order to reduce ill-health and unnecessary demand for health services; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 200].

  Restoration of Damage to Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  3.36 pm
  Ms Candy Atherton: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to require the owners and occupiers of land notified as sites of special scientific interest who commit an offence under section 28 of the Act to restore that interest of the site lost, damaged or degraded as a result of the offence or offences.
  Sites of special scientific interest are the foundations of wildlife protection in Great Britain. Introduced in their present form by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, their purpose is to give special safeguard to the most valuable parts of our much reduced, but still rich, natural heritage. I am sorry to have to tell the House that they are failing adequately to protect Britain's finest wildlife sites.
  SSSIs contain Britain's finest and most precious examples of wildlife habitats, landscape and geological features. English Nature describes them as the core of our nation's national heritage. There are about 6,000 sites in Britain today. I had the good fortune to visit an SSSI in Cornwall two weeks ago. Marazion marshes is a reserve of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and home to 1,314 species of plants and animals. In fact, it is the largest remaining reed swamp in Cornwall, and, as such, a key area of biodiversity. Apart from plants and birds, more than half the British species of dragonflies are recorded there.
  It concerns me greatly that that site is one of the lucky ones. When the RSPB took over management of the reserve, the reed bed had dried out and wildlife interest was being lost. The site is now voluntarily managed, with the co-operation of a sympathetic landowner. Other sites are not managed so sympathetically and are allowed to degenerate, with the resulting loss of wildlife interest.
  Statutory nature conservation bodies have to date reported a total of more than 2,120 cases of loss or damage of SSSIs in England and Wales in the past six years alone; yet there have been very few prosecutions. When there have been prosecutions, the fines levied have been disproportionately low.
  Kernick and Ottery meadows—which is also in Cornwall—is a grassland area which was notified as an SSSI in 1992. Although part of the site had been ploughed, English Nature believed that it was capable of recovery. Nevertheless, despite SSSI notification, the ploughed area was drained, reseeded and planted with linseed for fibre flax production. English Nature took no action. Protection of the remainder of the site under a nature conservation order has not prevented considerable damage—such as drain installation, damage to hedge banks and grubbing of valuable scrub. Again, English Nature took no action.
  If I had more time for this motion, I could detail horror stories from across the country.
  The problem is that penalties for damaging SSSIs are painfully lacking and do not constitute any real deterrent. Currently, a landowner planning to conduct a potentially damaging operation must give four months' notice, giving the conservation agency a chance to persuade and to negotiate a voluntary management agreement. Agencies also can offer payment to compensate landowners for any profit lost by not developing a site.
  1080
  If a landowner does not give due notice and damages a site, he or she is liable to a fine of up to £2,000. However, in practice, fines have varied from only £200—for lime spreading—to £1,500, for extraction of sand and shingles. It is notable that, despite many offences, there have been very few convictions for damaging SSSIs. Fines do not provide an adequate deterrent.
  Understandably, statutory nature conservation bodies see little point in pursuing expensive court cases. If they win a conviction, damage to the site remains, and the bodies have little means to repair the damage. In contrast, contravention of a tree preservation order can result in a fine of up to £12,000; and damage to a listed building is punishable with a maximum 12 months' prison sentence and a fine that takes into account any benefit accrued to the offender because of the damage. Clearly, unscrupulous landowners have merely to consider the risk and to take their chances. Many landowners are effectively smashing and grabbing.
  Legislation must be strengthened if the SSSI network is to have any real chance of safeguarding our most precious wildlife resources. Landowners who damage an SSSI should be made to restore the site at their own expense. That is the aim of my Bill.
  Currently, only in limited circumstances do courts have power to compel a landowner to undertake restorative measures on an SSSI that he or she is found guilty of damaging. Experience has shown that issuing a nature conservation order—creating what has been termed a "super-SSSI"—is of limited practical use. Although such orders allow courts to order an offender to take restorative action to reinstate a site's interests, such action is not commonplace. Since the 1981 Act was passed, the power to impose such orders has been invoked in England on only 26 occasions. Moreover, no restoration orders have ever been issued.
  My Bill would give courts the power, under section 28 of the Act, to place restoration orders on offenders who damage standard SSSIs. I believe that that would be a just power to give to the courts. Such power would provide a better deterrent—avoiding damage in the first place—as the cost of restoring sites can be extremely expensive, and an incentive to statutory nature conservation bodies to pursue offences through the courts. It would also be consistent with the "polluter pays" principle.
  I realise that it may not always be reasonable or practicable to restore a site to its former condition. My Bill proposes that, in such cases, courts should be given discretion in requiring restoration of sites to an appropriate specified condition.
  I am delighted to be able to inform the House that yesterday, with the RSPB, I met the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), and she has promised that the aim of my Bill has been drafted into the Government's planned consultation document on the environment.
  I want our children and our children's children to have the same opportunities that I had two weeks ago to visit and experience areas of great natural beauty. Of the cases that I have mentioned, Marazion marshes were lucky; Kernick and Ottery meadows were not. We must not leave the future of those recognised sites to the haphazard and uncertain hand of fate.

  1081
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Candy Atherton, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. David Drew, Ms Julia Drown, Ms Tess Kingham, Mr. David Prior, Mr. John Randall, Dr. Phyllis Starkey and Mr. John Austin.

  RESTORATION OF DAMAGE TO SITES OF SPECIAL SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
  Ms Candy Atherton accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to require the owners and occupiers of land notified as sites of special scientific interest who commit an offence under section 28 of the Act to restore that interest of the site lost, damaged or degraded as a result of the offence or offences: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 201.]
  Orders of the Day

    Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
    Order for Second Reading read.
    3.45 pm
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
    The aim of the Bill is to bring into effect proposals in the Good Friday agreement dealing with prisoners. Prisoner issues are part of that agreement—he commitment given by both Governments was to put in place mechanisms for an accelerated programme of prisoner release. In our case, that applies to prisoners convicted of scheduled offences—that is, offences connected with paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland and those outside Northern Ireland convicted of similar offences. We gave a commitment in the agreement that we would seek to enact the appropriate legislation by the end of June.
    The agreement is a package, supported by parties and the people, and it is a whole and not to be cheny-picked. The package won the support of more than 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland on 22 May, in both communities. As we discussed in the House on Monday last week, I know that there is much concern among those who voted yes and those who voted no about the actual details. We have a duty to people to implement the people's wishes, but, at the same time, to do our best to address those concerns.
    I believe that the agreement is the best chance that we have to bring an end to the vicious cycle of violence and murder in Northern Ireland and to ensure that new generations do not continue to suffer all the grief and pain of the past.
    On 20 April, I placed in the Library of the House a paper that set out in detail how the Government intended to implement our commitment in relation to prisoners. That paper set out the rigorous safeguards for the protection of the public. Those safeguards are now on the face of the Bill. For example, prisoners who support terrorist groups that continue to engage in violence or return to violence will not be released. Prisoners will be released on licence and immediately recalled if they engage in any terrorist activity.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Bill actually states that prisoners will be released if they are not likely to be
    "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland."
    Given the international nature of terrorism—Sean O'Callaghan's recent book shows the links between the IRA and ETA—will the Secretary of State amend the Bill so that it covers, as she just stated, any acts of terrorism, rather than those solely relating to Northern Ireland?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I will take note of the hon. Gentleman's point, but the Bill relates specifically to terrorist activity in Northern Ireland. If there is any question about the interpretation, we shall certainly check it with the draftspeople.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: In Scotland, when a prisoner is released under licence,

    1083
    he or she has to be of good behaviour, and can be put back in prison if convicted of a criminal offence. Should not the same hold in these circumstances?
    Marjorie Mowlam: It does. Many safeguards are built in and, as we go through the Bill, we will see that it is robust. If released prisoners break the licence in any way, they will be taken back and will serve their full sentence. As a further safeguard, if circumstances deteriorate in Northern Ireland, the programme of release will be stopped and no prisoners will be released.
    If an organisation has returned to violence, licensed prisoners who continue to support that organisation can be recalled. The Government's commitments have been made in the context of a lasting peaceful settlement. In his speech at Balmoral on 14 May, during the referendum campaign, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that if parties are to benefit from accelerated release, their commitment to democratic, non-violent means must be established in an objective, meaningful and verifiable way.
    The Prime Minister said that in clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement had been met and violence had genuinely been given up for good, a range of factors had to be taken into account: whether an organisation is committed to the use, now and in future, of only democratic and peaceful means of achieving its objectives; whether it has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or preparations for violence and is not directing or promoting such acts committed by other organisations; and whether it is co-operating fully with the decommissioning body. Those factors are all in the Bill.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What was the result of the Prime Minister's representations to my right hon. Friend about the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright? Representations were also made by such careful lawyers as Lord Ackner, who does not make statements wildly.
    Marjorie Mowlam: The Prime Minister made a statement to the House, and we have discussed the cases before. At the moment, I am responding to the judicial review of the decision that I took some months ago. When the review is complete, I shall report back to my hon. Friend and to the House. I assure him that 1 am taking the matter seriously and that it will be dealt with as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Would I be wrong in interpreting the Bill to mean that the early release scheme would include members of the armed forces who have been convicted of scheduled offences?
    Marjorie Mowlam: Members of the armed forces, if they so choose, can apply as anyone else would.
    Mr. Andrew Hunter: The Bill explicitly refers to membership of terrorist organisations and defines such organisations. It has nothing whatever to do with members of the armed services.
    Marjorie Mowlam: As I said, it is up to those concerned whether they want to apply. The provisions relate to scheduled offences and, although members of the armed forces, not being part of a terrorist organisation,
    1084
    are not referred to specifically, I presume that, if they want to go to the commission, they can present their case; as the hon. Gentleman suggested, they may not choose to do so. The guardsmen's sentence is up for review before the Life Sentence Review Board in October, and that is the state of play.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Lady mentioned what the Prime Minister said when he was in Northern Ireland. He also said that violence had to be given up and that decommissioning is part of that. Is decommissioning part of her definition of violence being given up—so that these people can be let out of prison?
    Marjorie Mowlam: The four factors that the Prime Minister outlined in his speech in Belfast on 14 May are central to deciding whether an organisation is on a ceasefire and committed to establishing and maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. The Prime Minister outlined four criteria covering a commitment to democratic peaceful means; involvement in any acts of violence or preparation of acts of violence; the use of proxy organisations; and full co-operation with the independent body on decommissioning. Those are the criteria on which I will judge whether a group is on a ceasefire.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, who has been generous with her time. This issue is particularly important. She talks about the judgment that she must make about terrorist organisations or political parties involved with terrorist organisations and violence. She knows that punishment beatings, and some murders, have continued throughout the process. Two people were kneecapped, an easy term for a brutal event, in west Belfast last week, probably by IRA-linked, Sinn Fein-linked terrorists. In her judgment, will she take that, and punishment beatings by loyalists, into account?
    Marjorie Mowlam: It is clear that I will make a judgment on the four factors, in which are included punishment beatings and the instigation of paramilitary activity. That is one of the factors that, in the round, will be part of that judgment. Like the hon. Gentleman, I find punishment beatings obscene. He mentioned two people. The weekend before that, three weeks ago, a 72-year-old man had both his legs taken out. A week ago, a Protestant man was so badly beaten that people were unsure that he would not bleed to death. They are obscene acts which must stop if we are serious about the process moving forward. They went on under all previous Governments. We have reached a new point where we have the consent of the people on the agreement. We should go forward in a positive way to build trust and confidence on both sides so that decommissioning and the other aspects of the agreement can move in parallel.
    If the House will permit me, I should like to make some progress. In answer to a question, I listed the four factors that will be taken into account in an overall judgment on whether a complete and unequivocal ceasefire is actually happening.
    Early prisoner releases are not new in Northern Ireland. There already exist arrangements for early prisoner release, set up at the end of 1995 by the previous Government. They entitle fixed-sentence prisoners to be released halfway

    1085
    through their sentences. Under those arrangements, approximately 240 prisoners have been released early. Of those, only two have had to be recalled for breach of their licences. The previous Government continued the policy despite the breakdown of the IRA ceasefire between February 1996 and July 1997. Even if there were no change in the law, about half the remaining prisoners covered by the new scheme would be free within the next two years.
    There is no doubt that the prisoner issue has long been an important part of the search for peace in Northern Ireland. Successive British Governments have recognised that fact. When passing the legislation that is the forerunner of the Bill in 1995, my predecessor, Lord Mayhew, said:
    "It is desirable that, in the light of the changed situation brought about by the ceasefires, the Government, in this field as in others, should not seem reluctant to respond in a positive manner".—[Official Report, 30 October 1995; Vol. 265, c. 23.]
    I agree. We supported and aided the swift passage of that legislation because we considered that it was a proportionate response to the ceasefire at the time.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: May I make something clear so that there is no misunderstanding? Completely unintentionally, I think that the right hon. Lady has misled the House. The previous Government's legislation that altered the time at which prisoners were released was merely to bring Northern Ireland back into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, so it would be wrong to define it as early release.
    Marjorie Mowlam: In quoting my predecessor, so that I would not mislead the House, I was pointing out that there was an acknowledgement that changes in prison sentencing were needed as part of the overall agreement. As the previous Government tried to move the process forward, even when there was no decommissioning or ceasefire, they kept the scheme in place. I am not attempting to mislead the House in any way. I am trying to say that prisoner releases are not necessarily a terribly new process and that we are continuing some of the procedures that were already in place.
    I should like to move on. Some people argue that we should never release any prisoners—under the previous scheme or under this one. I have to say that this is a difficult issue. In the past couple of weeks, I have heard from many people in Northern Ireland, including many families of victims, who have said that they find it deeply difficult and disturbing to cope with what is happening. That is true for them and very, very difficult. It is harder for them because, as we face change, they are worried that the deaths of their loved ones will be forgotten. We have done all that we can to listen to them and take into account their views. Some of them will never be able to come to terms with what is happening.
    Other people who have written to me or come to see me say that, yes, they find it difficult, but that if it means that others do not have to go through what they have gone through, they will not come out against what the Government are trying to achieve.
    Mr. John Greenway: As one of the Members of Parliament in the Secretary of State's region, may I pay tribute to the work that she has done? One of
    1086
    the worst tragedies on the mainland was the murder some years ago of Special Constable Glen Goodman by the IRA terrorist Paul Magee, who was transferred recently from Full Sutton prison, where he was serving a life sentence for murder, not to Northern Ireland but to the Republic of Ireland. I understand that the Bill does not deal with Republic of Ireland prisoners. Nor could it. Can she reassure the North Yorkshire community that someone whom the Home Secretary said ought to serve a minimum of 30 years will not be released? The community has still not come to terms with the atrocity of what happened five years ago, let alone the prospect that Paul Magee could be let out early.
    Marjorie Mowlam: Paul Magee was transferred, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, in line with the policy adopted by the Conservative Government and mine that prisoners should be close to their families so that their families can see them, and their children do not suffer unnecessarily. Before the Home Secretary transferred Magee and others, he obtained an agreement from the Minister of Justice in the Republic that the sentence would remain as it was. That commitment was made to the Home Secretary, and I repeat it here for the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Phil Willis: The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) has raised an important matter. Would that convicted terrorist be allowed under the Bill and the arrangements to be transferred to a prison in Northern Ireland in order to qualify for release?
    Marjorie Mowlam: He is a prisoner in the Republic. He could apply for transfer, but it is unlikely that the movement would take place. We accept transfers on the basis that they bring the prisoner closer to his family. Paul Magee is a prime example of someone whose family is not in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: The Secretary of State will be aware that if a Metropolitan policeman is murdered in the course of a felony, the murderer has to serve a minimum sentence of 26 years. In the Republic of Ireland, someone who murders a Garda Siochana in the same circumstances serves a minimum of 40 years. As 299 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been murdered in the course of their duties, can she explain why the Bill should provide for the release of some of the murderers, even within the terms of the 12 to 16 years that murderers commonly serve in Northern Ireland? Will she also confirm—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is an enormously long intervention, and many Members are seeking to catch my eye. I would ask now for a response from the Minister.
    Marjorie Mowlam: Cases being considered under this legislation will go to the independent commissioners, who will look at them carefully, assess them in detail and be given additional information. Prisoners will be let out only on licence, and very clear conditions will attach to the releases.
    All we are doing is implementing the agreement, which gained the support of 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland in the vote.

    1087
    Under the Bill, prisoners may apply to the commissioners for a declaration that they are entitled to be released on licence. The Bill sets out criteria that prisoners must satisfy to be eligible for release.
    The Bill requires that I appoint commissioners and have regard to the desirability of the commissioners as a group commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland. In addition, I am required so far as is reasonably practicable to ensure that at least one commissioner is a lawyer and at least one is a psychiatrist or psychologist.
    I would intend to appoint a psychiatrist or psychologist with expertise in risk assessment in criminal cases. In the rules of procedure that I may make under the Bill, I will require that a commissioner with such expertise would sit on panels considering applications from life sentence prisoners.
    The commissioners will consider each application on its merits against the criteria set out in the Bill. If those criteria are met, the commissioners will declare that a prisoner is eligible under the scheme. The criteria are as follows: prisoners in Northern Ireland must have been convicted of a scheduled offence committed before 10 April 1998 and sentenced to five years or more or life imprisonment. Only prisoners serving their sentence in Northern Ireland are eligible for release under the Bill.
    A prisoner must not be a supporter of a terrorist organisation of the kind specified in the Bill, which means organisations that
    "have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal cease-fire".
    That test follows directly from the words of the agreement, which exclude prisoners affiliated to such organisations.
    This legislation will not remove the ban on organisations that are proscribed under our anti-terrorist laws. The IRA or UDA, for example, will continue to be proscribed, and membership of such organisations will continue to be a criminal offence.
    A prisoner may not be declared eligible for early release if the commissioners consider that, if released immediately, he or she would be likely to become a supporter of a terrorist organisation or become concerned in the initiation, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. That means that no prisoner who the commissioners believe will return to violence may be released under the Bill.
    Prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment would not be released if they would be considered a danger to the public. That maintains the protection that applies in respect of the release of all life sentence prisoners throughout the UK.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve.: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Marjorie Mowlam: Two other hon. Members have indicated that they wish to intervene, but I want to make a little more progress before giving way.
    I shall keep under review the list of organisations identified under the Bill and add or remove organisations as appropriate. As my right hon. Friend the Prime
    1088
    Minister said in his speech of 14 May, considering whether a ceasefire is being maintained is
    "a judgment which will necessarily become more rigorous over time"—
    and it will.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that all the lawyers appointed to be commissioners will be United Kingdom lawyers and not those from other jurisdictions?
    Marjorie Mowlam: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not want to tie myself down in that way. We want to appoint, as clause 1 of the Bill states, a psychiatrist or psychologist and a lawyer with expertise. It is 99 per cent. likely that a lawyer with expertise in our criminal legal system would be of UK origin, so I can give the hon. Gentleman that much reassurance. However, I am more keen to ensure that we have a balanced, independent body, including a lawyer and a psychiatrist or psychologist, which people can trust and respect. The body has not yet been selected and, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, all the parties in Northern Ireland can submit nominations for bodies of that nature; I look forward to receiving the nominations from his party.
    If the commissioners declare that a fixed-term prisoner meets the criteria set out in the legislation, the prisoner will be required to serve one third of his sentence in custody before being released on licence.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Marjorie Mowlam: To be fair, I shall take the intervention from the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) before that of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson).
    Mr. Grieve: I am much obliged to the right hon. Lady. I wanted clarification of a point relating to the transfer of prisoners to the Republic. Some of those transferred to the Republic, such as the Balcombe street gang, had full life tariffs, because it was considered that they were so dangerous that they should never be released. Am I correct in my understanding of the effect of transferring them to the Republic, which is that they escape completely the criteria under the legislation for consideration as to the likely danger they pose to the public, and that they will simply be released in two years' time, pursuant to the agreement?
    Marjorie Mowlam: As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), the Republic has its own criteria; however, when the Home Secretary transferred prisoners to the Republic, he made it clear that he would do so only if the Minister of Justice gave an assurance that the full tariffs would be served. That is my understanding of what has happened.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State was explaining to the House that a prisoner belonging to a proscribed organisation, for example the Provisional IRA, could openly inform the commission that he or she is a member of the Provisional IRA. However, if the Secretary of State has not listed the Provisional IRA as a

    1089
    terrorist organisation as specified under the legislation, that person will be entitled to release, even though that person is committing an offence by being a member of a terrorist organisation.
    Marjorie Mowlam: The important distinction to bear in mind is that the Bill is concerned with organisations that are unequivocally committed to establishing and maintaining a ceasefire and those belonging to such organisations; proscription is concerned with the long-term purpose of an organisation. The emergency provisions Acts will still apply in respect of proscription.
    Mr. McNamara: I think that my right hon. Friend may be inadvertently misleading the House. Section 1 of the agreement on prisoners reads:
    "Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar offences (referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners). Any such arrangements will protect the rights of individual prisoners".
    The agreement was made after the transfer of the prisoners.
    Marjorie Mowlam: If I am in any way misleading the House, I shall clarify the matter in writing to the hon. Members who have asked questions. My understanding, having discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, is that the law was changed in relation to the transfers that were made. For the reasons highlighted by the Opposition, the Home Secretary was concerned that those prisoners should not be let out. He has a commitment from the Republic's Minister of Justice that they will serve their full tariff.
    Mr. MacKay rose—
    Marjorie Mowlam: This will be the last intervention.
    Mr. MacKay: I apologise to the Secretary of State. It is essential that, before the House reaches a conclusion on the Bill, everyone should know the facts. As someone who will vote for the Bill on Second Reading, I want other hon. Members to be absolutely clear.
    The Bill states that there will be accelerated release of prisoners who fulfil the criteria that the Secretary of State mentioned. Any prisoner who is transferred to the Republic of Ireland, such as the one whom my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) mentioned, will fulfil those criteria.
    The Irish have agreed that the sentence will be the same in Ireland as it is in England. The Bill will change the sentence in England so that the prisoner can be out within two years; therefore it will be possible to release him in Ireland in two years. We should be clear about that.
    Marjorie Mowlam: If the situation is different from that which I have described, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I shall correct myself.
    I say categorically to the House that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland. It is the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, and it applies in that jurisdiction only. The Republic
    1090
    has its jurisdiction, and we have a commitment from the Minister of Justice that that is a different jurisdiction and its rules will apply. That is my categorical answer.
    Mr. Grieve rose—
    Marjorie Mowlam: No, I will take no more interventions. However, I shall make sure that when the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), winds up, he will support the view that I have taken, because I believe that it is right. If I am wrong, I shall fully acknowledge that to the House. I do not think that I am wrong.
    Mr. Roger Stott rose—
    Marjorie Mowlam:No, I am sorry. I am trying to be fair. I cannot take any more interventions, or it would be unfair to those whom I have already refused.
    The Bill applies to Northern Ireland, not to the Republic, or to Scotland or Wales.
    All prisoners released under the Bill will be released on licence. For fixed-sentence prisoners, the licence will continue until their sentence expires. Life sentences do not expire, so prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment who are released under the Bill will remain on licence for the rest of their lives.
    Prisoners on licence need to continue to meet the criteria for release set out under the legislation. That means that they must not become a supporter of a terrorist organisation, and that they must not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
    If I consider that those licence conditions are breached in any case, I am empowered to suspend the licence and recall the prisoner to prison. If a licence is suspended, it will then be for the commissioners to decide whether the licence should be revoked.
    Mr. Hunter rose—
    Marjorie Mowlam: No, I am sorry.
    Under the agreement, both Governments gave commitments that
    "should the circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at that point."
    The Bill provides that prisoners in respect of whom the commissioners have made a declaration, who remain in custody two years from the commencement of the legislation, shall be released at that time.
    I am empowered under the Bill to bring that date forward or to put it back, depending, as stated in the paper that I placed in the Library on 20 April,
    "on the circumstances and progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society".
    In considering whether that progress has been made, I shall take account of matters such as those identified by the Prime Minister and included in the text of the legislation.
    As I said, and as is stated in the agreement, the arrangements will apply to prisoners convicted of similar offences committed in Great Britain and transferred to Northern Ireland. Such prisoners are not convicted of

    1091
    scheduled offences, which is a concept unique to Northern Ireland. The Bill gives me an order-making power in respect of transferred prisoners to bring them within the terms of the legislation. In such cases, the Attorney-General or Lord Advocate, as appropriate, will say whether the offence committed would, if committed in Northern Ireland, have been a scheduled offence under the emergency provisions Act.
    The British and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland parties have worked for years to bring about agreement on the future for Northern Ireland. We have before us powers to implement one aspect of that agreement. The Bill is the first stage in building what I hope will be a better future for Northern Ireland based on fairness, consent, peace and reconciliation. I commend it to the House.
    4.20 pm
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: While we are grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining the main provisions of the Bill before the House and the reasons why it is necessary, I must press her again on a particular matter. I genuinely believe that she has misled the House totally inadvertently and I ask the Minister of State to set the record straight in his winding-up speech. We have absolutely no doubt that anyone who has been convicted of a terrorist offence on the mainland, who has been imprisoned on the mainland and who is then transferred legitimately to Dublin will be eligible under the Act. The authorities in Dublin will have to respond to that.
    Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. MacKay: No.
    I thank the Secretary of State sincerely for the way in which she and her officials have co-operated with the Opposition in drafting the legislation. That has been truly appreciated and I think that it has made a difference to the legislation.
    Mr. McNamara: How can an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament possibly apply to the Republic of Ireland? The agreement applies to the Republic of Ireland, not the legislation.
    sr. MacKay: I shall explain it simply to the hon. Gentleman. As the Secretary of State pointed out, the Minister of Justice in the Republic of Ireland gave assurances to the British Home Secretary that sentences in the Irish Republic would be the same as on the mainland. If the legislation changes sentences on the mainland, the Irish Government will be obliged to observe those changes—whether they like it or not.
    Marjorie Mowlam: That reassurance was given before the Bill was drafted when the transfers were made months ago. I have tried to be reasonable and open with the House because this is difficult, detailed and complicated legislation. It applies only to Northern Ireland and the
    1092
    transfers made do not relate to the Bill. I shall ask my hon. Friend the Minister to reassure the House because I do not wish that misunderstanding to continue.
    Mr. MacKay: We disagree fundamentally and we look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation. It is best to leave the matter at present, as I think that the Minister will have to clarify the situation with his officials.
    Mr. Stott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. MacKay: No, I must proceed as many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
    The Bill incorporates some, but by no means all, of the safeguards sought by my party. For that reason, we shall not seek to divide the House this evening. However, there remain some areas of deep concern where we believe that the proposed legislation is either too weak or ill defined. I shall refer to those areas—and one in particular—during my speech.
    Unlike the Bill giving effect to the referendum, we do not intend to allow this legislation to be fast-tracked through Parliament. It is far too important for that, as I am sure the Secretary of State acknowledges. We intend to examine the Bill thoroughly and subject it to the fullest possible scrutiny as it passes through Committee on the Floor of the House. We shall not shirk from tabling amendments where they are necessary to strengthen the Bill's provisions.
    We owe the people of Northern Ireland, especially the victims of terrorist violence, many of whom are understandably hostile to the Bill, to get it right. For many people, myself included, the prospect of prisoners—many of whom have committed unspeakable acts of cold-blooded murder—being released is sickening. They feel that the Bill undermines the rule of law and is a concession to terror. That is not confined to Northern Ireland. In Great Britain, too, we have suffered appalling acts of terrorism. The House will remember former colleagues who have been murdered by republican terrorists.
    I do not necessarily agree, especially in the context of an overall political settlement, with those who oppose the Bill. However, I certainly understand and sympathise with their arguments, as I did with the chairman of the Northern Ireland Police Federation a fortnight ago. Many of his members have been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism for nearly 30 years. We must always ensure that the sensitivities of the victims are at the forefront of our minds. I was grateful to the Secretary of State for making that clear.
    The Bill is necessary to give effect to the key element of the Belfast agreement, which was reached in the multi-party talks on 10 April. I have no hesitation in repeating the opinion of the Conservative party that the agreement and the results of the referendum on 23 May were truly momentous events. We all hope that they will be seen to have marked a turning point in the history of Northern Ireland when the principles of democracy and consent finally triumphed over violence and terror.
    Mr. David Winnick: I fully endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said about the agreement. Will he take it on board that the horror that is felt as a result of the crimes and atrocities committed, not only by

    1093
    the IRA but certainly by the IRA and the loyalist murder gangs, is felt throughout the House and is not the monopoly of the present Opposition? We all feel the same about the terrible crimes that have been committed. That is so of our feelings towards the victims and their close relatives. That should always be borne in mind.
    Mr. MacKay: I readily acknowledge that and in no sense implied otherwise, as the hon. Gentleman will confirm.
    It is surely incumbent on us all, even the members of those parties who campaigned for a no vote in the referendum, to try to build upon what has been achieved and try to make the agreement and the new institutions work.
    The people of Northern Ireland have spoken overwhelmingly. More than 71 per cent. of them voted in favour of the agreement.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. MacKay: No. I think that it is important that we make progress.
    There is no doubt that the vast 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. By any reasonable statistical judgment there was a clear yes vote in both communities for the agreement. We must never let critics of the agreement say anything else for that would be a plain untruth.
    So a democratic verdict was clear. The prospects of failure now are far too horrific to contemplate. We in the Conservative party share the judgment of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that the agreement strengthens the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is clearly a partitionist settlement. The Act of Union, the bedrock of Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom, remains firmly in place. As a result of the referendum in the Irish Republic, the territorial claim over Northern Ireland has at long last gone, and not a moment too soon.
    Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. MacKay: No. I have just said that I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    All the parties that signed up to the agreement signed up also to the principle that there can be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of its people. I believe that these arguments were well understood by the majority of the Unionist community in the referendum campaign. However, many Unionists found harder to accept the provisions of the agreement dealing with prisoner release and decommissioning. That is why the Opposition pressed for substantial decommissioning to take place before the early release of prisoners, and for this to be incorporated in the proposed legislation that is before us.
    Those of us who were in the Province campaigning for a yes vote in the final few days of the referendum campaign were left in no doubt that a significant number
    1094
    of moderate people in both communities finally decided to vote yes only when the Prime Minister had given them a clear and unequivocal assurance that decommissioning and the renunciation of violence would be incorporated in the legislation on early prisoner release and the setting up of the assembly.
    In the Opposition's view, the Bill goes only some of the way to satisfying those assurances and will, therefore, require amendment in Committee next week. The most serious omission is that it does not establish a clear legislative linkage between some actual decommissioning having taken place and the accelerated release of prisoners.
    To put it simply, the Bill merely states that
    "the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation…is co-operating fully with"
    the commission, whereas what the people of Northern Ireland and elsewhere expect is that the Secretary of State should release prisoners early only if such organisations are fully co-operating with the commission.
    Incidentally, as the Prime Minister stated in his Balmoral speech on 14 May, such co-operation is implementing provisions within the agreement. Therefore, let us have no talk that amending the Bill will be in breach of the agreement; it strengthens the agreement.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman will have heard me put to the Secretary of State the words of the Prime Minister's pledge:
    "Violence has to be given up and decommissioning is part of that."
    As I understand the Bill, those who are eligible for release must declare that violence has been given up. Whether it has been given up or not, or whether they have left the organisation, they must convince the Secretary of State that that is so. But the Bill is in no way linked with decommissioning. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the decommissioning commission has no power to make people decommission; it has power only when people are mutually prepared to decommission their weapons.
    Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman makes precisely the point that I am making. The amendment that we shall table next week insists that there is linkage between decommissioning and the earlier release of prisoners.
    On precisely that point, I quote an exchange at Prime Minister's Question Time on Wednesday 6 May when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition told the Prime Minister:
    "Opposition Members will argue strongly that the IRA cannot have prisoners released if it does not give up its guns and explosives."
    The Prime Minister replied:
    "Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. MacKay: No, I am at an important part of my speech. This is the key to ensuring that we get the Bill right.

    1095
    Those remarks of the Prime Minister neatly summarise why many people in Northern Ireland were finally persuaded to support the agreement in the referendum vote. They must now not be let down by anything less being incorporated in the legislation.
    We trust that the Government will be prepared to look again at the wording when we examine the Bill more closely in Committee. I have some confidence that they will because I know from my conversations with the Secretary of State that she is sympathetic to the points that I am making. But there is absolutely no possibility that the people of Northern Ireland who voted in the referendum can now be let down.
    That quotation from the Prime Minister that I have just given the House is absolutely clear. It is not open to any possible misinterpretation. It is on the basis of that quotation and other remarks during the referendum campaign, and legitimate spin doctoring in the newspapers of the Province, that a large number of people voted yes. The Opposition intend to make sure that the Government stick to that assurance given by the Prime Minister from the Dispatch Box.
    Mr. Hunter: Can my hon. Friend not strengthen his argument by pointing to the Prime Minister's letter, which appeared in the Irish News and the News Letter on referendum day when he repeated that pledge in the context of Sinn Fein-IRA participation in the Executive?
    Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend is right. I am giving only one example; fortunately, there are numerous. I am delighted that there are, because the Prime Minister helped to achieve a yes vote with those assurances. We pressed him to give the assurances and we are entirely on his side. We now simply want to ensure that the assurances are implemented. I hope that there is nothing between us and that the Government will accept the amendments which my right hon. Friends and I shall move on Monday.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, for members of Sinn Fein to be placed in executive posts in government before the organisation with which they are acknowledged to be inextricably, and therefore inseparably, linked has decommissioned would be a travesty of all principles of democracy?
    Mr. MacKay: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Once we have before us the legislation setting up the assembly, I shall wish to move similar amendments if need be. The hon. and learned Gentleman and I sincerely trust that we will not need to do so because, if we are successful in having our amendments accepted next week, I hope that those who draft the subsequent Bill will incorporate them straight away. There is no difference between the two Bills, and the Prime Minister's assurances, both on the assembly and Ministers taking their place in the Executive and on the early release of prisoners, were identical. I therefore agree whole-heartedly with the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The hon. Gentleman is trying to take the high moral ground. Can he confirm that the previous Administration put in place legislation, which resulted in the release of a large number of
    1096
    terrorist-related prisoners, and not one ounce of Semtex was handed in, not one bullet was handed in, and not one gun was decommissioned? Can he explain what was happening in his Government at that time if the linkage that he is now trying to establish is such an important and key issue?
    Mr. MacKay: I hope that I am not trying to establish a linkage, because the linkage clearly and irrefutably exists, as shown by the Prime Minister's remarks. I believe what the Prime Minister tells us at the Dispatch Box; it is a pity that the Minister does not. I have confidence that the Prime Minister will not let down the people of this country. The simple truth is that there would not have been a substantial yes vote—the sort that the Minister and I wanted, which showed the majority of the Unionist community voting yes as well—had the Prime Minister not given those assurances. Those assurances must now be turned into legislation, and I hope that when the Minister winds up the debate he will confirm that that will happen.
    I would be failing in my duty as Opposition spokesman if I did not also mention the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. People will find it hard to understand how the House is considering legislation that allows the early release of terrorist murderers while those two soldiers continue to languish in prison. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was speaking for the British people when he demanded a review of their case last Wednesday. Although we were naturally pleased with the Prime Minister's response that the Secretary of State was carrying out a review, the answer was news to everybody—probably including the Secretary of State.
    The House would be interested to know from the Secretary of State when the review started, given that the latest court judgment took place as far back as 22 May.
    Marjorie Mowlam: The decision took place on 22 and 23 May. I received the papers on 2 June and have been considering them since. I was aware of the Prime Minister's views.
    Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. It is most unusual for this spin-doctoring Government not to pass on good news to our friends in the media. It came out only at Prime Minister's Question Time. Naturally, I accept the Secretary of State's response, as I always do.
    This Bill is easily the most difficult and controversial of the legislation arising from the Belfast agreement. We cannot afford to get it wrong simply for the sake of speedy passage through the House. There can be no halfway house or fudge between democracy and terrorism, nor can we tolerate a situation whereby republicans or loyalists wield Executive power in one hand and an Armalite in the other. The changes that we want strengthen the commitment to democratic and peaceful methods and establish a clear link between early release and decommissioning. We look to the Government to take them on board.
    4.39 pm
    Mr. David Trimble: As hon. Members have said, the Bill gives effect to part of the Stormont agreement. We must take the Stormont agreement as a

    1097
    whole, and should not pick and choose. Although this issue has caused great concern, nevertheless it is part of that agreement.
    On that Good Friday afternoon, this aspect of the agreement caused us considerable difficulties. It was clear during the referendum campaign that the concept of early release caused considerable difficulties to the community in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom. It is clearly an interference with the normal judicial process for political reasons, so it is, in principle, undesirable. It also appears to many people, with justification, as a concession granted to terrorists, so it is distasteful. It also strikes many people that to approve, tolerate or acquiesce in these arrangements in some way dishonours the memory of those who have suffered as a result of terrorism. There is considerable difficulty with this measure.
    People would not find this concept acceptable unless they knew that, as a result of the agreement as a whole, there was to be a genuine ending of violence and a genuine peace. What might be tolerable in the context of a genuine and permanent end to violence would not be tolerable otherwise. That must be understood.
    In the discussions that led up to the agreement, when we entered reservations about the concept of early release, people said to us that such measures had been taken after previous emergencies. Indeed, there were releases after the emergencies in Northern Ireland in the 1920s, 1940s and 1960s, when the terrorist campaign had ended. Most of those releases were of persons who had been interned, so the problem of people who had been convicted did not arise. However, a limited number of persons who had been convicted of terrorist offences were released after previous emergencies had ended. In those cases, the releases occurred when it was clear that terrorism had ended and been defeated. That marks a distinction from the present situation. We are asked to approve provisions for release when it is not clear that terrorism has ended or been defeated.
    We hope that terrorism will end and that there will be a genuine peace, but, because it is not at this moment absolutely clear that that is the position, it is essential to ensure that the tests and conditions written into the Bill are firm and watertight and are adhered to in practice. Like the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), we shall focus on the tests in the legislation. It is essential that those tests are in a satisfactory form and that we can have some confidence that the Government will stick to them in practice.
    The Government will have great difficulty with the people of Northern Ireland on this matter. The Secretary of State will have to establish credibility with the community. That credibility does not at present exist, and she will have to tackle that problem in what she says and in what she does in the coming weeks and months. She will have to create that confidence, so she has an awesome task in front of her.
    Will there be a genuine peace? That is the crucial question. The decommissioning of terrorist weapons has been and continues to be an important litmus test of sincerity. It must be dealt with if there is to be genuine peace. No one in his right mind would want those
    1098
    weapons to be left lying around to fall into who knows whose hands and be available for use by who knows who in the future.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned credibility. Decommissioning is one of the essential features required to give credibility to these pledges. Does he agree that this Government and their predecessors have resiled from all the positions that they have taken on decommissioning, and that that is the basis for the lack of credibility to which he refers?
    Mr. Trimble: As I said earlier, there is a lack of confidence in the community on some of these matters. The Government must act in such a way as to give confidence, particularly as the agreement contains a clear provision on the decommissioning of weapons. There is a clear and unequivocal obligation, which has been accepted by all the parties, that decommissioning shall be completed within a two-year period. That is significant progress on the unsatisfactory positions of the past.
    It is no coincidence that the two-year period for actual decommissioning to be completed parallels the two-year period under which the early release scheme is to operate. There is a clear link between those two measures in the agreement, and there has to be a similar link in the legislation between the two-year period for early release of prisoners and the two-year period for decommissioning. It is essential that the Government insist on that.
    This is not the time to allow any flexibility or fudge, whatever siren voices may be heard from some quarters. If the Government do not insist on that point at this stage, the necessary requirement of decommissioning will never be achieved, and society in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland will be left in a similar situation to that in South Africa, where far too many weapons were left sloshing around, available for any petty crook or organisation to use time and again.
    When Mr. de Klerk addressed people in Dublin and in Belfast on this issue, I was struck by what he said. When asked whether he had any regrets about the peace process in South Africa, he identified decommissioning as an issue to which they did not give sufficient attention. Society in that country has suffered a high price as a result. We must ensure that this time decommissioning is carried out.
    Reference has been made to the speech that the Prime Minister gave in Balmoral in Belfast during the referendum campaign. I believe that his speech had a crucial effect on public opinion. He spelled out certain criteria. I am glad that clause 3(9) includes those criteria, because they are essential. However, it is a little disappointing that the speech was more emphatic than the legislation. We must examine these criteria.
    The first criterion that the Prime Minister mentioned was
    "an end to violence for good".
    He referred to a commitment that
    "the so-called war is finished, done with, gone".
    He used clear, emphatic language, but the legislation refers to whether an organisation is
    "committed to the use now and in the future"
    of peaceful means. It has lost a little in the translation.

    1099
    More has been lost in the translation of the next requirement. The Bill refers to whether an organisation
    "has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence".
    In the Balmoral speech, the Prime Minister was much more precise. He talked about
    "an end to bombings, killings and beatings…an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".
    It might be argued that the term "acts of violence" includes beatings, and I hope that the Secretary of State will interpret and apply it in that way. The Prime Minister's speech, however, refers to the
    "progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures".
    That must take place. If there is to be a genuine commitment to peaceful means and a permanent renunciation of violence, there can be no reason for the retention of private armies.
    Mr. Hunter: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one dimension is missing in the Bill? It makes no reference to racketeering, profiteering and other quasi-economic fundraising activities of terrorism. Should not those activities also be proscribed in relation to early release?
    Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point. Such organised crime has indeed been a feature of parallel terrorism, and there is reason to believe that quite a few of those who have been involved in terrorism in the past will now move into racketeering. I believe it has been said that the Mafia began, many centuries ago, as a so-called liberation movement. That is very much in our minds at present.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken movingly about the circumstances governing the Bill. I commend him on all the work that he has done in seeking to establish peace in the Province, but is he not now setting the conditions a little too high?
    We know that there is not a complete end to terrorism. Every society has some murderous elements, and some organisations, such as the Irish National Liberation Army and the Loyalist Volunteer Force, may still be interested in continuing a terrorist war. An end to all terrorism is a condition that we know has not yet been met. What we want to do is remove a large number of the components of terrorism, and I think that the Bill goes a long way toward doing that.
    Mr. Trimble: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Life is not as cut and dried as we would like it to be, in many respects. I return, however, to my earlier point. There must be a clear insistence on a commitment to peaceful means, properly meant and carried out in practice, along with a clear change in the nature of the organisations with which we are dealing. Of course there will be splinter groups, but we are not focusing on splinter groups here; we are focusing on mainstream organisations that must change. If we do not insist on that now, the opportunity to bring about change will be lost. Weakness
    1100
    at this stage will result in more problems in the future. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman intends.
    Let me return to my comparison between the Balmoral criteria and those in the Bill. The third Balmoral criterion appears as the fourth in the Bill, and refers to
    "co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in…the…Decommissioning Act".
    The Balmoral speech refers to
    "full co-operation with the Independent Commission on decommissioning, to implement the provisions of the Agreement."
    The phrase
    "to implement the provisions of the Agreement"
    is missing from the Bill—the "provisions" being for actual decommissioning within a specific period.
    We need to know how the Secretary of State interprets the phrase "co-operating fully". Regrettably, we did not hear that in her opening speech, so we look to the Minister of State to make clear what is meant by the phrase when he winds up the debate. We also look to him to make clear what is meant by "take into account". We need to know that the criteria spelled out by the Prime Minister, and referred to in the Bill, will be applied in practice and that there will be no slippage. It is essential for the Government to carry with them conviction and credibility.
    We must also focus on the provision for accelerated release at a point in the future, which the Bill currently specifies as two years hence. We need to know that that is linked to the implementation of the agreement, particularly with regard to decommissioning. We should look closely at clause 10(7), which gives the Secretary of State power to vary the accelerated release date. I think that it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to be able to vary it with regard to particular organisations, rather than generally.
    I raised that point when I was consulted on the Bill by officials. I thank the Secretary of State for that consultation, and for the opportunity to discuss these matters. It was pointed out to me that the objective could be achieved in a roundabout way, in that the criteria in clause 3(8) and (9) could be used to remove organisations from the list. Power would then exist, under clause 8, to revoke declarations that had been made. If we are to proceed in that roundabout way, however, clause 8 needs to be strengthened. In particular, an obligation should be imposed to seek revocation if the conditions in clause 3(8) have not been satisfied. Moreover, the commissioners should have a duty to revoke declarations if the conditions in clause 3 are no longer met. We shall want to pursue that point.
    There are other problems. I am concerned about what has been said about transferred prisoners. It is a complex matter; I am inclined to agree with what was said by the hon. Member for Bracknell, and I am keen to hear what the Minister of State says. If the provisions for early release apply to people who are transferred from England to Northern Ireland, it is difficult to argue that, when sentences imposed in England are varied by virtue of the legislation, the Irish Government must continue to be bound by undertakings given before the agreement and before the legislation. We need to hear more about that. We need to know what undertakings the Irish Government have given since the agreement, and what discussions have taken place with the Irish Government since then.

    1101
    If the position is as the Secretary of State has said, that will give us concern, just as the statements made by the Irish Government about those who murdered Garda McCabe have given us concern. If the official view of the Irish and British Governments is that the murder of policemen outside Northern Ireland is quite different from the murder of policemen inside Northern Ireland, and that the lives of Northern Ireland policemen are not valued in the same way as the lives of policemen in North Yorkshire or Limerick, that is deeply offensive to society in Northern Ireland as a whole, particularly to the families of policemen who have been murdered in Northern Ireland. It is a very sensitive issue.
    We shall need to focus on the period in respect of which the legislation operates, and how it applies to persons who have not been convicted before 10 April or who are charged subsequently. I see that there is an express provision with regard to accelerated release, but I see no equivalent provision with regard to declarations for early release in the earlier clauses. I should have thought that it would be best to apply the legislation simply to those who have been charged before 10 April—that would be a clean cut-off—but we shall want to examine the issue closely in Committee.
    Finally, I should like to return to decommissioning and to draw attention to an interesting expression of opinion on the issue that reinforces the need for insistence on this matter. It also shows the way in which opinion elsewhere has changed. The opinion is contained in a recent editorial in The Washington Post which, I think, was written to time with the arrival in Washington of the person who was returned to serve as the Member for Belfast, West. The editorial stated:
    "It was always evident that decommissioning…would be the toughest issues of peace to enforce. Optimists…have suggested relying on a strategy of 'trust and rust'…counting on the gunmen simply to throw their weapons into a bog. But this is not what the agreement said. It promised not only the security flowing from disarmament but the confidence flowing from the spectacle of orderly, verified disarmament."
    The editorial concluded:
    "Any hints of a departure from its specific terms, especially on the 'indispensable' issue of disarming, can bring no good."
    I have expressed that opinion in more robust terms. It is significant that opinion elsewhere, and particularly what seems to be a change of opinion elsewhere on this matter, shows the Government the international support that there will be if they robustly insist on all terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland demonstrating clearly and unequivocally that the war is over and stating that they must be irrevocably committed to peaceful means before they can benefit from early releases or from other aspects of the agreement.
    5.1 pm
    Mr. Seamus Mallon: The legislation is unique. One could search the record books to find legislation to do what this Bill does and have little success. It is unique because it deals with a unique agreement that was reached to deal with unique circumstances that have culminated in 28 years of almost unremitting violence. There can be no perfect legislation in relation to that because it is not a legislative matter: it
    1102
    is a political matter. At the heart of the argument is the fact that the legislation, with its legalities and legislative quirks, is political. We should not lose sight of the fact that it is designed for a political agreement that will help to bring about circumstances that nothing else has been able to achieve over almost 30 years. We should consistently measure that political element against our views of bits and pieces of the legislation.
    What is the political element? The accelerated release of prisoners is a cold, harsh fact for all of us in the north of Ireland, but it is an inevitable and inescapable necessity for a lasting agreement. It rankles with me, with Opposition Members and with people throughout the north of Ireland, but we cannot escape the fact that that is the Bill's political content. It is inevitable and inescapable if we are to make the Good Friday agreement work and build permanent peace. It could enable us to achieve the almost impossible, which is to bind the deep wounds of a community that have been caused by violence on both sides and heal the bitterness and hatred.
    I ask right hon. and hon. Members to measure the legalistic niceties of parts of the Bill against the political imperative that we all face and knew that we faced when we signed the Good Friday agreement. It is ironic that from that agreement the bitter pill comes first because the first legislative element of the agreement has to do with the release of prisoners. The community's first experience of the agreement will be the legislation for that necessary process. I know that that is in the minds of people throughout the north of Ireland. I ask people to understand that we are dealing not just with sensitivity in the Unionist community. There is sensitivity throughout the community, not just in relation to prisoners but in relation to victims.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that successive Governments have said that there are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in any part of the United Kingdom, but that only those who have been convicted after due process and beyond any reasonable doubt of crimes that are viewed as such in any civilised society are in gaol. I am sure he will agree that the real issue is the early release not of prisoners but of duly convicted criminals, many of them of the worst conceivable kind.
    Mr. Mallon: I note what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. I wish that I had the luxury of the pedantry of judging everything in the terms that he uses. I do not have the luxury of measuring these matters in legalistic terms: I leave that to those who have. I do not engage in the luxury of trying to create arguments that can be won and lost on both sides. The political dimension could evaporate and we could lose all in the process. The hon. and learned Gentleman should realise that, to win an argument, one must convince people of the rightness of what one is doing. I do not question the legal expertise that the hon. and learned Gentleman brought to his intervention and that he will bring to this and other debates. However, I question his political awareness.
    Political reality has conditioned the community in the north of Ireland to acceptance of the fact that early release is part of the solution to the problem. It is a unique act of good faith by people in the north of Ireland, in Britain and in the Republic of Ireland. However introverted we may be in the north of Ireland, we should remember that

    1103
    it is mostly three groups of people who suffer from the violence. They are the people of this country, those of the Republic of Ireland and those in the north of Ireland. Through their Governments and their representatives, those people will make that act of faith when they pass the legislation. It is, indeed, an act of generosity and of vision. That vision will carry us through the most difficult parts of the post-agreement period—and difficult they will be. It is an experience. Indeed, I would go further and call it an act of compassion. For many, perhaps, it is even an act of forgiveness, which, at some time or other, must be faced in life in the north of Ireland.
    By a quirk of history, our generation must undergo this experience so that our children and other generations will not have to do so. It is part of our custodianship of the agreement that we signed that we see it through in respect of its integrity and in the terms in which it was written.
    The Bill will be very difficult for many in the House. I do not confine that remark to representatives of the Unionist community. I gently remind the House that, following the referendum, when we talk about the people of the north of Ireland, we are surely talking about all the people of the north of Ireland. The community that my party and I represent comprises 42 per cent. and more of the people of the north of Ireland. Let us not get into a habit of dismissing a sizeable section of the community. That will not happen; those days are over. Indeed, with all due respect, we will not let it happen. That is what partnership is about.
    When talking about yes votes and no votes, to which reference has been made, let us not forget the section of the community that, by and large, voted yes. Let us not forget as well the people of the Republic of Ireland, who took an enormous step in amending their constitution to ensure that it would not be perceived as presenting a threat either to the people of the north of Ireland or to peace.
    In dealing with such legislation, we are treading on eggs; there is no question or doubt about that. It will be easy for people to win a little battle on a small legalistic point, but it will be much more difficult to achieve the totality of requirement through the Bill and other factors, and to gauge and view things in terms of that totality, which will have to be done.
    I repeat, I understand the feelings of people here. I repeat, I sat in talks for two years in rooms with people who had murdered a close colleague of mine and had served their sentence for it. I live in the north of Ireland; I always have. Since 1985—I cannot be precise about the figure—between 400 and 500 terrorists' sentences have been reviewed. Those people are walking on the streets of the north of Ireland as a result of a review procedure that is similar to the one in the Bill. I hope that that process will add to the potential success of the agreement.
    More than anything else, the Bill places a debt of honour on the shoulders of all organisations that are connected to paramilitary activity. It takes the initiative, it puts them in a position where they owe it to the communities in the north and south of Ireland, the people living here, the two Governments who signed the agreement and all political parties, to ensure that there are no tricks, no games, no strokes. We are playing for the future, and that debt of honour will have to be honoured.
    In just the same way, we must honour our own word. This legislation represents the first part of the agreement to go through the House. We must remember that the
    1104
    agreement was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Ireland—north and south. This debate has particular significance. It is essential that we send the strongest signal to everyone of our determination to implement the agreement completely and in strict conformity with its terms. In passing this Bill, we will place a debt of honour on parties connected with paramilitary organisations. This Government, the Irish Government, my party and the other political parties signed the agreement, and we must honour our word not just to the House or our parties but to the people who gave their mandate in the referendum. None of us can break our word to the people of the north of Ireland who gave theirs so readily in the referendum. We cannot take the little bits that we do not like and try to change them to what we would prefer. If the terms of the agreement are altered in any significant way, the faith of all those who voted for the agreement will be breached.
    Creating peace is one of the great challenges. There has been a remarkable prisoner culture in Ireland down through the centuries. One of the elements of hope, which I think the Secretary of State has recognised on several occasions, is the development of thinking in the—now—political parties which stemmed from inside the prisons. We should recognise that. I speak as someone who has no prisoners, no guns and no Semtex and who does not threaten people or violence. I gently remind everyone that that does not mean either that the integrity of arguments does not stand up or that those arguments can be ignored.
    I appreciate everything that the Prime Minister has done in trying to ensure the endorsement of the agreement in the referendum. I again ask that we always remember that there are two sections of the community. Both want peace; both want—and have said so—the agreement to work. Let us do what we did in reaching the agreement. As people of honour, we signed it; as people of honour, we should deliver it.
    I ask that the agreement be adhered to. My party will insist that it will be. There can be no question of introducing new elements or of imposing preconditions which were considered and rejected during negotiation between the parties and the Governments. It is also important that implementation of the legislation takes fully into account the context in which the agreement was negotiated and the timetable on which its various aspects must be implemented. That especially applies to clause 3(9)(d), to which reference has been made. Subsections (9) and (8) must not be used as a means to rewrite any party's understanding of what constitutes a "complete and unequivocal" ceasefire.
    It is worth remembering that, on 5 March, both the British and Irish Governments recognised that
    "a complete, unqualified and unequivocal IRA ceasefire was being fully and continuously observed."
    The definition of ceasefire applying in that statement cannot now be changed to suit the changing mood in any section of the community. If the definition applies, we should proceed on that basis. If it does not, let the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State come to the House and tell us how it has changed. If we proceed on that basis, we can proceed honourably in implementing that which was honourably signed on Good Friday.
    One of the strengths of the north of Ireland has been the generosity, humanity and spirit of those who have been victims. I have often questioned my own capacity, if any of my family had been killed or seriously injured, to show the generosity and magnanimity demonstrated by those who have been victims.

    1105
    When we pass the Bill, we should therefore not engage in an emotional binge on the suffering of victims and their bereaved. We should remember their compassion and generosity in supporting the agreement. They are making a major sacrifice in overcoming their prejudices. We should approach passing the Bill in the same manner. If we do, we will be able to make a unique piece of legislation into something that is crucial for the future.
    If we niggle at the Bill—going for little victories over a word or two, and the little legalisms—when we know that we are taking a political decision, we will only be adding fuel to the fire of controversy and bitterness, of which we already have plenty.
    Surely our job as legislators, and as people who are trying to lead in the north of Ireland, is to say again to people, "Good Friday was a good Friday. The referendum result was your decision. Now we assume our responsibilities and implement your wishes in full and in their complete integrity."
    5.22 pm
    Mr. Phil Willis: On behalf of Liberal Democrat Members, I thank the Secretary of State and her officials for welcoming us, helping us to understand the Bill, and consulting us fully on it. We are very grateful to her for that.
    It is now exactly two months since Good Friday and the historic agreement in Belfast. In those two months, we have witnessed a hard-fought referendum campaign, and, in referendums in Northern Ireland and the Republic, overwhelming support for the settlement. We are now well on the way to the first elections to the new assembly.
    Liberal Democrat Members whole-heartedly support the agreement, and we will be whole-heartedly supporting the legislation. It is as simple as that. Some hon. Members may suggest that the Bill has been born of compromised principles. Liberal Democrats say that the overall agreement is a principled compromise, and that the legislation flows straight out of the agreement. We cannot have the agreement without the legislation. If one picks and chooses which parts of the agreement are implemented and which are ignored, the agreement would not have been worth making with that person in the first place.
    We should do well to consider the legislation in context—the context not only of the agreement signed in Belfast, but of earlier legislation. The Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995, which was initiated by the previous Government, set a precedent on the issue. We must recognise and accept that precedent.
    The 1995 Act was passed by Parliament only a few months after the first republican and loyalist ceasefire, and increased from one third to one half the amount of remission that prisoners convicted of scheduled offences could expect. The Act has led to about 240 prisoners being released on licence earlier than they otherwise would have been. Subsequently, only two of those prisoners' licences have been revoked. The House united behind the pioneering 1995 legislation, and I hope that it will today unite behind the Act's successor.
    The Bill, if closely considered, suggests that it will affect a similar number of prisoners as the 1995 Act. The effect of the legislation will be that about four out of every
    1106
    five prisoners currently serving a sentence for scheduled offences will be released within two years. However, even without the legislation, about 45 per cent. of those prisoners would have been released within two years. Putting together those two facts, and applying some elementary arithmetic, the fact emerges that most of the prisoners who will be released on licence because of the Bill would, without it, have been set free entirely.
    The legislation is not—as some people would have us believe—a swinging open of the prison doors, allowing a flood of prisoners to run amok, but a jarring open of those doors, little by little, so that inmates might smell the fresh breath of a society at peace, which we hope will stay at peace. The Bill will allow them to come out of prison on a very tight and secure leash.
    Such legislation must, of course, have some very carefully constructed safeguards. Perhaps some of the most important safeguards are stated in clause 9, which deals with the terms of the licence under which prisoners will be released. If the terms are broken, prisoners can again be locked up, and their sentences can be reimposed. We have to recognise that provision. If we put ourselves in the position of the prisoners, we might realise how strongly that provision will act to deter reoffending.
    Liberal Democrat Members welcome the independent element in the process that will be provided by the sentence review board, and we welcome specifically the independent commissioners. I hope that their independence will give the process added credibility, and ensure that not only the spirit of the Good Friday agreement but its detail—which is embodied in the legislation's detail—are put into practice.
    We welcome the fact that all prisoners will have to have served a certain amount of their sentence, depending on the length of their sentence. Anyone who thought that the Bill was a "get out of gaol free" card will be disappointed.
    We welcome also the flexibility inherent in the legislation. The anticipated two-year time frame is amendable. Clause 14 allows the Secretary of State to suspend and revive the entire process, depending on how well the agreement is working.
    Despite the legislation's virtues, it has some flaws of omission—the most important of which centres on the issue of victim notification. In the light of the comprehensive Bloomfield report on the victims of the violence of the past 30 years, it is important that victims are not overlooked in the legislation. Victims are as essential as prisoners to the process working.
    I ask the House to imagine how upset victims would be if confronted unexpectedly by the person who harmed them or killed their relative. A victim may have spent years trying to put behind them their horrible and painful memories, only to have those memories ripped open by a chance encounter. If anyone thinks that such chance encounters are unlikely, think of those who might go out of their way to make them happen—such as tabloid journalists; the agreement's opponents; or anyone who might wish simply to rekindle the troubles.
    There are victims not only in Northern Ireland. Victims on the mainland will have to be protected, and their feelings considered.
    Mr. Hunter: I take exception to a comment made by the hon. Gentleman. To oppose the agreement is not to

    1107
    want a return to violence; many people genuinely and sincerely believe that the agreement is flawed. May I invite him to reconsider those words?
    Mr. Willis: I am more than pleased not only to reconsider those words, but to make it absolutely clear—as I did last week, in a question to the Secretary of State—that, after speaking at a meeting in Londonderry, to people from both north and south of the border who had voted no in the referendum, I share that concern. It was certainly a concern of our party that we should not make the mistake of thinking that people who voted no in the referendum wanted a continuation of the warfare that has gone on in Northern Ireland. I accept the hon. Gentleman's rebuke, and am glad to put the matter straight.
    The deep concern of families in Northern Ireland is mirrored in my area of North Yorkshire by that of the family of Special Constable Glen Goodman, who was shot when he and his fellow officer Sandy Kelly stopped a car carrying the IRA killer Paul Magee in June 1992. It will be difficult to persuade the parents, friends and colleagues of Special Constable Goodman that Paul Magee should be released from prison without serving 30 years, which is why the recognition of the position of victims and the need to support them through this process must be one of the most important components of the Bill.
    The provision should include prisoners who have been transferred to prisons in the Republic of Ireland. When we get a definitive answer from the Secretary of State, which I am sure we will in due course, it is also important that she deals with whether the Government of the Republic of Ireland are contemplating similar legislation. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is right to say that we cannot pass legislation in a British Parliament that would be binding on the Republic, but there is nothing to stop the Republic passing similar legislation to mirror the agreement.
    Mr. McNamara: May I repeat what is contained within the agreement under the heading, "Prisoners"? It states:
    "1. Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland"—
    which would include the Republic of Ireland as well as this island—
    "similar offences (referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners)."
    Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. That is at the heart of the confusion. Clearly the agreement intends that arrangements will be made in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. This Bill refers to the arrangements in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Robert McCartney rose—
    Mr. Willis: I will certainly give way when I have finished this point.
    The reality—this is why I mentioned Special Constable Goodman and his family—is that their relationship as victims is to a prisoner who is now held in a Republic of Ireland gaol. When the legislation—or arrangements—is
    1108
    produced, it is imperative on our Government to ensure that we use our best offices with the Republic of Ireland Government to see that similar support is given, irrespective of whether the prisoner is released in the south or the north, whatever the arrangements. That is the heart of the confusion, which I have no doubt will be sorted out.
    Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. His subsequent remarks have clarified the point that I was about to make. However, do I understand him correctly to be saying that he feels that, if qualified prisoners are released in Northern Ireland, someone who has committed a crime on the United Kingdom mainland and has been transferred to the Republic of Ireland should have the benefit of exactly similar provisions and should be released in exactly the same way? In other words, Mr. Magee would be entitled to be released within a similar two-year scheme, as the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) properly and correctly pointed out.
    Mr. Willis: My understanding from the terms of the agreement is that that will be the case. That is the difficulty that the family, friends and colleagues of Special Constable Goodman have, and it is a problem that all victims will have when a prisoner is released, no matter what the sentence. Clearly, that problem must be dealt with. Our plea from the Liberal Democrat Benches is that the legislation should support the victims, and we shall table an amendment to that effect in Committee.
    Mr. William Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider it an insult to the relatives of those who have been murdered to let the person who committed the crime out, and then express regret to the relative that they have been let out?
    Mr. Willis: If I have in any way given that impression—indeed, if the Secretary of State or any other hon. Member has done so—it would be wholly wrong. Such an arrangement would be incomprehensible in a civilised society. Clearly, whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the principle behind the Bill and embedded in the Belfast agreement that the release of prisoners is an essential part of the peace process is up to him to decide.
    I am arguing that the needs of victims have to be taken into consideration. We also argue that, before any prisoner is released—rather than after release—we should deal with the victim in the most sympathetic manner. Without a basic provision to safeguard the dignity of victims, this legislation would be a lopsided enactment of the Good Friday agreement, giving prisoners their due while snubbing their victims, and perhaps even making victims suffer twice.
    The Northern Ireland Office, or, indeed, the partners in the peace process, may well be powerless to act, but scenes of triumphal behaviour by released prisoners could do more to destabilise the process than almost anything else, and we have to work to avoid it. We must continue to emphasise that the only winner in this process must be peace for all the people of Northern Ireland. This Bill is before Parliament for them, and it is for a lasting peace that the victims have made such huge sacrifices, which we must not forget.

    1109
    I understand that our sister party, the Alliance party, in Northern Ireland has led the way in that area, making victim notification a central part of its post-agreement platform. Just as the views of nationalists and Unionists need to be reconciled, so too do the differences between prisoners and their victims. Victims and their families deserve recognition and respect. Unlike prisoners, victims have no political wing. We all have a responsibility to ensure that they are not ignored in the process.
    The simplest remedy to the problem is a basic courtesy. Victims of terrorist acts should be notified when the perpetrator of an act from which they have suffered is released. Victims should have the right not to be informed—some may want to put the whole business behind them, and that should be their right. Other victims may be difficult to identify, but every effort should be made to trace them. As the Bloomfield report has made clear, difficulty in tracing victims should not be used to justify the legislation being enacted unamended. If it is not amended, we will consider it a lopsided enactment of the agreement, honouring commitments to prisoners but not to victims.
    Therefore, will the Government amend the legislation before it reaches Committee, to ensure that victims are notified of the release of prisoners who made them victims? The Secretary of State or the Minister will undoubtedly respond to that question in winding up.
    One omission that probably does not require an amendment to the legislation—a ministerial assurance will suffice—is: when is a ceasefire not a ceasefire? The political process that led to the Good Friday agreement was littered with a wonderland of semantics. Some phrases were used by different people to mean totally different things, and some phrases were even used by the same people to mean different things. When I heard some of the language, I wondered whether we were at a mad hatter's tea party, and I am glad to see that we are finally climbing out of the rabbit hole. The tightening of what constitutes a ceasefire is welcome, and absolutely necessary.
    I am glad that persisting with punishment beatings now constitutes an infringement of the ceasefire, and that the notion of an acceptable level of violence has gone the way of the no campaign in last month's referendum. Will the Secretary of State assure us that she will consult the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding before deciding whether the ceasefire has been broken, or whether it remains worthy of the name and the entitlement that that name bestows? I am sure that she would hold such consultations as a matter of course, but it would good to hear an assurance in the House.
    The greatest impact of the legislation will be on those organisations to be listed under the definitions in clause 3(8)—terrorist organisations that have not enacted a ceasefire. Because of the legislation, any prisoner belonging to those organisations will plead for a ceasefire to be declared. Because of the agreement, and the fact that most paramilitary groups seem to be abiding by it, those organisations will feel the strength of the security forces concentrated against them; and because of the referendum, in which 71 per cent. voted for the agreement, there will be nothing to gain and everything to lose by pursuing an armed struggle.
    1110
    The legislation will be a vital element in bringing lasting peace in Northern Ireland, and the Liberal Democrats will support it tonight.
    5.40 pm
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: I welcome the speed with which the Government have introduced this difficult, sensitive and emotional piece of legislation. It is difficult for all parties in the House and for all the people of these islands, because we rightly speak of the pain suffered by the people in Northern Ireland—although the worst atrocity was perpetrated in the Republic of Ireland—but many people here in Britain have also suffered the pain and anger that flow from terrorist violence. People have been victims of loyalist as well as republican violence, and have also suffered at the hands of the security forces, even if the pain was sometimes inflicted inadvertently.
    The Bill is important and necessary, and we must be very careful indeed with it. We must reject all calls for amendments that introduce new preconditions to the agreement and seek to rewrite it.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman consider any of the undertakings given by the Prime Minister in the referendum campaign to amount to what he describes as new preconditions?
    Mr. McNamara: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the statements from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are built into the Bill, and do not necessarily amount to any rewriting of the agreement.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown considerable courage and skill. She is right to say that the Bill applies only to prisoners in Northern Ireland: it is a Northern Irish Bill. What applies in the Republic of Ireland depends on what the Government there do to implement the agreement, to which they have also put their hand. I presume that people in the Northern Ireland Office will hear from people in the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin precisely what is happening there, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to give that information to the House later today.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) made a point that was echoed by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), but if they read the Bill carefully, they will see that the Scots Guardsmen are covered by it, and that it is up to them whether they want to take advantage of it. One does not have to be a member of a paramilitary organisation to be eligible for early release under the Bill; one need only have been accused and convicted of a scheduled offence.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: I believe that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is correct, but the point was that an accelerated release was being contended for for the two Scots Guardsmen, rather than an application under the Bill, and therein lies the difference between the two cases.
    Mr. McNamara: Given the time scale that is being considered, the legislation could be on the stocks before the consultations on the case have been concluded.
    Dr. Godman: Whatever the merits of the case for the early release of the two Scots Guardsmen, as a west of

    1111
    Scotland Member I can tell my hon. Friend and the House that rarely does a surgery go by without someone coming along to say that the lads deserve a break. I have mixed feelings on the matter, but I make the point because, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) could not be described as a west of Scotland Member, I would bet my bottom dollar that he receives similar representations at his surgeries.
    Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend is right. When the soldier from Yorkshire was in a similar situation, we also received such representations. In all the cases, the soldiers had been found guilty, and had, on occasions, concocted stories that the courts were not prepared to accept and that tended to cloud any claims of innocence that they might have made. I make no stronger point than that.
    Mr. Robathan: It is true that, in the case of Private Clegg, a story was concocted, but Guardsmen Fisher and Wright throughout told precisely what they believed to be the truth. In my view, they committed a grievous error that led to a fatality. I make no criticism of the court, but they did not concoct a story. Perhaps the most iniquitous aspect of the matter is that they are serving their sentence whereas people who deliberately set out to commit murder are to be released.
    Mr. McNamara: As the hon. Gentleman said, they committed a grievous offence, and they are therefore covered by the Bill. The previous Government, whom he supported, failed lamentably to find a suitable offence, less than murder but more than mere manslaughter, to cover members of the security forces in that position, despite the fact that the then Opposition made many efforts to get them to consider the matter seriously.
    My next point concerns the sentence review commissioners, one of whom "shall be appointed chairman". The relevant clause refers to people
    "commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland."
    There were unhappy words and experiences between representatives of the two communities over appointment of members of Mr. Patten's commission on the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I hope that that can be avoided this time and that there will be more careful consideration of community recommendations, so that the commissioners will be seen to have widespread support in all sections of the community.
    I now turn to the main burden of my speech. The South African experience shows that, in the search for truth and reconciliation, the healing process for individuals and their communities requires considerable long-term care and attention, but that the release of prisoners is also an essential ingredient of conflict resolution. It is right that the matter should be tackled early, so that deeper sources of pain and hurt can be addressed.
    The Bill provides for the inclusion of all prisoners whose convictions are conflict-related. That would include members of the armed forces. It would also include individuals who are, or who may claim to be, victims of miscarriages of justice. Some prisoners on paramilitary wings may have chosen to remain silent about their wrongful convictions. Some who have protested their innocence may have associated with paramilitary prisoners; others will not have.
    1112
    I should like the Minister of State to say that the access of prisoners to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and their right of appeal in either jurisdiction will not be limited or forfeited as a result of their transfer to another jurisdiction or by accelerated release. People who fulfil the criteria and obtain accelerated release but who claim to have been victims of miscarriages of justice, or who have had their cases referred to the CCRC, should not have their position prejudiced by applying for early release.
    I should also like the Minister to say that, where prisoners have declared and maintained their innocence, it will not be held against them, as it is in some cases in the rest of the United Kingdom when prisoners appeal for parole: because they claim that they never committed the offence in the first place, they have to stay in prison because they are not showing remorse.
    The next matter to which I wish to refer is the integration of former prisoners. Prisoners have played a key role in this peace process. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State showed when she visited the Maze prison at Christmas, it was essential that the prisoners understood the Government's intentions and what their representatives outside were seeking to achieve. The prisoners who have been released and those who are still inside will be critical in making all aspects of the agreement work and in helping the search for reconciliation.
    I therefore welcome the specific commitment by the Government in the agreement, to which the parties participating have signed up:
    "The Governments continue to recognise the importance of measures to facilitate the reintegration of prisoners into the community by providing support both prior to and after release, including assistance directed towards availing of employment opportunities, re-training and/or re-skilling, and further education."
    The prisoners' organisations must be recognised as part of the consultative process in trying to achieve that, as must the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders and appropriate voluntary agencies, to develop proper resettlement and retraining plans for each prisoner.
    We do not know precisely how many prisoners are involved. In answering a written question, my hon. Friend the Minister of State could not give me the number of people who regard themselves as politically motivated and who have been through the system. The figure may be around 10,000, although republicans claim that it may be as high as 20,000. If there are that many people, making a new start for them will be difficult.
    All prisoners, whatever plaudits they receive at their party conferences, have disadvantages, and some will face discrimination in gaining employment. In the light of the agreement and optimism for the future, we should consider how long people released from prison after serving time for scheduled offences should keep criminal records.
    A criminal record can bar someone from entering professions. It bars entry to the law, social work, teaching, banking, insurance, policing and the civil service. It may affect a person's ability to apply for a licence to drive a public carriage vehicle or taxi. It may affect access to education and eligibility for grants and other forms of assistance. Security vetting can affect great areas of employment. The operation of section 42 of the Fair

    1113
    Employment Act, which the Government are reviewing, may discourage companies from employing former prisoners.
    There are different aspects to the problem, and different ways have been sought to deal with it. In South Africa, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission proposed an indemnification Bill to expunge the records of political prisoners. In Canada, where there were problems in the Yukon with reintegrating the disproportionate number of former prisoners from the indigenous native American population, there is a specific clause in the Bill of Rights preventing discrimination on grounds of a criminal record. I know that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights is examining that, but reintegration of prisoners into the community merits careful consideration.
    Prison officers also face an uncertain future. The inevitable reorganisation of the Northern Ireland Prison Service is likely to result in the permanent closure of the Maze prison. That will have consequences for job security and career development among the officers and staff of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. That must be carefully addressed. They will lose their jobs, when they have long served the community and been exposed to dangerous positions. How do we protect and compensate them, and give them retraining and resettlement? Downsizing will follow naturally from this legislation, and we cannot ignore our responsibilities to former prison officers.
    The closures will affect local communities and their economies. I am happy to say that the Government have started such a dialogue with the Northern Ireland Prison Officers Association and the people involved. That is welcome, because, unless we start creating some confidence, we could have prison incidents, unacceptable risks might be taken, and we could get political flashpoints.
    If we are making changes in preparation for prisoners going out into the free world, it would be well also to consider how prison regimes might be altered so that matters such as grounds for compassionate leave, parole and weekend leave can be handled more quickly, effectively and efficiently. I suggest that we should consider carefully whether strip searching, especially of women prisoners, cannot be brought to an end.
    The major point made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) was on whether there should be some tightening up in the legislation, or whether prisoner release should be directly associated with decommissioning in one way or another. I would reject associating releases with decommissioning. I believe that the terms suggested by the hon. Gentleman would constitute a rewriting of the terms of the Good Friday agreement. He was trying to revisit matters raised during the negotiations and rejected. It was an attempt to rewrite something that the parties to the negotiations accepted could not be done in that particular way. I believe, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), in the integrity of the agreement.
    I draw the attention of the House to a letter that some may have received from the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, an organisation with considerable experience in dealing with
    1114
    released prisoners from both sides of the community who have been sentenced for scheduled offences. NIACRO said:
    "An essential part of that Agreement was the commitment that the majority of politically motivated prisoners would, if the peace held, be released within two years. It is our view, based on our experience and knowledge of prisoners, their organisations and the communities from which they come, that, if the commitment to release is altered, or if new conditions are put upon it, the Agreement will fail and large scale violence will return."
    I ask people who seek to alter the agreement to listen to that letter. The organisation is experienced in this matter. It would be wrong for Members of Parliament not to hear the expression of the opinion of experienced people, no matter how unpalatable it may be to them.
    NIACRO continues:
    "Specifically—if a new condition is laid down in legislation, that decommissioning of weapons must occur before, or in some other way be concretely linked to, prisoner release, that would represent a breach of the terms of the Agreement and would be seen as the failure of peaceful means and a reason for a return to violence."
    That is not my opinion, or what I want to see. It is the considered judgment of what will happen if the agreement is altered.
    NIACRO goes on:
    "The Draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill provides that the Secretary of State shall take into account whether an organisation is fully co-operating with the Decommissioning Body in assessing the state of their ceasefire … That, in itself, represents an interpretation of the Agreement rather than its actual words; to go any further could be disastrous."
    Those are NIACRO's words, not mine. I ask the House to bear that opinion carefully in mind.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that implicit in that statement is the threat of renewed violence, and that organisations are not really committed to peaceful and democratic means but are engaged in a tactical ceasefire, and will revert to violence if they do not get their way? Is he aware of another memorandum circulated by NIACRO to its staff officers, which says that the next argument to be pursued is that for an amnesty for those terrorists who have not yet been brought to justice for offences that they have committed? Does he agree with NIACRO that it should pursue such an amnesty? What does that say about NIACRO?
    Mr. McNamara: On the first point, there is a real chance of an increase in violence if the terms of the agreement are not honoured and if people seek to change it. That does not mean that I approve of an increase in violence or want it. God knows, I have seen enough of terrorism. It has touched people in our families just as much as it has touched other people's. We know what it is about. I do not want to see an increase in violence. I am telling hon. Members what an organisation supported by the Government and working specifically to resettle prisoners of all sorts feels about the situation.
    On the second point, about an amnesty, I have not seen the memorandum. Until I have seen its contents, I will not make a judgment on it, but it seems to me that, in whatever scheme is created, offences committed before the declaration of the second ceasefire and the signing of

    1115
    the agreement are a different kettle of fish from offences committed after the ceasefire and the signing of the agreement.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the terms of the agreement are what all the parties have agreed to and that they cannot be altered, amended or varied by any party, including the Government. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister has led other participants in the negotiations and those who voted yes in the referendum to believe that the agreement could be altered by legislation passed in this House to meet some of the points that would certainly have caused them to vote no had he not given those pledges?
    Mr. McNamara: I do not accept that. I do not find anything contained in the agreement, on decommissioning or other matters such as the membership of the Executive, that goes beyond what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. What my right hon. Friend said is contained in the agreement. I believe that he acquitted himself well on the issue, and that he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserve merit for their sterling work to ensure that an agreement was reached by which so many of the parties could feel themselves bound.
    Mr. Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the wording of clause 3(9)(b)—
    "has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence"—
    means that preparation for violence and a failure to decommission must go hand in hand? If there is no decommissioning, under the terms of the agreement that must amount to a preparation for the renewal of violence.
    Mr. McNamara: That is not so. Her Majesty's Government have an Army, a Navy and an Air Force. They are not preparing for aggression: they are at peace. If someone has a gun at home—that is allowed in Northern Ireland—that does not necessarily mean that he will go out and kill people with it. If I am asked whether there should be immediate decommissioning and whether all illegal arms should be surrendered, I answer yes. But if I am asked whether I think that will happen, I answer no.
    I agreed strongly with the point about victims stressed by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Whether this is a matter for the legislation is a point that can be considered when we see the hon. Gentleman's amendment. It was the Bloomfield report which dealt humanely and compassionately with the victims of violence. What matters more than the legislation is that the spirit of Bloomfield's recommendations should be put into operation.
    This is an important Bill. The House is perhaps unhappy with it because of what it implies and what it means. It is nevertheless significant, and it should go through the House without alteration.
    6.11 pm
    Mr. Andrew Hunter: I shall begin with an historical footnote. In 1996, after the IRA abandoned the first so-called ceasefire, there was an appreciable apprehension that the loyalist terrorist organisations might resume full-scale violence. I was a fringe participant in a number of meetings and discussions with Ministers at
    1116
    which, among other things, the option of early release for terrorist prisoners was considered as an inducement to prevent loyalist terrorists from returning to violence. Although I had some misgivings, I thought that the option should at least be considered seriously and purposefully. Indeed, I wrote a paper suggesting certain mechanisms and procedures that would allow the early release of loyalist terrorist prisoners to be implemented. My suggestions were not entirely dissimilar to some aspects of the Bill.
    My proposals were warmly received in Dublin because the Irish Government were anxious for any movement on the prisoner issue; but the Secretary of State rejected them out of hand. He argued strongly against the details of my proposals and against any further relaxation of the sentences of loyalist prisoners.
    In the course of the subsequent discussions I became increasingly aware of the terrifying implications of going down the road that has ultimately led us to the early release provisions of the Belfast agreement and of this Bill. For the time being my view may be a minority and unpopular one, but I shall state it nevertheless. I oppose the Bill in absolute terms as a matter of principle, and on pragmatic grounds as well.
    I oppose the Bill in principle because there is no moral justification for the early release of prisoners. When we pursue policies in a moral vacuum, we run the risk of courting trouble. I do not accept that crimes of violence are less serious, or that their perpetrators can be treated more leniently, if they have been committed for political motives. The Bill therefore sets a dangerous precedent. It is incompatible with the rule of law; it marks the triumph of terror. The argument is morally wrong, and if we give the Bill a Second Reading tonight we shall be deeply mistaken.
    The early release of prisoners is a scandalous affront to the victims of terror. Justice for them should not be cast aside lightly in the pursuit of political expediency. Early release is an intolerable pay-off for the bravery and sacrifices of the security forces—not least the past and present officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, 300 of whom have lost their lives and many more of whom have suffered dreadful injuries while protecting their fellow citizens from the monstrous evil of terrorist violence.
    Many people voted yes in the referendum in the hope of a better future for themselves and their children. But let us consider the sort of values on which this new Northern Ireland is to be built. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) has made the point eloquently; I hope that he will forgive me for quoting him:
    "It will be a society which bends morality and justice for political expediency…a society governed by those whose supporters elevate killers into media celebrities…and homicidal maniacs into heroes and role models".
    This is not the way to build a just and stable society in Northern Ireland. I oppose the early release of terrorist prisoners on those absolute grounds.
    There is another reason why I dislike the Bill. Unless it is amended in Committee, it will be an abiding monument to a broken promise. Many Unionists voted yes in the referendum because they understood that the Prime Minister had promised a direct link in legislation between decommissioning and Sinn Fein's participation in the Executive, and between decommissioning and the

    1117
    early release of terrorist prisoners—what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) has called the precondition of actual and on-going decommissioning.
    Unionists believed that the Prime Minister had made that promise because the media told them that he had. The media had also told them that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and others had welcomed the fact that the Prime Minister made that promise. The Northern Ireland Office will have known of those media reports; to the best of my knowledge it issued no correction or denial. We can therefore assume that the reports were accurate. They were, after all, consistent with what the Prime Minister told the House on 6 May, which was that decommissioning was part of the giving up of violence essential for the early release of prisoners. He repeated the pledge in respect of Sinn Fein's participation in government in his referendum day letter, which appeared in the Irish News and News Letter:
    "Representatives of parties linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future Northern Ireland Government if it is clear that there is to be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone. That doesn't mean just decommissioning".
    There followed the catalogue of other measures that we have heard a number of times.
    On the release of prisoners, as the Bill stands and unless it is amended, the Prime Minister has broken his promise and the people of Northern Ireland will know it. The Bill contains no direct linkage between the actual and on-going decommissioning and early release. The relevant requirement, stated in clause 3(9)(d), is that an organisation
    "is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997."
    Nothing in that Act or in the Bill demands actual and on-going decommissioning as a precondition for early release, or for participation in the government of Northern Ireland. The Bill as it stands points to a Prime Minister who has gone back on his word and taken the people of Northern Ireland for a ride. He duped many Unionists into voting yes with a promise that he has not fulfilled.
    If one promise has been broken, how can the people of Northern Ireland be sure that others will not be broken? What about the promises of a secure future for the RUC and about terrorists not becoming members of a new police force? Those count for nothing, especially now that we know of the Secretary of State's private dealings with the IRA on those matters. Unless the Bill is amended, the issue of early release will prove to be another obscene landmark on what was intended to be a peace process, but which, in reality, long ago became a shameful process of appeasement.
    6.21 pm
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I reject utterly the observations made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). Far from being an obscenity, the Bill is a political inevitability, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said in his quite remarkable speech.
    I hesitate to involve myself in debates of this sort because I do not live in Northern Ireland, although I am a frequent visitor and like to think of myself as a friend of
    1118
    Northern Ireland. Many of the Northern Ireland Members sitting opposite know my constituency well—especially the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). When we speak of violence and of the victims of violence and their families, we in Scotland know that we have been enormously lucky because, over the past 30 years, there has been only a handful of violence incidents. For some strange pan-Celtic reason, the General Army Council of the Provisional IRA decided not to extend its so-called military campaign to Scotland. I recall—I was teaching in Edinburgh at the time—a bomb being detonated in the ladies lavatory in Edinburgh castle in 1971 and the father of the infamous Jason Campbell bombing a Catholic pub in Glasgow not far from where my wife was born and raised, but such isolated incidents apart we in Scotland have been lucky.
    However, we have lost constituents who, when serving with the security forces, have been murdered in Northern Ireland. I remember a young lad from Port Glasgow—a married man with a very young family—being murdered while out on patrol in Northern Ireland. Only two months ago, I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh and saw teenage soldiers, members of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, on patrol. As an ex-service man, I had the good sense not to go over and ask, "Which constituency are you from?" I left them to their military activities, but I would have bet my last pound that one or two members of that patrol were constituents of mine, because the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders recruit widely in the west of Scotland. Nevertheless, as an individual, 1 am nothing more and nothing less than a frequent visitor to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Winnick: Speaking of atrocities, 25 people were butchered on 21 November 1974 in Birmingham, very near my constituency; we are never likely to forget that, or all the other atrocities. Regarding the unfortunate and negative speech made by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), does my hon. Friend recall the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995, which was introduced by the previous Government and in effect stated, on the basis of an IRA ceasefire, that prisoners would be released without any qualification whatsoever? We are to a large extent following what the previous Government did in this respect; moreover, we are laying down qualifications, which are stated in the Bill.
    Dr. Godman: I recall that legislation going through the House, but I do not recall the hon. Member for Basingstoke offering the observation that it was obscene.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: When the hon. Gentleman said that he was an infrequent participant in debates on Northern Ireland I was rather amazed, because we welcome his participation and the records of the House show that he has, quite rightly, participated well. We recognise the sacrifice of people from Great Britain—soldiers and civilians—resulting from the IRA campaign. That is in part why we are concerned that there has not been the mettle in this place to face down terrorism instead of encourage it.
    Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. There is a tangled historical relationship

    1119
    between Scotland and Ireland and I am proud to participate in debates such as this, but I have not experienced the violence at first hand and nor has any member of my family. I believe that the Bill, along with other measures taken by the Labour Government, will lead to those young soldier constituents of mine either coming home or serving elsewhere, perhaps as United Nations peacekeepers.
    Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend welcomed the statement made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), but I am sure that he does not accept the last sentence; that the House has encouraged terrorism and has not had the mettle to face up to it.
    Dr. Godman: My honourable and old Friend's attention must have lapsed for a second. I did not say that I welcomed the statement made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South; I said that I welcomed what he said about my involvement in debates. The hon. Gentleman knows only too well where I stand vis-a-vis his perspective on these issues.
    I should like to put the Bill in the context of what was recently described to me as the "constitutional helter-skelter" in which we are involved. This has been a remarkable year for Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State and Northern Ireland Ministers have played a remarkable role. In particular, I congratulate the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), on being in the Chamber this afternoon when both of us would have liked to see the Scotland-Brazil game. I blame the usual channels for not putting the debate back a day, or for not postponing the opening of the World cup until tomorrow.
    There have been remarkable developments. As one who has been involved with the families of those killed on Bloody Sunday, I think that the decision to initiate a commission of inquiry into that dreadful affair is a courageous one for the Government, especially my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, to take. Looking across at Northern Ireland over the years, I never thought that within my time in Parliament we would get as far as the Belfast agreement takes us. We in Scotland got a superb result in our referendum and a similarly dramatic result was achieved in the Northern Ireland referendum. Now, Northern Ireland is to hold elections to an assembly, although I happen to think that they are being held too early and that a period of reflection is needed—[Interruption.] I thought that that remark would get a reaction from Northern Ireland Members. I base my remarks on my experience of Scotland's preparations for our elections, although the Scottish National party might thank us for being so deliberate. The Bill is part of the overall change that is taking place under the Government's direction. I am not an uncritical supporter of the Government on these matters and I shall make one or two comments to which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister of State will respond.
    I share the repugnance felt by many over the early release of people who have committed violent crimes. Just before and after I entered the House, I was part of the Parole Board system in Scotland. I had to interview many men who had committed dreadful crimes and who were being assessed for release under licence—murderers and
    1120
    others, some of whom had been caught up in the troubles in Northern Ireland. I remember over a period of six months interviewing three men who had received heavy sentences for running arms and explosives to paramilitary loyalist groups. It was my task to interview them and express an opinion as to whether they should be released under licence, so I have some experience at the coal face.
    I reject the argument, advanced by some on the left, that such people have been engaged in some kind of military campaign. It is absurd and obscene to speak of people waging a military campaign in a mature parliamentary democracy. They have committed acts of terrorism. They are not military campaigners in my view. My sympathy, along with everyone else's, is with the families of those who have been murdered and with those who have suffered severe, crippling injuries.
    At the same time, I share the view of Dave Wall, the chief executive of the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, who stated in a letter that many of us have received:
    "Prisoner release is not an easy matter for the people of Northern Ireland or of Britain."
    That is an understatement. The letter continues:
    "It does involve recognising that the violence of the past thirty years was politically motivated, however repugnant that violence was…It is, however, a necessary part of a negotiated political settlement to the violent conflict."
    That was the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh in his eloquent speech. ' We know that this is a political Bill, but the circumstances demand such a response from the Government.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that morality, justice and the rule of law can be sacrificed because it is politically expedient to reach some sort of agreement and that the emphasis on the word political cures all? Does he believe that this is a political expedient, so all the principles on which a civilised democracy is based can be set aside to deliver what expediency requires?
    Dr. Godman: On political morality, I think that I can stand shoulder to shoulder with the hon. and learned Gentleman. There are moments when unpalatable decisions must be made in the interests of the greater good of communities that we in this place seek to represent.
    Mr. McCartney indicated dissent.
    Dr. Godman: The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head. We part company on most issues. On the rule of law, he is a lawyer and a Queen's Counsel. I am not a lawyer. I have an interest in Scots law, but I am not sure that my knowledge would get me past the first year of an undergraduate course.
    In terms of the sociology of law and law making, mature parliamentary democracies must enact laws that some people find difficult to stomach—such as the hon. Member for Basingstoke and, presumably, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). The circumstances demand that we respond in the way that the Government have responded, no matter how great our sense of repugnance at the acts of some people.
    When I interviewed prisoners for possible release under licence, I thought that some of them should stay in those prisons—Edinburgh, Peterhead, Shotts and elsewhere—

    1121
    for the rest of their natural lives, but we had to consider whether such people could, after a period in prison, serve useful lives in the community. As I said earlier, I understand some of the serious reservations that Opposition Members hold, but to earn the trust of the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland the Bill is inevitable and necessary, even though, as has been acknowledged, it is a political Bill.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked about prisoners in the Irish Republic. In my view it is almost inevitable that the Dail will pass legislation that will make the procedures compatible. We are fellow member states of the Council of Europe and I cannot see that a discrepancy in procedures could continue for long.
    I have some questions about specific details of the Bill, to which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister of State will respond in his winding-up speech.
    Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman referred to changes in the law that he believes will be necessary in the Irish Republic. Does he think that the Dail will pass legislation that would release the murderer of Garda McCabe within two years?
    Dr. Godman: I need hardly remind the hon. Gentleman that under the agreement such developments will take place. What the Deputies in the Dail choose to do is a matter for them, but whatever they do must take cognisance of the terms of the agreement.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the possible engagement of a psychiatrist or psychologist. My hon. Friend the Minister may consider this an esoteric point, but I suggest that it might be more useful to employ the services of a consultant psychiatrist who has experience of forensic psychiatry, rather than a psychologist. When referring to a psychologist, does the Secretary of State mean a clinical psychologist with experience in the Prison Service? I do not wish to diminish the talents of psychologists in Northern Ireland and elsewhere, but in the circumstances, serious consideration should be given to my suggestion, offered immodestly, that a consultant psychiatrist with forensic psychiatric experience should be appointed, rather than a clinical or other psychologist.
    It is proposed in clause 1(2)(a) that one of the commissioners should be a lawyer. I believe that that lawyer, male or female, should have practised in Northern Ireland. Similarly, I think that civic society should be represented in the ranks of the commissioners—I am not sure how many there will be. I suggest—with my characteristic modesty—that perhaps a senior academic specialising in conflict resolution or an academic with considerable and recent experience of analysing the communities and recent developments in Northern Ireland should be appointed. I support whole heartedly clause 1(3), which states:
    "In making appointments the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the Commissioners, as a group, commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland."
    That is a categorical imperative.
    I must offer a word or two on the subject of Scots Guardsmen Wright and Fisher. Several hon. Members have referred to their case and one said that they had
    1122
    committed a grievous error. In my view they committed a grievous offence for which they were convicted in a court of law. Nevertheless, I believe that after five or six years in prison they should be given some sympathetic consideration. I suggested in an earlier debate that it might help them and their families if they were transferred to a prison in Scotland, but I understand that they have made no such request. It might be in their best interests to remain within the jurisdiction of Northern Ireland—I know that there have been no complaints recently about their treatment.
    I reject what the hon. Member for Basingstoke said about the Bill. His remarks were disgraceful and inflammatory, but utterly typical of him. The Bill must be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House—I know that Liberal Democrat Members will and I hope that many Conservative Members, after examining it, will do likewise. It is a political Bill, but I believe that it is necessary in terms of the agreement and the expectations, needs and concerns of the people of Northern Ireland.
    6.42 pm
    Rev. Ian Paisley: We are discussing a proposition that one would have thought would never be discussed in the House—the mother of Parliaments and the defender of democracy and law and order. It seems amazing that we are considering how we can let out of prison people who have committed the vilest and most terrible atrocities. It is right to say that all parties to the agreement accepted that.
    It is also correct to say that I cannot find in the agreement any linkage between prisoner releases and decommissioning or anything else. I have read the agreement many times—I have analysed it—but I cannot find a rule that decommissioning must occur in 24 months. People should not try, for their own ends, to read into the agreement what is not there.
    The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) accused the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) of making an inflammatory speech. I assure him that people in Northern Ireland feel deeply about this matter. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), talked forcefully and with passion about what happened in his area. That feeling is multiplied thousands of times in Northern Ireland. We cannot expect people simply to stand by as if this were an unimportant matter about which they have no feelings.
    Feelings in Northern Ireland run very deep. People claim that they will approach these matters with great sensitivity, but the victims of violence whom I know resent that. They say, "They tell us that they will approach these matters sensitively, but how can they say that when I will receive a letter announcing that the person who murdered my father has been released when he should have been incarcerated for another 10 or 15 years?"
    The people who say how deeply they feel, how much they weep and how sensitive they are should stop, because that is much resented by those who have suffered the most. I have attended more funerals—on both sides of the divide—than any other Northern Ireland Member, and I know how people feel. I make it absolutely clear to the House that people's feelings are not alleviated by the promises made by anyone in high places.

    1123
    The Secretary of State has argued—I have listened to her on television and in this place—that there is a package and that, although people may not like the prisoner releases, we must take the whole package. Why is there a package? There is a package because the IRA had a gun and that gun was pointed at the two Governments and at those who were prepared to bow their knee to it. This House has debated before a treaty for peace: the famous treaty between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The House was told then that if it decided to accept the treaty, all would be well: everything would be normal, the gun would be out of Irish politics and it would be wonderful. Northern Ireland's founding father, Lord Carson, speaking in a debate in the House of Lords on that occasion, said:
    "One thing the noble Marquess entirely forgot to tell us was how the Government came to the conclusion that these Articles of Treaty were so much for the benefit of the country. The difficulty I have in commenting upon them at all is that, unless as a matter of mere pretence, when we are seeming to be very dignified and concerned, there is not a noble Lord in this House who believes for a moment that these terms were passed upon the merits. Not at all. They were passed with a revolver pointed at your head. And you know it. You know you passed them because you were beaten. You know you passed them because Sinn Fein with its Army in Ireland has beaten you. Why do you not say so?"
    The House should acknowledge tonight that the IRA beat the Governments and beat into submission those who were foolish enough to put their hands to this document. Lord Carson continued:
    "ought Unionist leaders to have been parties to that—Unionist leaders who had undertaken to defend Unionist policy? … the truth of the matter is that if you go on like this, if you have men in high positions stating today that A is white, and tomorrow arguing that it is certainly black, you will destroy the confidence of the democracy of this country in its rulers and in its institutions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1921; Vol. 48, c. 40–43.]
    We have heard and had surprising things happen in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland three times, and on each occasion he was giving undertaking after undertaking. One of his undertakings—I have already mentioned this in the debate to the Secretary of State and the Opposition spokesman—was reported widely in the Northern Ireland press. The right hon. Gentleman said that violence had to be given up, and that decommissioning was part of that. That was a clear statement. If violence is to be given up—one of the terms of the Bill is that violence must have been given up—how is that to happen if the second part of the approach is not applied?
    Right hon. and hon. Members have been frank and said that the Prime Minister swayed many people. No doubt he did. He came to Northern Ireland and gave us many promises. The right hon. Gentleman promised that the IRA would never be in government until it had decommissioned. There is nothing in the agreement to that effect.
    We heard a moving speech from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), but he went on to tell us that we have a debt of honour to put the Bill through the House. I have no debt of honour to men—
    Mr. Mallon: I must accept that the hon. Gentleman did not hear clearly what I said. I said that the Bill places a
    1124
    debt of honour on the shoulders of those parties associated with paramilitary groupings never again to threaten or use violence. That is the debt of honour to which I referred.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sorry. I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. He knows that. I accept what he says, and withdraw what I said.
    I am saying that we in Northern Ireland have a debt of honour not to the paramilitarists but to their victims, including the people they killed. I believe that there is forgiveness, but not until there is repentance. I have never heard an IRA paramilitarist express remorse for his deeds. I have listened carefully, and when paramilitarists have been pushed on television and radio, or in a public place, not one of them has ever expressed remorse. Not one of them has said, "I regret that I did that act." There is no forgiveness until there is repentance. If someone expresses remorse, we may challenge his motives, but we cannot challenge the fact that that is what he has said.
    I am hearing only more and more threats from the IRA. Undertakings were given by the Prime Minister and we were told that when legislation was introduced those undertakings would be incorporated within it. That has not happened. Indeed, the argument advanced from the Government Benches is that that should not happen. It is argued that the Prime Minister was not saying, when he did say, that decommissioning was an essential part of the end of violence.
    Who in Northern Ireland believes that there is an end of it? Who believes that violence has ended? I have the statistics for the first quarter of this year. They relate to the operation of the prevention of terrorism legislation and of the emergency provisions Acts. Anyone reading these statistics would not think there was any peace in the country. They tell us that 177 persons were detained in Northern Ireland under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. There were 48 applications for extension of detention, all of which were granted. Those applications related to 37 individuals, 11 being subject to more than one extension. No exclusion orders were made. In addition, 125 persons were detained for 48 hours or less, 52 for more than 48 hours. Apparently, 36 persons were charged with 62 offences, including 12 of murder and 19 firearm offences—and so on.
    With these statistics, can we really say that peace has broken out? Go to Royal avenue and tell the business community that an incendiary bombing was peace. Go to those people whom the Secretary of State rightly described as having their kneecaps shot off in obscene circumstances. Go to the families that have come under terrible attack in the past days. Against that background, how can it be said that there is peace?
    If that is the basis for peace, what is the peace? If the Bill passes through the House tonight and subsequently passes through the other place, and the circumstances in Northern Ireland remain the same, will the Secretary of State tell me that there is a state of peace and she can continue releasing prisoners? There is no state of peace at present.
    We have heard from the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about the activities of a certain organisation that helps prisoners. However, we have only to note what such people have said in the past and what

    1125
    they will continue to say. To say that the House should realise that there will be serious and terrible trouble if this matter is proceeded with is, of course, a threat.
    We know that the Bill will be enacted. We know from the Conservative spokesman that the Opposition will not go too tough at the Bill. They will vote for it, and give it its first blessing. When it comes to consideration in Committee, they will find some excuse not to press amendments hard. We know what happened with the Police Bill, as it was then was, and other Bills. We know that the Bill will pass through the House.
    Mr. MacKay: I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we shall be tabling amendments tomorrow for the Committee stage of the Bill. They will be exactly along the lines that I set out earlier. If the amendments are not accepted by the Government or if the Government do not come up with suitable options, we shall most certainly be pressing them to Divisions. We shall be expecting the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to join us in supporting our amendments.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I invite the hon. Gentleman to join me in the Division Lobby tonight to vote against the Bill. This is a bad Bill and it should not be before us. The hon. Member for Basingstoke is right. However, the Tory party has told us what it will do, and it will do it. The Bill will become law. There will be no change in terms of decommissioning. Similarly, there will be no change in terms of terrorists getting into government. The Bill will go through and everybody knows it. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State know that that is the position. I have been long enough in the House to know whether a Bill will be rejected. The Bill will sail through the House.
    However, at the end of the day, it will not be Members who represent constituencies outwith Northern Ireland who will be suffering. The ordinary people on the streets of Northern Ireland will suffer. It is wrong to suggest that the overwhelming majority in Northern Ireland are in favour of the Bill. Let me disillusion those who say that. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh told us that more than 42 per cent. of those who voted in the referendum were nationalists and republicans. I think I have quoted the hon. Gentleman correctly this time. If that is so, that is more than half of the 71 per cent. Who were the other people who voted?
    There are people in Northern Ireland who said no because they have convictions about the future. Others said yes because they were foolish enough to believe the Prime Minister; foolish enough to believe that all his promises would be honoured. His promises cannot be honoured, for the simple reason that the agreement must be taken as it is—all of it. If one wants to change the agreement, one does not do so here. One changes it by recalling the talks so that everyone who agreed it will have a say. That is the only way in which it can be changed, so the House is held captive to the agreement.
    The legislation will go through, and the people of Northern Ireland will have sad and terrible happenings coming to them. Think of the gunmen released on the
    1126
    streets and the caches of arms still available for them to use. Think of the police force that there will be moves to disarm—
    Marjorie Mowlam: No.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Well, the right hon. Lady should read the agreement. Perhaps she has not read that part of the agreement. It refers to working towards the disarming of the police.
    Marjorie Mowlam: Yes.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: That will happen within a certain period and will start within a year. We could have police disarming, gunmen on the streets with caches of arms available to them, and the gun at our head again. If the IRA then says that something more has to be done, we will bow to it again. Those are the facts which the people of Northern Ireland face.
    The good thing is that we are having an election, and that people have time to reflect. A lot of people who voted yes have reflected and they are no longer saying yes. When we have the results of the election, and when we see the real representation of the people reflected in the assembly, what will the House do? Will it want to change the rules and say that it no longer goes by consensus?
    First, we were told that we had to have a majority of the Unionist people and a majority of the nationalist people before there could be an agreement. When we mentioned that during the referendum, the Government hit the ceiling and said that it should be 50 per cent. plus one. There was no consensus in regard to that. With 50 per cent. plus one, we could be taken into a united Ireland.
    What will happen when we have an assembly representing the real ideas? There will be no Prime Minister writing graffiti on the wall and saying, "Here are my pledges." We will vote on the issue. The Government are out of it. The big money that so liberally flowed to condition people, with the spin doctors working overtime and being well paid for it, will go, and we will have an ordinary Ulster election. What will happen then? If there are 30 Unionists, they might claim to have a strong voice. The percentage was to help the nationalists, but it will help the Unionists.
    I was rather surprised, yet I should not be, that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) said that if, in the assembly, the republicans fail to deliver decommissioning, as is required—according to my reading of the document, it is not required, but the right hon. Gentleman says that it is—the Unionists will exercise their majority position to end the assembly. He went on to say—this makes me laugh—that the world will support the Unionists and reject the republicans. That is utter nonsense. I have heard it all before.
    I was told by the Prime Minister that if the ceasefire was ever broken the IRA would be wiped out. What happened? Within a few hours of Canary Wharf being blown up, the Government were talking to the IRA. That will be tested now. The Prime Minister and the Government will be tested. Will they change? Can these changes be made? If not, what will happen when we have an assembly which mirrors the real views of the people of Northern Ireland?

    1127
    The debate is not over; it is only starting. All I can say is that it is sad that, when we have so many other pressing issues to take care of, we are discussing how to let felons, criminals and murderers out of prison before they have served the time that was given to them in a court of law acting according to the laws of the United Kingdom.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that the debate so far has been characterised by extremely long speeches. Many hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and, unless contributions are shorter, many hon. Members will be disappointed.
    7.5 pm
    Ms Margaret Moran: I shall attempt to be brief. I support the Bill and add my congratulations to all those who were involved in the Northern Ireland agreement. As many hon. Members have said, this is an extraordinary and historic Bill. It is the first piece of legislation after the historic agreement and the overwhelming yes vote in Northern Ireland.
    Listening to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), I almost felt that the Northern Ireland agreement and the overwhelming yes vote—the voice of the people of Northern Ireland—had not happened. It appears that some hon. Members—we hope this is not translated into the New Northern Ireland Assembly—wish to rewrite history at every turn. As a new hon. Member, while acknowledging that I do not have the length and depth of experience on Northern Ireland issues that others may have, I simply say to those hon. Members who constantly seek to rewrite history that that has got us nowhere, but we are now making progress, so please take that progress and let us move on.
    It is worth reminding ourselves of the overwhelming euphoria after the democratic decision of the people of Northern Ireland to vote yes to the Good Friday agreement. But after every good party comes the hangover—in the case of that particular party, the pause for thought. It was inevitable that the first decision after the yes vote would be the tough one which would implement the agreement and translate it into effective legislation. The toughest one is inevitably the decision concerning the early release of prisoners. That was an inevitable decision which everyone who signed the agreement and everyone in the House recognised was the linchpin of the agreement and any future peace deal for Northern Ireland. It was always going to be a fraught and sensitive decision.
    In making our decisions tonight, it is important that we commend the courage of all those who were involved in taking the political risk that was involved in the Northern Ireland agreement—the risk for peace which entailed taking the decisions that we are translating into legislation tonight.
    It is important, too, that we all retain the courage, when tough decisions such as this are being made, to follow them through and not attempt to rewrite them when the going gets rough. The going will get rough, as we know from our postbags and from the media's translation of the decisions we will be making tonight. It is important that we stand firm and retain our courage, knowing that what
    1128
    we are doing is delivering the decision democratically made by the people of Northern Ireland—their long-held desire for peace.
    It is also important to emphasise that the criteria in the Bill are tough. Contrary to the assertions of some hon. Members, they unequivocally translate and incorporate the Prime Minister's words into legislation. There can be no doubt whatever that the Prime Minister's commitment to end violence is translated into the Bill. I refer hon. Members to clause 3. To ensure that there is no doubt about that, will my hon. Friend the Minister of State tell the House when he replies to the debate why, under clause 3(5), the third condition that the commissioners will apply is relevant only to someone who would be released immediately, and not to prisoners who might not be released for some time? It is important that the House hears the strength of that criterion.
    As other hon. Members have emphasised, this is not a pick-and-mix package. One cannot pull out the sweeties and throw away the liquorice. We must take tough decisions now if we are to have peace in Northern Ireland. It is important to remember the strength of the yes vote: 71 per cent. in agreement; and, significantly, 75 per cent. of women in Northern Ireland voting for peace and an end to the boys with toys and the men with guns—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is far from nonsense. It is a democratic decision and it shows that the old politics of Northern Ireland—predominantly male politics—are long overdue for change. I hope that we shall see that change in the new assembly.
    All parties who signed up to the Northern Ireland agreement knew at the outset that compromises would have to be made. They also knew that the Bill was of fundamental importance to the political settlement and that prisoners would have an important influence on the outcome of the agreement.
    As I said earlier, I do not have the experience of other hon. Members in respect of prisoners' issues. However, I remember a poignant visit which I and other new Members made soon after the election last May to discuss the Northern Ireland peace process with all political parties and a number of relatives' organisations. The memory that will stay with me is of a meeting with former prisoners who, for a long time, had been at the forefront of discussions about peace. Their burning ambition to see an end to violence and a successful conclusion to the agreement was overwhelming. We shall do those prisoners an honour in ensuring that we not only pass the Bill but recognise the need to deal with issues in respect of their victims.
    Other hon. Members have also emphasised the importance, in passing the Bill, of acknowledging the suffering of victims. That is not to say that we should trade suffering—far from it. I welcome the measures that I understand will be taken to address victims' needs. I hope that considerable measures will be taken in future legislation or elsewhere to deal with victims' on-going needs.
    We must also ensure that victims are notified of the release of prisoners. Although it may not be appropriate to encompass that in the Bill, it is a significant issue for victims. They must at least be allowed the courtesy of knowing when the prisoner relevant to their experience is to be released. That request has been made by the Northern Ireland Victim Support group, and I hope that the Secretary of State and her team will take it on board.

    1129
    It is important that steps are taken to reintegrate prisoners into the community. For good or ill, throughout the process prisoners have had a significant influence on the outcome, and they will continue to have a significant influence on the sustaining of peace in Northern Ireland. Prisoners must be afforded opportunities that will enable them to play a positive role in long-term peace in their communities.
    It ill behoves Members to attempt to whip up hysteria with headlines about murderers being released and prisoners being given the key to prison doors. That is not what the Bill is about, and it does not help to secure long-term and sustainable peace in Northern Ireland. I remind hon. Members that this is not a new scheme. The House will recall the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill introduced in 1995 by the previous Government. That Bill made possible the early release of prisoners in Northern Ireland, in response to the IRA ceasefire at that time. The House may also recall that the programme of early releases, which, unlike this Bill, set no licence conditions on those released, continued against a background of on-going IRA violence, with the bombing of Canary Wharf and the Lisburn barracks, despite the fact that no arms were surrendered. The early release of prisoners has been part of the response of successive Governments—Conservative and Labour—to positive developments in Northern Ireland, which is why the Bill must be seen in that context.
    The Bill is a linchpin. It is an historical and important part of translating the positive decision of the people of Northern Ireland into practice, and I commend it to the House.
    7.16 pm
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: For me, this is a night of regret. The hon. Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) talked about hysteria. I live in Northern Ireland and my family has suffered at the hands of terrorists. I have watched hysteria in England recently when paedophiles and child murderers have been released into the community: I have seen people riot and destroy property. There has not been a single riot in Northern Ireland as a result of this Bill. There is no hysteria. People very much regret the Bill because they do not like the fact that prisoners and murderers will be released—so let us not talk about hysteria. People object to the Bill on a point of principle, not because they want to whip up hysteria.
    Those who oppose the Bill—I am one of them—want to see justice done in Northern Ireland. We want justice for the victims of terrorism. If the Home Secretary announced today the release of Myra Hindley, I wonder how many hon. Members would stand up and welcome it—yet they welcome the release of people who have committed far more serious crimes, perhaps multiple murders. It is another case of double standards being applied to Northern Ireland.
    May I quote the words of resident magistrate Mr. Tom Travers, who was a victim of terrorism and whose daughter Mary was murdered by the IRA? He said:
    "Almost 3,000 persons, men, women and children, have been murdered by terrorist criminals.
    If we remind ourselves of the circumstances surrounding any one of these deaths we will, if we have even a shred of morality or compassion, shudder in horror at the special treatment now proposed for them."
    1130
    The Bill differentiates between terrorist murderers and so-called ordinary criminals. What is the difference between the value of the life of an RUC constable and the value of the life of a woman who has been murdered by her husband? What difference in the value of the life of that police officer warrants the release of the person who murdered him, while the husband who murdered his wife stays in prison? What does the Bill do for the value of the lives of the victims of violence?
    The Bill concedes the status of political prisoner to members of terrorist organisations. It differentiates between the crimes committed by a terrorist in Northern Ireland and the crimes committed by so-called ordinary criminals, and accords to those terrorist crimes a different status. It accords them the very status that the terrorist organisations have been seeking for years: political status. The Bill creates a dangerous precedent. Terrorism is still with us in Northern Ireland. The threat of terrorist violence remains. If we concede a special status to the crimes committed by those terrorists, we shall create a precedent that will haunt us in years to come.
    One of the conditions to be met by a prisoner seeking release under this scheme is that he
    "is not a supporter of a terrorist organisation."
    I have been inside the Maze prison and have seen the regime there. The terrorist organisations in the Maze prison are grouped together by the prison authorities in different H blocks and are given status as terrorist organisations.
    Under the Bill, to qualify for early release, a prisoner is required not to be a supporter of a terrorist organisation. The Bill defines a terrorist organisation. That is interesting, because part I of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 contains provisions on proscribed organisations and also defines a terrorist organisation. It states:
    "The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument … add to Schedule 1 to this Act any organisation that appears to him to be concerned in, or in promoting or encouraging, terrorism occurring in the United Kingdom and connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland".
    That definition is repeated almost word for word in the Bill before us.
    The Secretary of State told us that she will not be removing the IRA, the UVF and the UDA from the list of proscribed organisations because she still regards them as terrorist organisations. Yet members of those organisations who are prisoners and who apply for release under this scheme will no longer be deemed to be members of a terrorist organisation. How can that be? Surely the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 conflict with those in the Bill. When is a terrorist organisation not a terrorist organisation? We need to know the answers to those questions, but the Secretary of State's remarks were unconvincing.
    A member of the IRA may come before the courts charged with membership of the IRA, as it is a proscribed organisation. He will be able to argue that the provisions of the Bill that allow members of the IRA to be released from prison as they are not deemed to be members of a terrorist organisation conflict with the provisions in the 1989 Act. The Secretary of State must consider carefully the implications and impact of this legislation. The IRA and other organisations will want the Secretary of State

    1131
    to remove them from the list of proscribed organisations if she deems them no longer to be terrorist organisations for the purposes of the release of prisoners. If my reading of the Bill is correct, how can a person be a terrorist inside the Maze prison and a member of the IRA, and not be a terrorist outside the Maze prison and a member of the IRA? That requires clarification.
    Mr. McWalter: Nelson Mandela was once deemed to be a terrorist and is now honoured as the President of South Africa. People may have one status at one time and a different status at another.
    Mr. Donaldson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I accept that terrorists can reform, but that is not my point. How can someone be a terrorist inside the Maze prison and not be a terrorist the minute he steps outside the door of the prison? How can it be illegal for someone to be a member of the IRA when he is inside the Maze prison, if, the minute he steps outside as a freed prisoner, he is no longer committing an offence even though he is still a member of the IRA?
    Mr. William Ross: As my hon. Friend has explained so clearly to the House, surely the implication of the Bill is that the Secretary of State intends to remove all these terrorist organisations from the proscribed list. It cannot be otherwise.
    Mr. Donaldson: I am grateful for that intervention. That is what I need to know, and it is what the people of Northern Ireland want to know. If the officer commanding the Provisional IRA in the Maze prison is released from prison and is still a member of the IRA, how can he no longer be a terrorist when his colleagues in the IRA outside the prison are deemed to be terrorists under the 1989 Act? Many people in Northern Ireland will want to know the answers to those questions.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Hysteria and misunderstanding have been referred to this evening. Journalists, who wrote objectively in the national papers at the weekend, touched on that point and suggested that in two years' time the IRA will be like the Salvation Army and the Boys Brigade. I raised that issue with people at a Boys Brigade function on Saturday and they said that it would be a wonderful tribute if that were to happen—although none of us think it will.
    Mr. Donaldson: I am grateful for that intervention, which brings me on to the issue of decommissioning. Under the Bill, decommissioning is only one of a range of factors that the Secretary of State will take into account in determining whether a terrorist organisation is no longer a terrorist organisation. There is considerable ambiguity in the wording of the provision. What does the Bill mean by "co-operating fully" with the commission? Is there a requirement for actual and on-going decommissioning by the terrorist organisations? If not, can we have that spelt out please?
    I intend to table amendments in Committee to require actual and on-going decommissioning of paramilitary weapons by terrorist organisations, because I believe that such a test is necessary to show their commitment to the democratic process. I do not see such a provision in the Bill.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that was the previous Government's policy—known as
    1132
    Washington 3—and that they were glad to drop it when the report of the international commission was produced? Will he also confirm that the issue that he has declared he will table as an amendment was debated at length in the talks process and was not included in the agreement? Is he saying that he will table amendments contrary to the terms of the agreement that his party has signed?
    Mr. Donaldson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the agreement talks about full decommissioning of terrorist weapons within two years. How else will we get decommissioning if we do not require the terrorist organisations to decommission? That is the reality. I need to know, and the House is entitled to know, how the Secretary of State will interpret the provision that refers to organisations' fully co-operating with the decommissioning body. Will the right hon. Lady interpret it as a requirement for actual and on-going decommissioning? If "co-operating fully" merely means that those concerned will go and talk to the body without delivering any guns, I think that that constitutes a breach of the agreement.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman correct in asserting that the agreement provides for full decommissioning within two years? Is it not more correct to say that the agreement suggests that parties fronting paramilitary organisations retaining weapons will use such influence as they may have to persuade them to decommission within two years, although there is neither a sanction nor a requirement in that regard?
    Mr. Donaldson: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. That is one of the reasons why I voted against the agreement: I did not think that it required the terrorist organisations to deliver on decommissioning. We heard from the IRA, in its statement following the agreement, that it would not decommission its weapons. I think it was one Danny Morrison who said recently, "We won't even decommission the rust, never mind the rifles." The House is entitled to know whether the Government will hold the terrorist organisations to their requirements. Will the Prime Minister deliver on the pledge that he gave the people of Northern Ireland that he would require the decommissioning of terrorist weapons? If he does not, he will have broken that pledge to the people of Northern Ireland.
    Another question arising from the Bill is that of the extradition of fugitives from justice. I wonder whether the Secretary of State has engaged in discussions with the Irish Government about extradition procedures in the event of a released prisoner's breaching the terms of his licence under the legislation, and seeking refuge in the Irish Republic. If a prisoner who is released breaches his licence and seeks refuge in the Republic, will we be faced with the same old charade of having to wait two or three years for the Irish courts to decide that he committed a political offence and that he will not be extradited, or will the Government seek a commitment from the Irish Government that, if such prisoners breach their licences and seek refuge in the Irish Republic, they will be returned forthwith to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom to complete their full sentence? I hope that the Government will seek and obtain such an assurance from the Irish Government, in the spirit of the new co-operation that is breaking out under the agreement between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.

    1133
    Will the Secretary of State seek an assurance from the Irish Government that they will introduce an effective fast-track procedure to deal with the extradition of such individuals? Will she give us an assurance that the Government will pursue the extradition of fugitives from justice who currently reside in both the United States and the Irish Republic? Among their number, of course, are some of the terrorists who escaped from the Maze prison in the early 1980s. I think the people of Northern Ireland will want an assurance that the Government will continue to press for their extradition, and that they will not qualify for the early release provisions in the Bill for as long as they are outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I am sorry to interrupt again, but my intervention relates to that very point. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) suggested that there should be an amnesty for those whose offences were committed before the signing of the agreement. Is that already happening? Is it the case that recently a fugitive from justice in Northern Ireland, one Owen Carron, was stopped in County Fermanagh, and that, after he had telephoned someone—in this wonderful age of the mobile phone—the patrol that had stopped him was ordered to release him?
    Mr. Donaldson: I understand that nowadays all leading members of Sinn Fein have a direct line to the Secretary of State. I understand that, when they are stopped by the security forces, they simply make a telephone call, following which they are speedily sent on their way.
    Many of the provisions in the Bill relate to powers given to the Secretary of State. If the House passes the legislation, it will be placing considerable trust in the Secretary of State and her successors. Many people will be watching the Secretary of State: they will be watching to see how she implements the Bill, and, in particular, how she intends to implement the provisions that make her responsible for determining whether a terrorist organisation is a terrorist organisation for the purposes of the release of prisoners.
    Many victims of violence will also be watching the Secretary of State. They will want to know whether she will hold the terrorists to account. The Secretary of State must ensure that the terrorists deliver, and end the violence—which includes the decommissioning of weapons. Otherwise, the prisoners should stay in prison. I think that that is the message that the victims of violence would want to give the Secretary of State. Many will doubt her determination. If she fails to hold the terrorists to account, she will have failed the victims of violence and their families.
    Let me again quote the words of Tom Travers:
    "As a victim of terrorism the provisions for the release of those qualifying prisoners underlines something of which I have been aware for a very long time, namely, that society in general, and the Government in particular, does not cherish victims at all."
    The Secretary of State has a responsibility to prove that the feeling that Tom Travers and many other victims have is wrong. She has a responsibility to ensure that the Government deliver on the commitments that have been given, and to hold terrorist organisations to account by ensuring that they deliver an end to violence and
    1134
    decommission their weapons. If they do not, the prisoners should stay where they belong: in prison. Justice must be seen to be done.
    7.36 pm
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: When we debate the release, or early release, of prisoners, we must be aware that we are touching every nerve and every emotion of those who have been victims of violence for the past 30 years or so. We must be conscious of the hurt that we can so easily cause such people through unwarranted and inappropriate remarks.
    That struck me as an aspect of the referendum campaign. The "no" campaign cleverly latched on to the three emotive issues in the agreement: prisoner release, decommissioning and policing. By the very nature of the subject matter, some of the issues are transient—for instance, the issue of prisoners, whom time or the law will release in one way or another. The general debate failed to focus on the permanency of the core issues—issues of the institutions that were established, or could be established, by the agreement. It is a pity that the debate has not focused on that.
    I agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) in one respect. He said that a letter sent to victims announcing the release of a prisoner connected with their sorrow would not greatly ameliorate their suffering. I accept that. Contrary to the experiences of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), many of my constituents who are victims—nationalists, Unionists or members of no party—have sent me the most generous messages that I have ever received. I am talking about those who have experienced a tragic death in their families, who have themselves been maimed or have been victims of some other atrocity. I was humbled by the generosity and, if you like, the Christianity, of the sentiments that were expressed, and I resented the fact that, during political campaigns, those people's emotions were played on and used in a political way.
    On 18 June 1994, within 10 miles of where I live, seven men, ranging from a 17-year-old boy to an 84-year-old man, were gunned down in a pub, slaughtered while they were watching a football match. Two months later a reserve constable was gunned down while serving customers in his shop. Presumably, the first killings were carried out by the Loyalist Volunteer Force and the second was carried out by the IRA. On 31 August 1994, on the eve of the ceasefire, my home town was subjected to a massive mortar attack that was aimed at the police station. The trajectory was over a children's playground and on that fine summer night the children were out enjoying their playtime. Just 10 months ago in July, a young person who lives near me was brutally murdered, presumably by the LVF, and his body was grossly and horribly mutilated and buried in a pit under cattle.
    Those four incidents have one thing in common, apart from the fact that they all occurred in my locality: not one person has been made amenable to the law. That means that the people who perpetrated those atrocities and carried out horrible acts on a body are somewhere in the community, either in my area or in the neighbouring area, and are walking about to this day.
    To play on people's fears about the release of those who have been brought to justice, found guilty and sentenced to a fixed term in prison or to a life sentence is

    1135
    to miss the point altogether. We are engaged in implementing one of the processes in an historic agreement which, as many hon. Members have said, has been endorsed by the vast majority of people in the north of Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. The Bill is part of that agreement, and I resent being accused by hon. Members, some of whom are not in their places, of somehow lacking morality and principle because I support the legislation. We have put together a delicate package with inevitable pros and cons—some of it I do not like and some of it my political opponents do not like. But together we have forged a sensitive agreement and—more important—it has been endorsed by the people of the north of Ireland and of the Republic of Ireland.
    The hon. Member for North Antrim, who is not now in his place, quoted at length from what Lord Carson said some 80 years ago. Time has passed; our society has evolved. Politics has moved a million miles since that time, and this is our opportunity to lay to rest once and for all the violence in Irish politics. There is no guarantee that we will do so, but we have an opportunity to reach the holy grail that has evaded us not just for decades but for centuries.
    I ask those who oppose the legislation—and especially those who do not live in my community and who have not suffered as my people, whether Unionist or nationalist, have suffered over the years—to try to understand that we are trying to put together an acceptable arrangement. It is not perfect by any means and it requires some matters to be dealt with in a way that will enable the agreement to get widespread support, and that is what the legislation is about. I shall not debate the nuts and bolts and the paragraphs in the Bill. I simply say that those who oppose it oppose the will of the people of Northern Ireland, and that is fundamentally undemocratic.
    7.44 pm
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I shall try to be brief. No doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will remind me if I am still speaking at the end of 10 minutes.
    I agree with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) that we should look to the future and not to the past. It is distressing that Irish politics is so often discussed in terms of the past. I do not feel responsible for the potato famine, but it is often brought up by Irish nationalists when they discuss the relationship between the United Kingdom and the south of Ireland.
    I shall deal first with the case of Guardsman Fisher and Guardsman Wright to which hon. Members referred. Those two young men committed a grievous error. They were found guilty of murder and, technically, I am sure that that was right. However, they were sent to Northern Ireland by this United Kingdom Parliament—by the British state, as I am sure the IRA would say—not to do their own will but to do their duty in preserving public order in Northern Ireland. As I said, they made a grievous error which resulted in a regrettable death and they were found guilty of murder.
    To compare two young men who went out to do their duty to this country with some of the people whose release from prison we are discussing is quite wrong. As every hon. Member knows, some of those people were guilty of the most unspeakable acts of barbarism and torture in both communities. We should view the case of Fisher and Wright with a great deal more sympathy than has been
    1136
    shown so far. I was first contacted about the case about four years ago during the judicial process. Four years later, they are still in gaol, and most hon. Members and the Government would agree that they should be released forthwith or as soon as possible.
    The Bill as a whole is rotten, but I am not minded to oppose it. It is about freeing people who have been involved in all sorts of barbaric acts. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) rightly said, those people are not political prisoners: they have all been convicted of crimes. I do not live in Northern Ireland, but I spent a long time there. Too many of my Northern Ireland friends have died and I have been to too many funerals not to feel strongly about this issue. However, we must put aside our personal feelings and look to the future. I should like to quote a resolution with which I am entirely in agreement:
    "Conference believes that progress can only be made towards a lasting political solution in Northern Ireland when the gun has been removed completely from Irish politics."
    That is a sensible resolution, because a political solution must have no reference to the gun. That resolution was passed by the Labour party at its annual conference in 1994.
    Getting rid of the gun and agreeing to the Bill are part of the peace process. However, as the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, there is not yet peace in Northern Ireland. There are punishment beatings: there were two last week in west Belfast. The punishments involve knee-cappings and weapons and they are extremely bloody affairs. A Mr. Knocker was murdered recently in Fermanagh, and the perpetrators were almost certainly people who were connected to the IRA. There were murders by the IRA and, I think, the UVF before Christmas. They happened during the peace process and people were briefly removed from the talks, but those organisations may be given legitimacy in the assembly.
    Has the Minister or the RUC any information or intelligence to the effect that the Sinn Fein information centre in west Belfast has been co-ordinating some of the intimidation, threats and punishment beatings? My intelligence is that the Sinn Fein information centre has been responsible for warnings that were given to people to leave the Province. That has been going on for years.
    As the Prime Minister said, the release of prisoners must be linked to decommissioning. I was not present to hear him say so, and cannot therefore comment on the exact words. However, nobody has denied them and what he said appears to be so. In 1996, when giving the John Smith memorial lecture in Antrim, the present Secretary of State said:
    "These fears can only be addressed, to my mind, by all parties signing up to the six Mitchell principles—which includes a commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations".
    I agree with her entirely.
    In April, the Prime Minister said:
    "We said that we want the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations … Meanwhile, it would obviously be a travesty of democracy if parties associated with paramilitary organisations held Executive office in the assembly while they continued to be engaged in or to threaten terrorism."—[Official Report, 22 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 811–12.]
    In 1993, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), said that "all" weapons must be handed in before talks could go on. Later, as an article of good faith, that demand was reduced to "some" weapons.

    1137
    I should like to quote from the Mitchell principles, because some people may have forgotten them. The document states:
    "parties to such negotiations affirm their total and absolute commitment:
    To the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations;
    To agree that such disarmament must be verifiable to the satisfaction of an independent commission;
    To renounce unto themselves, and to oppose any effort by others, to use force, or threaten to use force …
    To urge that 'punishment' killings and beatings stop and to take effective steps to prevent such actions."
    We have had negotiations, the agreement, the referendum and now this Bill, but there has been no decommissioning of weapons and punishment beatings and violence continue. What does this peace mean? Does it mean merely a ceasefire, which may be temporary, like others? The Bill assumes lasting peace. I fully understand that prisoner releases are of enormous importance to both sides of the peace process, but so is decommissioning. The two must be clearly linked. Sinn Fein will be standing in the assembly elections and thinks that it can be part of the process, yet it is inextricably linked to the IRA, which has said, no, it will not decommission its weapons.
    All hon. Members understand that, to achieve peace, there must be compromise. Many compromises have been unpalatable to people on all sides of the argument. I have seen this Government, the previous Government and the Unionists make compromises, but I have yet to see the IRA make any compromise at all.
    The Secretary of State said that she wanted to see decommissioning, as do we all. She also said that, as the Bill states, prisoners would not be released if they were found to be supporters of terrorist organisations. If Sinn Fein is inextricably linked to the IRA, which is not laying down weapons and is to remain a proscribed organisation, how can IRA prisoners be released and Sinn Fein take part in the peace process? That does not add up. The time for compromise and fudge is past.
    Under the Bill, prisoners will not be released until their parent organisation is "co-operating fully" with the decommissioning body. The problem is that we do not know enough about that body. We do not know its terms of reference, powers or responsibilities. More than anything else, we do not know what "co-operating fully" means. That leaves a sense of fudge, misrepresentation and misunderstanding, which gives a very dangerous impression and may be regarded as the first step toward betrayal of the undertakings so clearly given by the Prime Minister in the lead-up to the referendum. The Bill must define clearly, explicitly and beyond any reasonable doubt exactly what "co-operating fully" means.
    I should like to pick up a point made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, the leader of the Ulster Unionist party. There is already a fear of gangster war and of turf wars in Northern Ireland. There is a huge stock of weapons, and there are many people who are able to use such weapons. A front organisation for the IRA, Direct Action Against Drugs, has been carrying out barbarous attacks on people in west Belfast. There was the death of Mr. Knocker, who was alleged to have been—I have no idea whether it is true—a drugs dealer. I understand that
    1138
    IRA terrorists have done rather well out of this conflict, and that some of them used to retire to villas on the Costa del Sol.
    I am concerned that, given the large stock of weapons in circulation, a Russian-style Mafia will develop. If those weapons are not removed, there will be no real peace in the Province. The Government must ensure decommissioning; the release of prisoners must be the best lever by which to achieve that. The requirement of decommissioning should be stated clearly in the Bill, and I hope that it will be by Third Reading.
    At the moment, the Bill is a mess; there is too much fudge in it. As I have said before, lasting peace in Northern Ireland cannot be built on sand or fudge. It must be achieved on the understanding and with the backing of everybody. The referendum result went the way that I wished, but, if the Bill is not clear and unequivocal, stating that prisoners are released only when decommissioning has taken place, it is unlikely that it will achieve lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
    7.55 pm
    Mr. Desmond Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this very important debate. Although I was present for the beginning of the debate, I apologise to right hon. and hon. Members for not having heard all the speeches. I think that I missed only two or three.
    I have listened with care to the speeches of those who oppose the Bill. Although I respect the honesty and sincerity of their contributions, I cannot help but comment that those who are fundamentally opposed to the release of prisoners are failing to listen to what the people of Northern Ireland are telling them. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) and others. Undoubtedly, the decision taken by the people in the referendum on 22 May was overwhelmingly in favour of the Good Friday agreement.
    In the presence of Unionist Members of Parliament, I feel, strangely, that I have somehow to justify my contribution to Northern Ireland debates by establishing my credentials; otherwise, as I have heard in sedentary remarks, one's comments are merely dismissed as if they are uninformed.
    Since I was elected last year, I have spent some considerable time acquainting myself with the politics and the people of Northern Ireland, although, before that, I knew them well because my mother was born in Northern Ireland and I spent a great deal of my childhood there—quite apart from time spent there as an adult with my family and extended family. I know the problems well. I have made a point of spending time speaking to the people of Northern Ireland, particularly through these important times. I have also been a member of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs.
    From recent contact with people in Northern Ireland and discussion about politics, it is clear to me that those who voted for the agreement did not seek to pick and choose which parts to support—nor should politicians. The Northern Ireland electorate are sophisticated; they understand the issues involved in their politics. They recognise that parts of the agreement could be interpreted as perpetrating injustices on either community, or, indeed, parts of communities, but they bravely chose the agreement as the only way forward.

    1139
    An essential part of the agreement is the early release of the majority of politically motivated prisoners, against certain conditions. The agreement requires the British and Irish Governments to put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of qualifying prisoners. It goes on to express the intention that all such prisoners will be released, should circumstances allow it, within two years of the programme coming into effect. The Bill is designed to fulfil that requirement on the part of the British Government. I am clear in my mind that that part of the agreement is supported by a large majority of the people of Northern Ireland, and therefore feel obliged to support the Bill.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is entirely correct: any transferred prisoners who are serving their sentences in the Republic of Ireland are subject to the jurisdiction of that country. That is why, on the prisoners' transfer, it was necessary for an undertaking to be given ensuring that their tariffs would he served. They were to be subject to the jurisdiction of that country, and control of their release could not be determined by this country.
    Paragraph 1 of the agreement's provisions on prisoners requires the Government of the Republic of Ireland to establish in that country a mechanism for the accelerated release of prisoners. Accordingly, one should expect that, eventually, all qualifying prisoners imprisoned in the Republic of Ireland will qualify for accelerated release under the Republic of Ireland's programme. Under the agreement, it is appropriate that they should be so released. Had they not been transferred, this legislation would have covered them, and they would have qualified for accelerated release under its mechanisms.
    There is therefore no injustice, or distortion of justice, in the agreement. Had those prisoners who have been mentioned in this debate remained in prisons in the United Kingdom, they would have qualified for release under mechanisms provided in the Bill.
    Throughout the past decade, as peace has been discussed in Northern Ireland, it has always been clearly understood that prisoners were a central issue in the peace process. That fact has been conceded in this debate by right hon. and hon. Members, not least by the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). It has been understood also that prisoners' early release would be crucial to the success of any agreement. Any peace process in Northern Ireland is likely to be successful only if it commands the respect and support of more than only the broad middle ground of society.
    It has been estimated—I have recently re-read the estimates, to refresh my memory—that there are more than 10,000 former prisoners in Northern Ireland, many of whom have been convicted of politically motivated crime. If that statistic is true, the extended families of former prisoners must amount to at least 50,000 people, which is a significant proportion of Northern Ireland's total population. No all-inclusive peace process could ignore those people. No all-inclusive process could not deal with the prisoner issue.
    It was therefore inevitable that, in settling the prisoner issue, many people would find the solution distasteful and unpalatable. It was also inevitable that, if there were to be a peace process, the issue had to be addressed at some stage.
    1140
    I realise that application of the amnesty to perpetrators of the awful crimes that have been committed in the past three decades in Northern Ireland is a price that many—but not all—victims and families of victims think is not worth paying. I have heard expressed, and understand, the feelings of some victims and their families. However, in the circumstances, I do not agree with them. I do not want to be mealy-mouthed about that.
    Although a society that is emerging from violent conflict should not forget the appalling cost of the intervening years, the needless and senseless loss of life, the pain and suffering of families or the devastation of communities, the only true insurance against further decades of such senseless and needless violence is a strong and lasting peace process that looks forward. That cannot be achieved without the commitment of the communities that bred and nurtured the perpetrators of that violence in the first place. Dealing with the prisoner issue is the key to such a commitment.
    Those who oppose the Bill describe the future of society in Northern Ireland as "polluted by freed terrorists". The hon. Member for Blaby suggested that there would be a Russian-style Mafia. The Bill's opponents describe a society dominated by terrorists who make important political decisions while continuing their trade of violence. However, in so doing, they ignore the realities of the immediate history of Northern Ireland. Since 1985, 438 republican, loyalist and other lifers have been freed. Of that total, only 18 former prisoners have had their licence revoked and been recalled to prison, and only two—one from each faction—have been reconvicted of terrorist offences. Moreover, former prisoners and internees have already played a remarkable role in rebuilding the peace process. Others—too numerous to mention—have distinguished themselves as community leaders and visionary politicians in Northern Ireland.
    Under the normal remission tariffs which already apply, the great majority of prisoners serving fixed sentences would be free by the agreement's July 2000 deadline. Today, I read statistics suggesting that there were 340 qualifying prisoners, of whom 269—leaving only 71—would be released under current remission tariffs. The legislation will enable about half the prisoners to win accelerated release in coming months, once the new sentence review commissioners get down to considering individual cases. The other half of the prisoners will be released sooner than was scheduled. Those statistics are neither remarkable nor earth shattering.
    The number of people who will be affected by the Bill and the agreement is small compared with the numbers who have already been released from prisons in Northern Ireland—most of whom have not reoffended, and the vast majority of whom are playing a major contributory role in society.
    Clause 10(7) allows the Secretary of State to vary by order the two-year release period. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to tell the House in what circumstances the Secretary of State would consider it to be justified to vary the release period.
    I should like also to mention a larger issue—with which I trust that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), will deal in his reply. About three times in this debate, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) refused to allow me to intervene in his speech—although perhaps, having

    1141
    heard the sedentary remarks that were made, I understand why he did not allow me to do so. I now ask the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire to answer the question that I tried to ask earlier. How can the hon. Member for Bracknell commend the agreement—which he described as "truly momentous", for which, as he told the House, he campaigned, and which he was "delighted" had obtained a yes vote—but describe the Bill as undermining the rule of law? The Bill attempts only to enact in the United Kingdom the Government's commitment, made in an agreement for which he himself had campaigned.
    I perceive that, as an hon. Member, it is my duty to respect the will of the people of Northern Ireland, as expressed in their resounding yes in a referendum on the Good Friday agreement. The Bill reflects the agreement, as accepted by the people of Northern Ireland. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.
    8.6 pm
    Mr. Robert McCartney: There seems to be a suggestion in the House that those who oppose the agreement and the Bill are somehow wreckers and opponents of peace. All such suggestions are quite untrue. The 275,000 people who voted against the agreement are all in favour of peace. I am certain that all of them desire a permanent end to violence. All of them wish for a secure future for their children.
    Mr. Browne: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McCartney: No.
    Perhaps, like myself, those people feel that a peace or future that is allegedly based on the good will of terrorists is a very poor foundation for the future of their children. They perhaps also fear that an agreement that appears to ignore—because it is not politically expedient to do otherwise—the principles of the rule of law, of morality and of justice does not offer a secure basis for a future permanent and lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
    I opposed the agreement, and I oppose the Bill, because I believe in and desire peace. I wish to have a permanent end to violence, and to ensure a secure future for the young people of Northern Ireland. However, I am equally convinced that this agreement will not offer any of those things. Why do I say that? Because the peace process out of which it has been produced was based on terror—it was based on violence and the threat of further violence, if those who had the weapons of violence were not appeased and their desires were not propitiated.
    That is exactly what happened in this agreement. It is totally and completely based on the appeasement of terrorism. The Bill, which purports to release the perpetrators of the most horrific and violent crimes back into society, is but one instalment in an on-going process of terrorist appeasement.
    History records no example of a minority group using political violence to achieve its purposes which has ceased to use violence while it has continued to be successful in achieving its purposes, until it has either achieved its ultimate aims or been defeated by democracy. Those who have used political violence successfully do not stop using
    1142
    it unless they are defeated by the forces of the rule of law, by morality and the principles of democracy. Sinn Fein-IRA will be no exception to that historical principle.
    I say Sinn Fein-IRA, because the Secretary of State on Monday last week and the Prime Minister last Wednesday both confirmed that those two groupings were inextricably linked, which means that they are incapable of being separated. So we have Sinn Fein protesting its democratic potential, and the IRA, with which it is inextricably linked, saying that it will never decommission until its ultimate political aims and ambitions have been achieved.
    Where does that leave this much-vaunted agreement and process? At the Sinn Fein Ard Feis, when politically endorsing the Belfast agreement, speaker after speaker stated, to acclamation, that they would continue to adhere to their traditional policies of military violence and political advancement—the twin-track approach. Where does that leave this agreement?
    We have heard much about the agreement and how it is the product of the democratic voice of the people of Northern Ireland, but perhaps the House should have some insight into how it was achieved—by subjecting the Northern Ireland electorate to a massive propaganda campaign, the like of which has never been equalled in British constitutional history. Absolutely no stone went unturned. There was an endless stream of the politically famous from all parties and a collection of celebrities, from Richard Branson to Bono of U2, to you name it. All of them afforded compliant media with opportunities for an orgy of publicity for a pro-agreement vote. It was a disgusting exhibition of Government power.
    The late Isaiah Berlin wrote 40 years ago that few Governments have much difficulty persuading the people to do what that Government wish. In the 40 intervening years, the techniques of persuasion and the technology for so doing have increased one hundredfold, and every one of them was employed during the agreement.
    Furthermore, two weeks into the agreement, I discovered that the Government were paying for detailed focus group reports and private polls at substantial expense, and that they were providing that information to the parties known to be in the yes camp. Only when I threatened to take the matter to court because the information was being produced with public funding, was it handed over to parties in the no camp.
    The last lot of opinion polls on the Wednesday before the agreement showed that, if the don't knows had continued to transfer to the noes at the rate that they were doing, the result would have been about 60:40, or perhaps even better than 40 per cent. for the no camp. At that point, when the yes campaign was terrified of the result, Downing street took over, the Prime Minister appeared again in Northern Ireland, and the pledges were given.
    I give that background because those pledges are reckoned by all the pollsters to have been central and significant in the result that was ultimately obtained on Friday 22 May—absolutely central. At this point I must say that I entirely agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). The agreement is a multi-party agreement. It was entered into by all the parties and the two Governments, and it cannot be altered, amended or varied except with the agreement of all the parties to it.
    What happened was that the Prime Minister realised in the final week of the referendum campaign that the pro-Union electorate were totally unhappy about two

    1143
    things—the release of prisoners and the fact that, under the terms of the agreement, there was no clear direction that decommissioning would have to take place before representatives of Sinn Fein could take Executive office. On that basis, the Prime Minister attempted to reassure the pro-Union electorate with his pledges, which were all understood in Northern Ireland to mean that there would be decommissioning, and that it would have to take place before Sinn Fein representatives could take their places in any Executive.
    Sinn Fein, Mr. Gerry Adams and Mr. McGuinness have repeatedly reasserted—the hon. Member for Hull, North was correct—that this is an agreement and that they are going to hold the Government to its terms. They are going to insist that, if members of their party are returned in sufficient numbers to allow them to have two members in ministerial posts in a Northern Ireland Executive, under the D'Hondt principles they will be entitled to them without that being in any way connected with any obligation to decommission.
    The truth is that, because of the desperate circumstances that faced the Prime Minister and the yes vote in the final weeks, he has entered into a truly Faustian bargain. Sinn Fein-IRA will not let him out of that bargain, but he will be called on by the pro-Union community to go back on it, in the form of legislation. That is the crux of the Bill.
    I could never understand the position of the Conservative Opposition or that of some Ulster Unionist Members who kept saying that things could be put right by the legislation, because I have never believed that, under the terms of the multi-party agreement, any party, including the British Government, could alter it unilaterally by legislation without the agreement of all the other parties.
    The Government will escape from that dilemma by means of deception, fraud and fudge. The Bill is as full of political fudge as a village fete is of the real stuff, but it will have to be dissected and cleared up, because, sooner or later, the people of Northern Ireland, who, we have been told, are athirst for peace, will call on the Prime Minister to fulfil his pledges.
    The claims made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about there being no new preconditions, such as linking the Bill to decommissioning, were never made loudly and clearly by his party in the referendum campaign, because that would have blown the whistle on the true situation: that such preconditions could not be secured. The Government are not, and should not be, in a position to link decommissioning with the agreement, which stands on its own feet, but I take issue with the hon. Gentleman, because that was not made abundantly clear in the referendum campaign, as it is now.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McCartney: I will in just a moment.
    In furtherance of the plot, the SDLP ran two separate pieces of election propaganda: one, for the soft Unionists, who it hoped would vote yes, was in completely muted colours and talked about partnerships, sharing and all the things that we can do together; the other was a much tougher piece of straightforward nationalist propaganda,
    1144
    talking of the achievements of the SDLP, from 1981 and the totality of relationships up to its final achievement of the agreement en route to its goal of a united Ireland.
    When we speak of the democratic views of the people of Northern Ireland, we should bear it in mind that they have yet to make a decision on the promises and assurances that were given to them about what would happen if they voted yes.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way now?
    Mr. McCartney: Not just at the moment. I want to talk about the release of prisoners, which is related to decommissioning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I do not intend to give way.
    Mr. McNamara: You said that you would.
    Mr. McCartney: I said that I would, in due time, and I have not yet finished my point.
    Several hon. Members have spoken about the victims. There have been victims in Northern Ireland since 1969, and there are now more than 3,000, but until it became necessary to secure their agreement to, or at least acquiescence in, the release of convicted criminals, their feelings were not even considered.
    The victims were ignored for the best part of 30 years, but, when it became necessary to assuage their rightful indignation and anger and that of their relatives, suddenly Sir Kenneth Bloomfield was called into operation, and a physical memorial in Londonderry was proposed. Victims became the focus of Government attention only when their good will—and the good will of the community that supported them—was needed to allow convicted criminals and terrorists to be set free.
    There has been a great deal of talk about those gentlemen being released and how money should be spent on reintegrating them into the community, and we have heard at length about what NIACRO and others have to say about them. When the Secretary of State went to persuade those people that they should support the ceasefire, the television cameras followed her into the so-called loyalist compound, and some of them were filmed against graffiti and murals. Michael Stone, who is about to be released even though he murdered five people and injured many others, was filmed against a mural that said, "Yabbadabbadoo, any Fenian will do" and, "Kill them all, let God sort them out".
    I am speaking about so-called loyalist terrorists, because I want to make it abundantly clear that I despise, loathe and detest terrorists of any kind, serving any claimed cause, be they green, orange or multi-coloured. They are loathsome, despicable people, who should be dealt with regardless of whom they claim to represent.
    We are told that, if those people are to be released back into society, they will be required to give up associations with the organisations that spawned them. When the Balcombe street murderers were released from prisons in the Republic to attend the Ard Feis, they arrived as absolute heroes and were given an enormous welcome, because they were seen as violent terrorists, exercising the military strategy of Sinn Fein, which is inextricably linked with them, as they are the cutting edge of its organisation.
    Mr. Mallon: I agree with the Prime Minister about new preconditions. A press release on the Bill said:

    1145
    "As the Prime Minister said during the Referendum campaign, the following factors will be taken into account. They are not new preconditions but are essential to help us to reach an overall judgement".
    My party opposed the Washington 3 precondition. We oppose it now. We are going to insist that everyone abides by the agreement that we have reached.
    On our two sets of literature, there was only one set during the referendum. One person became a little urgent about fighting the assembly election, and that is why our election manifesto went out on the last Sunday. I am not sure that that is a hanging offence.
    Mr. McCartney: I never suggested that it was a hanging offence. The two sets of election literature were clearly aimed at two different sets of people, and had two different purposes.
    On the release of convicted criminals, the term "prisoner" has overtones of prisoners of war or people fighting according to the rules of the Geneva convention. Let me say something about the connection between these freedom fighters, these released prisoners and what they actually do.
    Sinn Fein has 38 candidates for the assembly elections, of whom more than half have criminal convictions of a fairly serious nature. The Sinn Fein candidate in East Londonderry killed three soldiers. Mr. Paul Butler, the Sinn Fein candidate for Lagan Valley, shot a 50-year-old RUC reserve constable in the back of the head. Joe Cahill, aged 78, was once sentenced to death for murder. Gerry Kelly, its representative in Belfast, North, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the Old Bailey bomb, as a result of which one person was killed and 250 injured. In his escape from the Maze, he shot a prison warder in the head.
    When I hear hon. Members talk of all the democracy, benefits and peace that the agreement is going to pour forth upon the people of Northern Ireland, I am reminded of a single instance that sums it all up.
    My party's candidate in the election in Belfast, North served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for seven years. He have will have among his opponents the following: John White of the Ulster Democratic party, who hacked to death Senator Paddy Wilson and his girl friend, stabbing each of them 54 times; the aforesaid Gerry Kelly of Sinn Fein, who injured 250 people and killed one at the Old Bailey; and another loyalist, Mr. Billy Hutchinson, one of these Progressive Unionists, the radical politicians we heard about earlier. He was involved in the casual killing from a car of two Catholics.
    That is the democracy that results from the agreement—three candidates who between them have murdered six people. Is that what democracy and this agreement are about? Is that the true basis upon which there will be lasting peace in Northern Ireland? Those who believe that should buy a few volumes of the Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen.
    8.33 pm
    Mr. William Ross: I have one slight correction for the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). The Sinn Fein member who is standing in East Londonderry, or at least one of
    1146
    them, Mr. O'Kane, is a fairly near neighbour of mine. He did not kill three soldiers, but three RAF mechanics. At his trial, he said that, if he got the chance, he would do it all over again. That puts the matter in clear context.
    As time is moving on and several hon. Members wish to speak, I shall try to be briefer than usual.
    There have been several claims about the number of persons who will be released early under this legislation. The standard excuse, which has been made by many, including some members of my party, is that many of those prisoners would be out in two years in any case. That is true, but it is also a fact that the prisoners are already the beneficiaries of a generous shortening of their sentences. That said, 79 of those who will be out in two years would have had very long periods of imprisonment ahead of them but for the Bill.
    I will not weary the House with the details this evening, but they are set out in Hansard in response to questions that I have tabled in recent weeks. There is one person whose release date in Great Britain was 2019. Several others would have served nine or 10 years into the next century. They will all be out in a couple of years. Those who are to be transferred to the Irish Republic will no doubt be even more generously treated, unless they happen to have shot a Garda officer in the Republic, in which case they will do their 40 years.
    Such people will be released only if the organisation to which they belong is committed to purely peaceful and democratic action. We suffer from a barrage of voices telling us that that is the case with regard to the IRA and the other terrorist groups. In fact, there is a scarcely a day, or more accurately a night, on which acts of violence are not committed by members of those organisations or by their subcontractors to ensure their continuing dominance in some areas of Northern Ireland. That violence has been calmly ignored by the Government and all those who laud the agreement. Given that that is the case, I have no confidence that this Secretary of State will specify any of those organisations as terrorist.
    The Bill will impact on existing legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) considered in some depth which organisations are terrorist. It seems to me that, if the terrorist organisations simply say the correct soothing words, they will no longer be illegal bodies, and there will be no prosecutions for membership.
    That leads to the question of extraditions from the Irish Republic and elsewhere of people sought by the RUC in connection with terrorist acts. I am pleased that the Secretary of State is here, because one example is Rita O'Hare, one of the wanted terrorists with whom she is on speaking terms. I admit that the relationship appears to reach the huggy-feely stage only when they are in the Irish Republic, because the woman concerned is a bail absconder in Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State no doubt knows that the woman went on the run after recovering from her bullet wounds sufficiently to travel. The wounds were sustained while she was attempting to murder soldiers in Northern Ireland. She did not repent of her activities. Indeed, she continued with them, because she later served three years in the Republic for trying to smuggle explosives inside her body into Portlaoise prison.
    Rita O'Hare's defence against extradition to Northern Ireland was upheld by the Irish courts on the ground that the attempted murder charge was a political offence,

    1147
    thereby illustrating the great difficulty of getting an extradition from the Irish Republic. Her very defence goes a long way to proving that she was guilty of the charge brought against her. Clearly she is ideally qualified to advise the Secretary of State on extradition matters, and will not, I am sure, be slow to offer such advice.
    However, I remind the right hon. Lady of section 18 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which states:
    "A person is guilty of an offence if he has information which he knows or believes might be of material assistance … in securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of any other person for an offence involving the commission, preparation or instigation of such an act,
    and fails without reasonable excuse to disclose that information as soon as reasonably practicable … in Northern Ireland, to a constable or member of Her Majesty's Forces."
    I should be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State has complied with that section with regard to her contacts with the loathsome woman with whom she seems to find so much in common. The Secretary of State should also look up the penalties, which I think she will find of interest.
    Of course, what applies to the case of Rita O'Hare also applies to the other assorted thugs and murderers who will be released under the provisions of the Bill. We can also expect reoffenders to leave the United Kingdom jurisdiction, and they will never be extradited for trial for any offences.
    The Bill also raises concerns about the position of those awaiting trial and sentence, and those who may yet be charged with murders or other crimes committed long ago. Some other neighbours of mine are in the courts in Belfast this week for attempted murder of members of the RUC in Dungiven.
    When all has been said and done—a lot has been said today—the bottom line is that a large number of persons who have been found guilty and sentenced for very terrible acts will be out of prison early, long before their sentences would normally be completed. That is nothing short of a blatant corruption and interference with the judicial process, the concept of punishment for crime and the rehabilitation and reform of prisoners.
    The passing and application of the Bill will confirm the IRA's claim, certainly in the minds of its members and supporters, that it is engaged in a just war, and that those convicted are not only prisoners of war but political prisoners rather than murderers and thugs. That is a psychological thing with the IRA, its supporters and other terrorist organisations, which so few people in this place seem to understand.
    I believe that the consequences of accepting the IRA view of its terrorist campaign are vast, and can only intensify the deep and real contempt felt by many of the law-abiding citizens for those who have conceived and are carrying into effect this policy of abject surrender to the diktats of murderers. That is what the Bill is really about. It is an abject surrender to the diktats of murderers, and we had better realise exactly what we are putting our hand and our votes to.
    8.41 pm
    Mr. Tony McWalter: I rise partly because a large number of those who have spoken are well qualified to speak on these matters, whereas I feel
    1148
    very under-qualified as I have lived all my life in England and my association with Ireland is through my family—but perhaps someone who is not so well qualified has a role to play in the debate, which is often characterised too much by certainty and not enough by probability, uncertainty and a feeling of trying to tease out new solutions rather than being convinced that one has the solution all along and that all that needs to happen is for everyone else to agree.
    Some material points have been made—I think particularly about decommissioning—but I am not sure whether the appropriate place to put firm assurances about decommissioning is in the Bill or in a translation of what is clearly in the Bill into the political process through the good offices of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. McWalter: In a moment. I certainly agree that we have to ensure that the conditions spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others are secured by the time we come to release from custody anyone who is guilty of terrible offences.
    Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman has answered the question that I was about to ask. I infer from what he says that his reading of the text of the agreement, which I submit is the critical issue, is as one with the Prime Minister's, as expressed to the House in his answers in Prime Minister's questions on 6 May.
    Mr. McWalter: Indeed, but I submit to the hon. Gentleman and others that it is not clear whether we need to incorporate those ideas and commitment into statute, or whether the Bill will in the end provide us with a facility for ensuring that those commitments are honoured in the deed.
    My feeling of under-qualification for the debate extends to other things, but my experience of Northern Ireland—or as some would call it, the north of Ireland—is characterised by an extraordinary gulf between what I have found there and what I have found in my own England. Although we have heard stirring speeches from, among others, the United Kingdom Unionist Member, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), the fact is that there is a great gulf.
    For example, there are not many places in England where there is a huge gap between people in how they describe a town. If I say that I am driving to Londonderry, I seem to be on one side of the fence. If I say that I am driving to Derry, I am on the other side of the fence. I had better make sure which I say when I am in the Shankill road or the Falls road. It is strange for those of us who are English that so much should ride on a word—even our life if we get it wrong in the wrong circumstances.
    When I have been to Northern Ireland, I have often encountered phenomena that English people find perplexing. I have been on a bus that never reached Oxford Street bus station because a bomb went off 10 minutes before. I have been in a pub in Castlewellan that had no windows because it had been blown apart by a bomb. However, one of the things that I have not experienced—I understand that this makes a great difference—is how it feels to have a member of my family blown up by a bomb. My uncle lived in Castlewellan, but he was not a victim.

    1149
    I understand that the passion in the debate about victims is vital. I resent the suggestion, made by the hon. and learned Member for North Down, that victims come into the process right at the end. One of the extraordinary things about the debate is that so many of the victims have been prepared to construct a testimonial to their murdered loved ones. They say that there could be no better testament than for them to work in the memory of their loved ones to construct a lasting peace. That is something with which those of us who are debating these matters and who support the agreement must work constructively.
    We have in Northern Ireland a society in which many of us have aspirations for radical change because we want our fellow countrymen and British islanders to enjoy a life that the rest of us in these islands usually enjoy.
    By way of illustration of the problems in Northern Ireland, I offer the following story. I went for a job at the university of Ulster in Coleraine. Some hon. Members may think that the selection board was wise not to select me. In any case, from a shortlist of three I somehow managed not to get the job—
    Mr. William Ross: Two did not.
    Mr. McWalter: The hon. Gentleman's pals were probably on the panel.
    Mr. Ross: No, they were not.
    Mr. McWalter: When I walked into the hotel, a policeman asked me if he could check my bag. Being English and having a strong respect for policemen, I of course agreed. He removed the contents of my bag—Marks and Spencer shirts, and so on. He also asked if he could inspect my toilet bag. It contained razors and a tube of Colgate toothpaste, which the policeman squeezed out to make sure that it was not Semtex. A society in which that can happen is a society in need of radical change. Since 1972, when that incident took place, that society has been at war.
    Some people have argued that the answer to war is to strengthen the rule of law. I understand that point of view, but it has not worked—because enough people in Northern Ireland feel alienated from the law and from the Government. At last, with this agreement, we have managed to marginalise a large number of people who still believe in the bullet and the bomb. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) was right to say that peace must be a precondition of any change. Admittedly there is still no peace; there are still what he called marginal elements who can kill. Some places are still unsafe and the marginal elements still have the capacity to murder people, but thanks to the agreement they no longer constitute a large minority: they are a shattered and fragmented rump.
    I began by saying that I am unqualified to serve on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, although I do. I do however have one vital qualification: I have seen the future. There is in my constituency a church called St. Paul's, in Highfield. It is shared by Catholics and Anglicans. At 8.30 on Sunday mornings there is a
    1150
    Protestant service conducted by a woman minister, and at 11 o'clock there is a Catholic mass. Such a thing is almost unheard of in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: The idea that the two communities in Northern Ireland are at daggers drawn is erroneous. I have attended every sort of Catholic service, from nuptial mass to benediction, in almost every Catholic church in Belfast and in many churches in Rome—and I have no hang-ups at all.
    Mr. McWalter: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman, but I did not say that the communities were at daggers drawn. I said that a significant minority felt so alienated that they did not recognise what the hon. and learned Gentleman would call the rule of law. Of course, in my parish there are also a few people who do not respect the rule of law, but where such people form a significant minority the law has to be reconstructed so as to attract their assent.
    Mr. Mallon: I was intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's experience with the toothpaste. It is true that we are different, but we are the product of our environment. We have been governed by this Parliament since the Act of Union of 1800. I suggest that that has something to do with our conditioning—that the diversity in the north of Ireland may stem partly from that.
    Mr. McWalter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. It is extraordinary that a tube of toothpaste can be regarded as a venomous item over the water. I was unfazed by the incident, but I can imagine members of the minority community in Northern Ireland feeling threatened, intimidated and resentful in such circumstances. We in England are used to working constructively with the police authorities.
    What we need to foster, following the agreement, is the spirit of St. Paul's church in Highfield. Its experience needs to be etched on the life of Northern Ireland. From now on no one, republican or Unionist, should regard it as strange to work with members of the other community in a spirit of mutual understanding and multicultural exchange.
    8.57 pm
    Mr. Peter Robinson: There has at least been an acceptance by many who have spoken today that while the roots of the Bill can be found in the Belfast agreement, that agreement has been given significant support by the undertakings, promises and pledges offered by the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign.
    I recognise that 71 per cent. of those who voted in the referendum voted in favour of the agreement, but I do not accept the contention that that represents a majority of both our communities. It is clear that a majority of the Unionist community voted against the agreement—[Interruption.] The giggling hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) should take into account some simple statistics: 71 per cent. voted yes; according to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), 42 per cent. of those were nationalists but, accepting that perhaps 5 per cent. of the nationalist community voted no—although the exit polls did not show that to be the case—that would represent about 2 per cent. of the overall

    1151
    community, thereby reducing the figure back down to 40 per cent.; about 8 per cent. of the votes in Northern Ireland come from what are described as others, such as the Alliance party, the Women's Coalition, Labour and other bits and pieces, which gives us 48 per cent.
    Mr. Winnick: What a way to describe such groups.
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman would never identify with Labour in Northern Ireland—it is an entirely different species there. That gives 48 per cent., leaving only 23 per cent. who voted yes from the Unionist community, as opposed to 29 per cent. who voted no from the Unionist community. Therefore, the clear majority of the Unionist community voted against the agreement.
    The Government know that; their own polls show that that was the case. Indeed, those polls so alarmed them that they sent the Prime Minister post haste to Northern Ireland to do whatever he could to turn the tide of events. To that end, he gave a series of commitments which, in my view, are as crucial to the future of the Bill as is the agreement. People in Northern Ireland voted not simply on their reading of the Belfast agreement, but on the interpretation of that agreement given by the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister indicated clearly that there would be a direct linkage between actual decommissioning and any prisoners being released, people were prepared to believe it.
    In the House, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister:
    "Does he agree that prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?"
    The Prime Minister replied:
    "It is essential that any agreement is signed up to in full."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
    He said that the answer to the question was yes. He said a lot of other things, but he answered yes to the question, put directly to him by the Leader of the Opposition, which asked for decommissioning prior to any releases taking place. The Prime Minister made a further comment on 13 May:
    "Especially after the events at the weekend, it must be clear and demonstrated … that if people are to take their places on the Northern Ireland Executive and participate in the provisions on prisoner release, we must be sure that violence is given up for good. We must demonstrate that clearly."—[Official Report, 13 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 365.]
    Neither of those pledges has been fulfilled in the Bill. There is no direct linkage between decommissioning and the release of prisoners, nor is there any requirement for decommissioning prior to prisoners being released. All the Bill says is that that is one of the issues that the Secretary of State will take into account, but she is not required to do so even if she finds out that decommissioning has not taken place. There is no requirement in the Bill for decommissioning to have been signed up to, or to have taken place, before prisoners start to be released.
    There is no requirement for violence to have ended for good, even though the Bill talks about
    "a complete and unequivocal ceasefire."
    Those are strange words to use because we had a complete ceasefire announced by the Provisional IRA. But it was broken by the Provisional IRA when it bombed Canary Wharf. A complete ceasefire is not a permanent end to
    1152
    violence, nor does it mean giving up violence for good. That pledge is broken in the Bill—the Prime Minister did not live up to his words.
    The Prime Minister came over to Northern Ireland campaigning and gave a further pledge, which was published in the Belfast News Letter of Thursday 14 May. He said
    "People need to know that if they are sitting down in the room of the executive of the Northern Ireland assembly with other people then they are not sitting there with the guns under the table, outside the door and all the rest of it. That can't happen and we must make it absolutely clear that that can't happen."
    Why is it that we in Northern Ireland are not to see the settlement Bill before people go to the polls on 25 June? One would have thought it might be appropriate for that Bill to be published before 25 June so that we could see whether the Prime Minister was keeping his pledges. I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to put right any impression that the people of Northern Ireland might have that the Prime Minister will welsh on those commitments, as he welshed on the commitments on decommissioning and the release of prisoners.
    In his last bid, the Prime Minister made a dramatic statement and personally signed his five pledges to the people of Northern Ireland, which were displayed on a large billboard. The same pledge as previously was made on prison releases. Pledge No. 5 stated:
    "Prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good."
    That is clearly a requirement for a permanent end to violence—not a tactical cessation of violence, not a pause in violence, not simply giving up violence for a few years, but giving up violence for good.
    How is that to be demonstrated? The Prime Minister said in his Balmoral speech that it would be demonstrated by an end to punishment beatings and by standing down the organisation and dismantling it. Those are the key issues, along with decommissioning, that show that violence is being given up for good.
    The Prime Minister did not keep his word to the people of Northern Ireland. The pledges are not kept in the Bill. If he broke those pledges, the people of Northern Ireland can be certain that the other four pledges that he signed in Coleraine are unlikely to be kept when the settlement Bill is eventually published.
    I agree with the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh and for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that this Bill probably keeps to the lines of the agreement. It does not keep to the basis of the Prime Minister's pledges, but it is in line with the agreement, because the agreement, as we argued during the campaign, did not require decommissioning. It required only that certain individuals should use their best endeavours and influence to bring about decommissioning. The agreement made it clear that within two years, all the prisoners would get out.
    One Labour Back Bencher made the remarkable statement that the Bill is not about letting murderers out on to the streets. What is it about then? Of course it is about letting murderers out on to the streets. That is its whole purpose. The Minister gave figures to journalists to show how many murderers would be allowed out on to the streets.
    As soon as the Bill is passed, a contradiction in law will be created. I agree that there is no doubt that the Bill will be passed, given the size of the Labour majority.

    1153
    Under one piece of legislation, the IRA and other terrorist organisations are proscribed, but when the Secretary of State is asked to make a determination under clause 3(8) on whether various organisations are terrorist organisations, she will undoubtedly come to the conclusion that the IRA is, for the purposes of the Bill, not a terrorist organisation.
    So certain was I that the Secretary of State would come to that conclusion that I was prepared to stake my political career on it. After 19 years in the House, I made it clear that if the Secretary of State was prepared to come out publicly before last Monday and make a statement giving a clear undertaking that she would list the Provisional IRA as a terrorist organisation under that clause, I would be happy to withdraw. I thought that, offered such a carrot, the Secretary of State, keen to get rid of me, would jump at the opportunity, but she did not take it. I even made sure that she was aware of it by speaking to her private secretary, to ensure that she knew the great possibilities that lay before her.
    The Secretary of State could not give such an undertaking publicly because she has no intention of determining that, for the purposes of the Bill, the Provisional IRA is a terrorist organisation. She will determine that it is not.
    By doing that, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be saying, "You can hold on to 100 tonnes of weapons and enough explosives and guns to carry on waging war for another 20 years, but I will not determine that you are a terrorist organisation." She will say, "You can have all the plans to wreck and ruin the Province, but I will not determine that you are a terrorist organisation. You can have a structure and a terrorist network throughout the Province, but I will not determine that you are a terrorist organisation." That is how Mad Hattered the Bill is. Even though the IRA is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by an Act of Parliament, the Secretary of State has determined that it should not be included in a specified list of terrorist organisations. She will do the same to other terrorist organisations as well.
    We also have the nonsense—emphasised by the Secretary of State in her remarks—that it is an offence to be a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation. An IRA man in the Maze prison can declare that he is a member of the Provisional IRA—which is a proscribed organisation—and the Secretary of State may release him from prison because she does not determine that that proscribed organisation should be included in the list of terrorist organisations. That man will be allowed on to the street even though he has admitted that he is a member of an organisation that everyone knows is a terrorist organisation and which is legally proscribed as such by an Act of Parliament. That is an absolute absurdity.
    Other factors must be taken into account in terms of the prisoners. I do not think that it is sufficient to allow convicted prisoners to leave gaol if they have not repented or expressed regret for their crimes. Prisoners can get out of gaol without renouncing violence because they will get out on the basis of their organisation's status. However, when those people are out on licence, they will not be put back into prison on the basis of their organisation's status. If their organisation returns to violence, they will still be free because it is their individual behaviour that matters
    1154
    to the Secretary of State and to the commission. That is entirely wrong and the provision must clearly be amended in Committee.
    I do not believe that the Bill's criteria for determining a terrorist organisation are sufficient. Clearly, we must take account—we shall seek to amend the Bill to this effect—of the views of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who must believe that an organisation is no longer a threat to the people of Northern Ireland. Such a provision must be inserted into the Bill so that we can hear an independent and impartial view rather than the political views being expressed in the House tonight.
    It is probably fairly obvious that I intend to vote against the Bill. I will do so on principle. I believe that sentences may be reduced by a very narrow margin in certain circumstances—on the ground of good behaviour, for example. The review bodies examine a series of factors, such as the likelihood of a prisoner reoffending, but that applies to only a small part of a sentence. The Bill introduces an amnesty in everything but name. The Government know it, and they think that, by calling it something else, they will fool the people. They will not. When the gates open, the prisoners will start to leave. Hundreds of prisoners will get out in that two-year period, and most of them will be murderers.
    I shall vote against the Bill on principle. We accept the fact that the Government will pursue the Bill and that it will pass, but we shall seek to amend it in Committee. I know that the Government will not accept the substantial amendments that we shall propose, as they will be contrary to the Government's deal with Sinn Fein-IRA.
    Will the Secretary of State assure the House that, when the commission is established, in deciding its composition, she will not feel that it is necessary to telephone an on-the-run terrorist, such as Rita O'Hare, or a former leader of the Provisional IRA and Army Council member, such as Martin McGuinness, seeking their approval? When she establishes the commission, whose advice will the Secretary of State take on the issue of prisoner releases? Will she again have to secure the approval of Sinn Fein-IRA representatives?
    9.14 pm
    Mr. William Thompson: It will be no surprise to the House when I say that I was opposed to the agreement and recommended the people of Northern Ireland to vote no in the referendum. As the Bill is a result of that agreement, it will come as no surprise that I am opposed to it.
    For 25 years, we have had violence in Northern Ireland with terrorists at their work. We have seen murder and mayhem on many occasions. We have heard many announcements from Governments that they will defeat terrorism. They have said that the terrorists will not get what they want. However, the reality is that, because of American influence, European influence, southern Irish influence and influence from the civil servants in the Foreign Office and the Northern Ireland Office, the British Government never had the guts to beat terrorism.
    If we do not beat terrorism, in the end we negotiate with the terrorists and appease them. The agreement that has been signed is not a peace agreement but an appeasement agreement. We can see the result of that in the Bill. It represents appeasement to terrorism. The

    1155
    terrorists were there to make a deal, and their condition was that they had to get their prisoners out. That applied both to Sinn Fein and to the terrorists from the nationalist side as well as the terrorist organisations from the Unionist side. That was the price that they demanded for the agreement—or part of the price—and, so that the agreement could be reached, they got it. They wanted to get their prisoners out.
    The Bill acknowledges something that has always been denied, which is that there were political prisoners in Northern Ireland. They may not have been called political prisoners—they may have been termed special status prisoners—but in reality they have been political prisoners. Men and women who have been involved in terrorism are now to be treated differently from every other criminal who is in prison in Northern Ireland. That is immoral and it discriminates against the ordinary criminal who has to do his full term in prison, even though the offences that he has committed may be much less than some of the terrorist crimes that have been committed by others.
    Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the leader and deputy leader of his party have come to a very different conclusion from him about the negotiated agreement? Why has the majority of the governing part of his organisation also decided to back the agreement?
    Mr. Thompson: I did not hear exactly all that the hon. Gentleman said, but I know that many parties accept the agreement. Indeed, my own party has accepted it. I accept that. I accept also that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland have accepted it. However, that does not mean that I must accept it. I believe that it is wrong. As I believe that it is wrong, I therefore believe that I have the right to oppose it as it continues to come into development in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Winnick: I was really asking why the hon. Gentleman believes—of course, he has a perfect right to oppose the Bill in a free House of Commons—that the leader and deputy leader of his party, as well as the majority of the governing part of his organisation, take a very different view from him over the negotiated agreement.
    Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman asks a question to which I really do not know the answer. I ask him to ask those to whom he refers why they reached such a decision. It is certainly not one with which I agree.
    The Bill is a betrayal of all the good men and women from the security forces who gave their lives in the pursuit of the defeat of terrorism. Many of them spent nights patrolling the roads trying to defend the ordinary people of Northern Ireland in order to defeat terrorism. They died in vain, because terrorism has not been defeated. Terrorism is succeeding still in Northern Ireland.
    The so-called safeguards in the Bill are meaningless. Many people in Northern Ireland were persuaded to vote yes by the promises given by the Prime Minister when he came to Northern Ireland on three occasions. When they saw him on television, they took him at his word. I tried to persuade them that what he signed and said was meaningless, but they would not believe that. Now, in the Bill, we discover that what I believed has come true. The Prime Minister's promises have not been fulfilled in the Bill.
    1156
    Time is of the essence, so I conclude by saying that this is a bad Bill. It is a sad day for the House of Commons when it considers a Bill to release murderers. Therefore, I shall oppose it.
    9.20 pm
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I shall be brief and I apologise, therefore, if I cannot develop one or two of my arguments as much as I would have wished.
    I was happy to support the agreement when it came before the House. Various things have been said about it in this debate, and I find myself as unable to agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) as I am with the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter).
    Ultimately, Northern Ireland is a civil society. It enjoys, in substantial areas, a great measure of peace, but we belittle the people of Northern Ireland if we attribute to them a state of wardom such that we have to extend or change the law to accommodate their circumstances. It is a bad precedent.
    That having been said, the agreement implies on our part an act of hard-headed faith. I have never had any doubt in my mind that if violence comes to an end, that of itself is a good precondition for looking at the case of each individual convicted for an act of violence. If the violence has ceased, it is a good reason for releasing them as soon as possible. That would have applied whether or not the agreement had come into being.
    Therefore, if we are approaching a situation where peace will come to Northern Ireland, there are sound reasons for looking to release prisoners as expeditiously as possible, as long as we do not release into the community those who will resume violence.
    There are matters connected with the agreement which have given me cause for concern. Applying my mind as a lawyer, I read the agreement carefully and I concluded that what the Prime Minister had to say on 6 May about the linkage between the release of prisoners and the cessation of violence and decommissioning was, on a reading of the agreement, correct. I hope that it is, because I am concerned not about whether other parties to the agreement may come to a different interpretation but to know the Government's interpretation of the agreement.
    Listening to the debate, there has been enough casuistry from supporters of the Government to suggest that there are those who read into the agreement some very different things from others about the linkage of decommissioning with the cessation of violence.
    As I said earlier in an intervention, I have no doubt that the agreement can be construed—it is reflected in the legislation—as meaning that an act of preparation for violence would be the failure within the two-year period to achieve the substantial decommissioning that is envisaged in the agreement.
    If that is not the case, the sooner the Government say so, the better. There is a tendency in circumstances of this kind to have a hope and a prayer, and sometimes to go beyond what is realistic. It is important that people know where they stand. Obfuscation may be a Government art form, but it will do us no good in this context. If the matter is not clarified now, it will be clarified later, with far worse consequences.

    1157
    I am prepared to accept what the Prime Minister said, because it appears to be in accordance with the agreement, but I seek confirmation of that. The question of what amendments are tabled or become critical in Committee will depend on how the Government interpret the agreement to the House and on the assurances that can be given that what the Prime Minister said on the matter is correct. I believe that the agreement and the Bill match, and that the agreement was properly reflected by what the Prime Minister said, but I look forward to reassurance that that is indeed the case.
    The issue with which I now wish to deal briefly may be slightly off the remit of the Bill, but it is important. I expect that, by the time the two-year period is up, there will be virtually no IRA prisoners in this country who have not been transferred either to Northern Ireland or to the Republic. I understand that the remit of the Bill concerns prisoners transferred to Northern Ireland, but the status of prisoners transferred to the Republic is a matter of abiding curiosity to me. Some of those prisoners have the unique and unpleasant distinction of being virtually the only ones subject to the full life tariff. Some were transferred on the Irish Government's explicit assurance that they accepted the full life tariff imposed by the Home Secretary.
    Where do those prisoners fit into the agreement? If they do not fit into the Bill, into what agreement do they fit? I do not accept that they are merely the responsibility of the Government of the Irish Republic, because that Government's previous ability to release them has been fettered by their assurance of the full life tariff.
    There are exceptions—properly made—in the Bill. I know from my experience of encountering terrorists in the courts that they come in all shapes and sizes—from the young romantic who has murdered, but who may properly wish to be released into the community quickly, to the psychopath who probably constitutes a danger to the community whether or not he is a member of a terrorist organisation, and who was drawn to terrorist organisations like a bee to a honey pot.
    What measure of control will the Government exercise over influencing the release date of prisoners transferred to the Irish Republic, and how do such prisoners fit into the agreement? Even if the matter falls outside the remit of the Bill, I should be grateful for an explanation of how that will work.
    I thank the House for allowing me the indulgence of exceeding the normal time for Back-Bench speeches in order that I might raise those matters.
    9.27 pm
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: I am more than happy to have given my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) five or six minutes for his excellent contribution to this debate.
    I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) in thanking the Secretary of State and her Ministers for involving the Opposition and seeking our advice in the drafting of the Bill. As my hon. Friend said, some of our points have been incorporated, but the Bill still does not go far enough to satisfy our concerns and those of many people in Northern Ireland.
    1158
    As my hon. Friend said, we shall submit amendments and force those to a vote in Committee unless we have further accommodation from the Government.
    Contrary to the accusations of some Labour Members, we do not seek to rewrite the agreement; we merely seek to make clear in the Bill the intent and the terms of the agreement. That is no less an intent than the Prime Minister has sought to achieve in his various comments over the past few weeks.
    I seek clarification from the Minister on two questions that were put to the Secretary of State by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell. The first relates to the issue of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. We seek confirmation that the Bill does not apply in their case. Clause 3(3)(a) sets a first condition that the sentence must be for a qualifying offence. It seems to me that the offences committed by Guardsmen Fisher and Wright do not fulfil that condition. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that when he responds to the debate.
    Clause 1(5) refers to a lawyer who holds a legal qualification in any jurisdiction. The issue raised was not dealt with fully. There is still some doubt, and we seek confirmation that the qualification should be from the United Kingdom.
    I can say in response to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne) that we welcome the agreement and we acknowledge that it is a momentous event in the history of Northern Ireland. History will determine how momentous it is, but it is a key and significant step. We want further progress on the basis of that agreement. There is a glimmer of hope, and that was shown by the positive 71 per cent. vote in the referendum. However, that is conditional on good faith being exercised by all the participating parties. The commitments by the signatories to the agreement are clear cut and have repeatedly been endorsed and elaborated on by the Prime Minister himself.
    It is the duty of the Opposition to challenge the wording of the legislation that interprets the intent of the agreement. There may well be differing views on the legal interpretation of words in the Bill. Is that not what the courts will be asked to determine? As a lawyer, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun should have understood that fundamental point.
    There is no inconsistency in our position. We have made it clear in the House, in private meetings with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, and publicly in Northern Ireland and in mainland Britain that we seek a clear and unequivocal commitment to giving up violence for good, and that includes decommissioning. We believe that that commitment should also apply to the release of prisoners. After all, the Prime Minister has said no less. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), in his powerful speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield alluded to many of the Prime Minister's comments in the past few weeks. In the limited time available to me, I do not intend to reiterate them. In the Prime Minister's various interviews and statements on 6 May, 14 May and 17 May in the House and in Northern Ireland, the word "decommissioning" occurred time and again. Furthermore, on every occasion he linked decommissioning to both prisoner release and the taking up of Executive positions in the assembly.
    The Bill does not make those links in anything like the same clear and unequivocal way. That is the critical issue. The people of Northern Ireland were entitled to believe

    1159
    what the Prime Minister said about those links when they voted yes to the agreement. The House is entitled to believe that the Prime Minister meant what he said under questioning from the Leader of the Opposition. The country as a whole is entitled to believe the Prime Minister when he promises to link legislation on prisoner release to the giving up of violence for good. The Prime Minister said that the
    "war is finished, done with, gone".
    To ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland and in mainland Britain, it is inconceivable that an organisation that eschews violence and terrorism cannot co-operate fully and totally with the decommissioning process.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised the issue of the prisoners transferred to the Republic of Ireland.
    The intention of the agreement is clear from paragraph 1 of the section on prisoners, on page 25. I think that the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) quoted from it twice. It states:
    "Both Governments will put in place mechanisms to provide for an accelerated programme for the release of prisoners, including transferred prisoners, convicted of scheduled offences in Northern Ireland or, in the case of those sentenced outside Northern Ireland, similar offences (referred to hereafter as qualifying prisoners)."
    Clause 15 of the Bill deals with sentences passed outside Northern Ireland—that is, in mainland Great Britain. Subsection (1) gives the Secretary of State power to provide for clauses 3 to 13 to take effect, if the prisoner concerned meets the four conditions specified in clause 3(3) to (6).
    It strikes me that, if the likes of Paul Magee and the Balcombe street gang had stayed in prisons in the United Kingdom—as provided for in clause 15—they would have been subject to this legislation. The fact that they have been transferred to the Republic of Ireland under a separate jurisdiction does create a slight problem, but, given the intent in the paragraph in the agreement on the release of prisoners, I do not think that they can be seen to have prejudiced their case by moving from prisons here to prisons in the Republic. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point for once and for all.
    The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said—and I think that his comments were echoed by the hon. Member for Hull, North—that there was no question of introducing new elements into the agreement, and, by inference, into the Bill. He implied that no embellishment would be countenanced—particularly to clause 3(8) and (9), the subsections which are at the heart of the Bill. Indeed, he challenged both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to come to the Floor of the House and say why the legislation was to be changed from the word and the spirit of the agreement.
    I presume from those comments that the hon. Gentleman is content with the words in the Bill as drafted. I also presume that he was consulted about those words before the Bill was drafted. That is not a problem. Consultation was widespread, and many parties were included: I have already accepted that. It is, however, unusual for the first draft of a Bill, as it appears on Second Reading, to be perfect. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not entertain the view that other word
    1160
    sand combinations of words could strengthen the legislation in a way that we would like, while still not going beyond the terms of the agreement.
    I shall give the Minister plenty of time in which to speak, as I know that he has many questions to answer. I have raised some of the key issues, principally those arising in clause 3(8) and (9). We shall be tabling amendments to those key provisions. We hope that the spirit of co-operation that the Government have shown hitherto will continue when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House for its Committee stage next week.
    9.38 pm
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate about an issue that generates strong emotions. In the time available, I shall do my best to deal with all the points that have been raised, although it may not be possible for me to do so. It will certainly be possible to discuss the details of many of the points raised this evening in Committee.
    There have been many difficult and dark days in the troubled history of Northern Ireland, but 10 April and 22 May stand out like beacons. On those days a new light shone on the Province, a ray of hope and the glimmer of a better tomorrow. The Good Friday agreement and the referendum which endorsed it so convincingly are without doubt significant turning points in the history of Northern Ireland. Those two events are the opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to move forward into a future that is no longer plagued by violence and blighted by fear.
    All hon. Members have an obligation to listen to what the people of Northern Ireland have said. They are the people who have been living with the troubles all these years and who have been most damaged by them. They are saying that they want a better future for themselves and their families.
    When the participants to the talks signed the agreement on Good Friday, they knew that hard decisions lay ahead and that difficult actions would be required. Equally, when the people of Northern Ireland overwhelmingly voted yes in the referendum, they did so knowing that they would have to accept decisions and developments that had previously been anathema to them. The talks participants and the people of Northern Ireland endorsed the Good Friday agreement knowing that it was a total package that would stand or fall as a whole.
    The legislation deals with one of the first of the important matters on which the agreement can either founder or move ahead. The Government have made no secret of the fact that the prisoner element of the agreement was not easy for us. We share the concerns of many people about the early release of prisoners. However, it is time for all those who have suffered hurt over the past 30 years to take a deep breath and say that, although this is not necessarily a perfect end to the troubles, realistically it is the only one.
    I shall now deal with the issue of victims. During my time in Northern Ireland I have constantly been amazed at the capacity of so many of those who have suffered gravely over the years, whether from the discriminate bombings and shootings of republican terrorists or from the evil sectarian murders by so-called loyalists, to forgive and to look ahead. Without that, politicians would not have been given the time and space in which to forge a better future.

    1161
    In my role as Minister for victims, I am particularly conscious of the Bill's possible impact on victims and their families. I understand the hurt and the fears of many of those people, and I understand the need to ensure that their concerns and interests are properly addressed. In that context, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran), who also spoke about victims, for their comments. They both pertinently drew attention to the need to ensure that victims who want the information can find out when particular offenders will be released. Lord Alderdice and the Alliance party have shown a particular interest in the issue and have made similar suggestions and representations on behalf of victims. In Committee next week, I shall be happy to consider further questions on the issue with a view to tabling a Government amendment to tackle it.
    The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked how the Republic of Ireland would deal with victims. That is a matter for the Government of the Republic. They have also appointed a Minister with responsibility for dealing with victims of terrorism over the years in the Republic, and I am due to meet him shortly to discuss what we can jointly do. Legislation and how to deal specifically with such issues are matters for that Government.
    The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke about the sensitivity of victims and about informing them. We shall have to deal with Victim Support and other such groups to ensure that information will be offered sympathetically. The overriding principle is that it will be for victims to decide whether they want to receive information. We shall be establishing a procedure whereby victims may identify themselves if they wish information to be brought forward, so that they can ease some of the pain that they may feel about prisoner releases as the releases begin to progress over the coming months and years.
    The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who is not present, said that we were only now beginning to think about the issue of victims. Just about everything that the hon. and learned Gentleman says is wrong. He is wrong again on the issue of victims. It is not true that victims have been ignored by this or by previous Governments. Over the years, considerable sums of money have been routed towards groups that have sought to assist victims. Since this Government took office, we have established a commission specifically to consider the issue. It has reported recently; a Minister responsible for victims has been appointed; and we are making great progress. It is wrong to say that we have ignored victims over the years; that is simply not so.
    The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough asked whether the Secretary of State would consult the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding on whether a ceasefire was being maintained. The answer to that is yes. It is clear that they are both key players in understanding the effect of what is taking place on the ground. Of course, at present, both the Secretary of State and I are constantly in touch with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding in assessing security matters on a week-by-week basis.
    1162
    I turn to the safeguards in the Bill. Although we owe it to victims and to the people of Northern Ireland to address fears about release, we must obviously take account of how we go about it. The Bill builds in the major safeguards which were envisaged at the conclusion of Good Friday agreement and which the Prime Minister has promised since.
    The gates of the Maze prison are not being flung open and prisoners will not be granted an amnesty for their criminal actions. The safeguards will ensure that prisoners who support terrorist groups that continue to engage in violence or return to violence will not be released. Prisoners who will be released on licence will be recalled if they engage in terrorist activities after release. Safeguards also ensure that the programme of release can be stopped if circumstances change. That means that, if a terrorist group returns to violence, prisoners who support the organisation will not be released, and those who continue to support it while on licence can be recalled. Another important safeguard is that life sentence prisoners will not be released if they are a danger to the public. Those are very important criteria and will be rigidly applied.
    I turn to the Prime Minister's pledges. The message that the Prime Minister gave is very clear, and was confirmed in his statement to the people of Northern Ireland on 14 May. He said that, if parties are to benefit from accelerated release, their commitment to democratic, non-violent means must be established in an objective, meaningful and verifiable way. He said that a range of factors were to be taken into account in clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement have been met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the following factors in her introductory statement, and they are now included in the Bill. They are whether an organisation is committed to the use now and in future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives; has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or preparation for violence; is not directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations; and is co-operating fully with the decommissioning body.
    Since we are judging what assurances have been given, it is worth looking at what has happened. It is worth underlining that prisoners have been released throughout the troubles. They include almost 450 life sentence prisoners who were released through the life sentence release mechanisms set up by the Conservative Government in 1983. Only two of them have been recalled as a result of further serious terrorist-type offences. Those prisoners include also more than 245 fixed-sentence prisoners released early under legislation introduced by the Conservative Government as recently as 1995. Only two of those prisoners have had their licence revoked.
    The 1995 legislation was introduced during a period in which both loyalists and the Provisional IRA had ceasefires in place, and continued in force even when the PIRA ceasefire broke down, with the horrific docklands bombing. Although the previous Government had power to suspend by order that legislation, they chose not to do so. In many respects, we are today considering building on that Conservative legislation.

    1163
    The new scheme will lead to earlier release and will for the first time involve life sentence prisoners. However, the changes are balanced by safeguards that were absent from the 1995 legislation. Specifically, we will be able to penalise organisations that do not maintain ceasefires and to prevent release of prisoners, especially life sentence prisoners, who will be a risk to the public.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Minister make it clear whether IRA prisoners can be released regardless of whether there is decommissioning?
    Mr. Ingram: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, one of the factors that has to be taken into account—it is one of the four factors—is commitment by those organisations to be engaged fully in that process. That factor is quite clear both from what the Prime Minister has said and in the legislation.
    I tell the right hon. Member for Strangford that every hon. Member wants an end to paramilitary weapons. We all want decommissioning. The Government have initiated legislation to achieve that end. In the next few weeks, we will be signing the scheme to put into effect the means to achieve it. However, ultimately, the mechanism that those organisations would apply in decommissioning is voluntary. It is the organisations that will have to comply with the factors and produce the weapons. We do not have mechanisms to take weapons from organisations unless they co-operate with the schemes, which will be signed up to within the next few weeks.
    I shall deal now with the points raised by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), which were raised again by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).
    Mr. Robathan: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Ingram: No; I should like now to deal specifically with the transfer of prisoners, as I am very conscious of the time.
    Mr. MacKay: On decommissioning, and in response to the Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), may I ask whether the Minister agrees with the Prime Minister's statement on the Floor of the House that
    "It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that"?
    If decommissioning is part of release, surely the Minister will agree that it must be a prerequisite—rather than the Secretary of State or her successors merely saying that they will take it into account. If the Minister can give us that confirmation today, I think that we will have very few problems with the rest of the Bill.
    Mr. Ingram: Of course I agree with the Prime Minister. However, let me quote the Prime Minister's exact comments, which have been quoted selectively. In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said:
    "Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence."
    We all agree with that. He continued:
    "Decommissioning is part of that, of course, but it goes further. It is not just a question of decommissioning, but a question of making sure, as the agreement says, that there is a complete and
    1164
    unequivocal ceasefire. What is more, there is provision in the agreement for that to be kept under constant review."— [Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
    So what the Prime Minister said—
    Mr. MacKay: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Ingram: No.
    What the Prime Minister said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I am answering the point. The Prime Minister's comments went further than the assurance now sought by the hon. Member for Bracknell. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman now finds it within himself to judge that he can support the legislation.
    Mr. MacKay: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has quoted the passage in full—it was purely because of the time that I did not—because I agree with the rest of what the Prime Minister said. Any reasonable person who looks at what he said—a lot of reasonable people in the Province looked at it and decided in the end to vote yes during the referendum campaign—would judge that decommissioning had to take place before prisoners were released. That is absolute fact. If that is not conceded in the legislation, the people of Northern Ireland will have been ratted upon.
    Mr. Ingram: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is being so offensive about the Prime Minister, who made such a—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I remind the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that we should always use temperate language in the House.
    Mr. MacKay: I will withdraw the words "ratted upon" and say misled.
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is merely finding another way of being offensive. Clearly, that has been the whole import of what he has been saying. We have a bipartisan approach and we are trying to move forward. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that the Prime Minister has misled the House and the people of Northern Ireland, while at the same time saying that he welcomes the agreement and recognises the major contribution that the Prime Minister made in bringing it about and getting that tremendous vote on 22 May. Can the hon. Gentleman get his act together? Can he begin to think clearly whether he wants to compliment the Prime Minister or to insult him?
    Mr. MacKay: I am not saying that the Prime Minister misled the House, if the legislation is corrected. I am assuming that the Prime Minister acted in good faith and was saying what would be in the legislation; but it is not in the legislation, and unless the legislation is amended, people will assume that the right hon. Gentleman has misled the House. I am asking the Minister to ensure that that provision is in the legislation—then there will be no problems whatever.
    Mr. Ingram: Perhaps I should have taken longer for my winding-up speech, if that had been permitted; because of those interventions, I will not now have time to cover all the points made.

    1165
    I shall deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bracknell about the Prime Minister's assurances and what is reflected in the legislation. Clause 3(9), which must of course be considered with all the other factors that have to come into play, states:
    "In applying subsection (8)(b) the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation—

    (a) is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives;

    (b) has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence;

    (c) is directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations;

    (d) is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997."

    Those are four clear factors, which the Secretary of State will take into account and which are wholly consistent with what the Prime Minister said in the House and to the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that when the hon. Member for Bracknell leaves the Chamber he will reflect on those—he probably will not correct his thoughts at this point in time. He has complimented the Prime Minister in the past and he should compliment him again for ensuring that those factors are in the legislation. They are important and they will have to be taken into account.
    The transfer of prisoners from England—not from the mainland as the hon. Member for Bracknell said—to the Republic of Ireland is another critical area that has been mentioned. Repatriation of such prisoners was agreed on the basis that the Republic would continue to enforce their sentences. The hon. Gentleman and others referred to a particular prisoner, Magee, who would normally expect to serve a period similar to that which he could have expected to serve in England.
    Under the Belfast agreement, both Governments agreed to introduce mechanisms for the early release of prisoners—the agreement that the hon. Gentleman says he supports. The sentences of those prisoners repatriated to the Republic of Ireland may therefore be reviewed under the terms of the agreement. That is a clear reading of the agreement. It cannot be interpreted in any other way. It is a matter for the Republic of Ireland how it implements its aspect of the agreement, in the same way as it is a matter for the House how we implement ours. My understanding is that legislation will not be required in the Republic, but that is a matter for its jurisdiction.
    Many other points need to be dealt with, and I am sure that we will do that in Committee.
    Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 343, Noes 10.

    Division No. 299]

    [9.59 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Arbuthnot, James

    Ainger, Nick

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Ashton, Joe

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Allan, Richard

    Baker, Norman

    Allen, Graham

    Ballard, Jackie

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Barron, Kevin

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Battle, John

    1166

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dowd, Jim

    Beard, Nigel

    Drew, David

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Edwards, Huw

    Berry, Roger

    Efford, Clive

    Betts, Clive

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Blair, Rt Hon Tony

    Ennis, Jeff

    Blizzard, Bob

    Etherington, Bill

    Boateng, Paul

    Evans, Nigel

    Borrow, David

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Boswell, Tim

    Fisher, Mark

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Flint, Caroline

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Flynn, Paul

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Browne, Desmond

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Burgon, Colin

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Burnett, John

    Fyfe, Maria

    Burns, Simon

    Gapes, Mike

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Garnier, Edward

    Byers, Stephen

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Caborn, Richard

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Canavan, Dennis

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Caplin, Ivor

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Caton, Martin

    Godsiff, Roger

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Goggins, Paul

    Chaytor, David

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    Chope, Christopher

    Gorrie, Donald

    Clappison, James

    Grant, Bernie

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Green, Damian

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Greenway, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clwyd, Ann

    Grogan, John

    Coaker, Vernon

    Gunnell, John

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Cohen, Harry

    Hain, Peter

    Collins, Tim

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Colman, Tony

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Corbett, Robin

    Hammond, Philip

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hanson, David

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Cotter, Brian

    Hayes, John

    Cox, Tom

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Cran, James

    Heald, Oliver

    Crausby, David

    Healey, John

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Heppell, John

    Cummings, John

    Hesford, Stephen

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Hoey, Kate

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Dalyell, Tam

    Home Robertson, John

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Darvill, Keith

    Hope, Phil

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Davidson, Ian

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Hurst, Alan

    Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

    Hutton, John

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Dawson, Hilton

    Illsley, Eric

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Ingram, Adam

    Denharm, John

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Jamieson, David

    Doran, Frank

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Jenkins, Brian

    1167

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Mudie, George

    Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Mullin, Chris

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Oaten, Mark

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Olner, Bill

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Paice, James

    Kemp, Fraser

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Pearson, Ian

    Key, Robert

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Pickthall, Colin

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Pike, Peter L

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Plaskitt, James

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Pond, Chris

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lansley, Andrew

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Purchase, Ken

    Laxton, Bob

    Lepper, David

    Leslie, Christopher

    Letwin, Oliver

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Lidington, David

    Livingstone, Ken

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Love, Andrew

    Luff, Peter

    McAllion, John

    McAvoy, Thomas

    McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    McDonnell, John

    McFall, John

    McGrady, Eddie

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    McIsaac, Shona

    MacKay, Andrew

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    McNamara, Kevin

    McNulty, Tony

    McWalter, Tony

    McWilliam, John

    Madel, Sir David

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Mallaber, Judy

    Mallon, Seamus

    Mandelson, Peter

    Maples, John

    Marek, Dr John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Maxton, John

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Meale, Alan

    Merron, Gillian

    Michael, Alun

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Milburn, Alan

    Mitchell, Austin

    Moffatt, Laura

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Morley, Elliot

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    1168

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Stott, Roger

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Stringer, Graham

    Rammell, Bill

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Raynsford, Nick

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Rogers, Allan

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Rooker, Jeff

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Rooney, Terry

    Timms, Stephen

    Rowlands, Ted

    Tipping, Paddy

    Ruane, Chris

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Touhig, Don

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Trend, Michael

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Salter, Martin

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Watts, David

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Whittingdale, John

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Singh, Marsha

    Willetts, David

    Skinner, Dennis

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Willis, Phil

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Winnick, David

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

    Wise, Audrey

    Snape, Peter

    Wood, Mike

    Soley, Clive

    Woolas, Phil

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Worthington, Tony

    Spellar, John

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Wyatt, Derek

    Spring, Richard

    Yeo, Tim

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Stevenson, George

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Janet Anderson and Mr. Greg Pope.

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    NOES

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Thompson, William

    Flight, Howard

    Trimble, Rt Hon David

    McCartney, Robert (N Down)

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

    Mr. John D. Taylor and Rev. Martin Smyth.

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Bill read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
    That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Jane Kennedy.]
    Question agreed to.
    Committee tomorrow.

    NORTHERN IRELAND (SENTENCES) BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a),

    1169
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act.—[Jane Kennedy.]
    Question agreed to.

    Grantham Hospital
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
    10.14 pm
    Mr. Quentin Davies: I am grateful for the opportunity to take up in the House a matter of vital importance to my constituents. Grantham hospital is a successful general hospital with a wide range of activities, including obstetrics and gynaecology, which are presided over by three consultants. The hospital has benefited a great deal from expansion and investment over the past 20 years of Conservative government—the last party political point I will make this evening.
    Grantham hospital has depended for its maternity and obstetric service on paediatric support delivered, on contract, from Queens Medical Centre in Nottingham. That support includes the necessary neonatal cover to enable obstetricians to practise in the full confidence that they will be able to resuscitate when necessary and deal with difficult cases.
    All that has now been put at risk. I have it at first hand from Queens Medical Centre that it would have been perfectly happy to continue with its contract, but that contract conflicted with the ambition of Lincolnshire Health to set up an ambulatory paediatric system throughout Lincolnshire, to be based at Lincoln county hospital. It was to be made answerable to consultants based in Lincoln and Boston, and the expectation was that in-patient paediatric cases would be referred to Lincoln county hospital; so Lincolnshire Health made it plain to Queens that it could no longer expect to supply in-patient and out-patient paediatric services. Queens Medical Centre therefore gave notice that it could not continue to provide the necessary neonatal cover. There is thus the prospect of an end to all maternity services and all deliveries in Grantham hospital.
    I emphasise this history because it is important to appreciate that, if there is a crisis, it has been created by Lincolnshire Health. If we are seeking solutions, they are solutions to problems gratuitously caused by Lincolnshire Health.
    At the end of last year, Lincolnshire Health produced a draft consultation document setting out one preferred option and three others that were dismissed in the same document. The community health council rightly objected to that method of proceeding; I am delighted to acknowledge that the Government shared the council's view. Lincolnshire Health was ordered to produce a genuinely open consultation document, to ensure that the options were considered dispassionately and professionally. Lincolnshire Health was also required to give a commitment to conduct a survey of opinion among women in the area covered by Grantham hospital.
    It is my contention—I have no doubt that that contention will be 100 per cent. vindicated by the document discovery process that will be launched when we have a judicial review, which I trust we will now have, given that the community health council has requested one—that, first, the survey that was carried out has been blatantly ignored by Lincolnshire Health and simply thrown into the wastepaper basket; and, secondly, far from carrying out the genuine consultation exercise promised by Lincolnshire Health, the whole process has

    1171
    been made a mockery. On both commitments—to have a survey to take account of local opinion and to carry out a proper consultation process—Lincolnshire Health has acted in bad faith and has deceived both the Government and the public.
    Since February, the survey has been undertaken, and 95 per cent. of respondents expressed their wish that the status quo should continue. The overwhelming majority of those who were asked what they would like to happen if the status quo could not continue chose option 3, which is the availability in Grantham hospital of maternity services under midwife supervision. However, Lincolnshire Health continues to be committed absolutely to option 2, which is the abolition of all maternity services in Grantham hospital, so that no deliveries could take place there.
    Another event that has taken place since February is that, as a result of discussions between Grantham hospital and Leicester royal infirmary an agreement has been reached in principle under which Leicester royal infirmary would be prepared to supply the consultant cover that Queens Medical Centre is now reluctantly withdrawing. That would enable a proper consultant-led neonatal facility to be re-established in Grantham hospital and so enable a full range of obstetric and gynaecological services to continue there. I quote a letter, dated 21 April 1998, from the acting chief executive of Leicester royal infirmary, David Sissling, who writes:
    "We would be very interested in working in partnership with Grantham and District hospital in respect of obstetric services."
    Notwithstanding the results of the survey, the commitment from Leicester royal infirmary, or the undertakings publicly given by Lincolnshire Health at the beginning of the year, a meeting of the health authority was held on 28 May in Sleaford—not in Grantham, whose population has a particular interest, although Sleaford people use Grantham's maternity services as well; incidentally, I am delighted to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in the Chamber this evening. I was present in the audience throughout the period in which the public were admitted to the meeting, but I have never in my life seen such a mockery made of a meeting of a publicly accountable authority.
    The executive of Lincolnshire Health who made the presentation focused entirely on option 2, which would remove all possibility of any deliveries taking place in Grantham hospital; she almost entirely ignored the other options, except to dismiss them, and said nothing whatever about the offer from Leicester royal infirmary.
    Mr. John Hayes: It has to be said that holding a shambles of a public meeting was the pattern established throughout Lincolnshire and in every town in Lincolnshire during the consultation on the reorganisation.
    Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose comment reinforces the serious concern that we in Lincolnshire all feel about the conduct of our health authority in recent times.
    To return to the meeting of 28 May, what was even more surprising than the fact that the executive charged with giving the board an objective assessment of the merits and demerits of each proposal should have
    1172
    concentrated on only one proposal was that, when the non-executive members of the board expressed their view that they were inclined to go for option 3—the midwife option—the Lincolnshire Health executive told them that it was too late, because the decision had already been taken and, even more scandalous, public money had already been expended on building and construction work at Lincoln county hospital on the assumption that option 2 would be selected. A complete mockery was made of the procedures. It is an extremely serious state of affairs, not merely for Lincolnshire, but for the country as a whole, that a public authority should conduct itself in such a fashion.
    The closing of maternity facilities in Grantham hospital will be an unmitigated disaster for mothers, families and prospective mothers in Grantham and the surrounding villages, Sleaford, Newark and the other towns—about 100,000 people in all, who have been so well looked after by Grantham hospital over the years. It would mean an hour's travel on bad roads to get to a hospital where a delivery could take place.
    It is all too easy to foresee the perils and tragedies that could ensue. There is the danger of babies being delivered in ambulances or passenger motor cars—as the Minister knows, most women are driven privately to hospital when they have babies, rather than transported in ambulances. There is the danger of mothers suffering haemorrhages and dying in a car or an ambulance on the way to one of the general hospitals an hour away. That is an appalling prospect, and a hideous responsibility would descend on the shoulders of anyone who connived at or accepted such a proposal.
    There are other considerations of less enormous human significance, but nevertheless important ones. As we all know, mothers who are about to deliver often have premature symptoms. If the hospital is close to their home, they can be sent home and told to come back the next day if symptoms continue, or to return later. If they live an hour away on a bad road, they will presumably have to be kept in hospital overnight, and possibly for one or two nights before they deliver.
    National health beds will thereby be occupied unnecessarily and expensively, and there will be considerable disruption to the families concerned. In its decision, Lincolnshire Health has taken no account of such incremental national health costs, or of the incremental ambulance costs that will be caused by the proposals.
    A further consequence of the decision will be to weaken Grantham hospital, and perhaps fatally to emasculate it. If not only obstetrics but gynaecology are withdrawn, that may undermine the viability of the accident and emergency department, because no gynaecological facilities will be available as a back-up. If we lost accident and emergency, apart from the obvious danger to people's health and lives, it would be impossible for us to retain critical care beds in Grantham. If we had no critical care beds, I doubt whether surgeons would be prepared to undertake major or abdominal surgery in Grantham hospital.
    By an inexorable clinical logic, that scenario leads to the closure of Grantham as a general hospital. There is a corresponding financial logic that leads in the same direction. We all know that hospitals have a high operational gearing and that fixed costs are a high

    1173
    proportion of total costs. If some facilities are withdrawn—Lincolnshire Health proposes to withdraw at a stroke paediatrics, gynaecology and obstetrics—that undermines the financial viability of what remains. Again, the path leads inexorably to the closure of Grantham as a general hospital.
    The lives and health of mothers and potentially of babies are at stake. Also at stake is the confidence of the British people in the integrity of our institutions and the procedures that have been established for taking public decisions of this kind. The conduct of Lincolnshire Health over the past few weeks is an affront to every principle of sound administrative procedure, and to every principle on which a public authority should be based. It makes a mockery of the concept of fiduciary responsibility, on which health authorities were originally established.
    10.29 pm
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I know that the House wishes to hear the Government's response, so I shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on securing this Adjournment debate and I endorse everything that he said. My constituents who use Grantham hospital view the proposals of Lincolnshire Health with great concern. They believe—as do many hon. Members and I—that it is important that Grantham hospital retains a consultant-led paediatric and obstetric service. Lincolnshire Health's proposals do not make provision for that and, accordingly, they are objectionable.
    I know that the community health council is making a formal legal objection, so the matter will come before the Secretary of State, who will be responsible for the ultimate decision. The hon. Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones) and I have met the Secretary of State to discuss the matter and we shall continue to press him. We believe that he should rule that Lincolnshire Health's proposals are unacceptable and should be rejected. He should insist on the retention of Grantham hospital as a fully fledged district general hospital, preserving, in particular, a consultant-led paediatric and obstetric service.
    10.30 pm
    Mrs. Fiona Jones: I do not think that there is any disagreement between the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and myself. Many women in my constituency go to Grantham and District hospital to have their babies. A maternity unit at Newark closed in the 1980s, and the women of my constituency were assured that they could have their babies at Grantham hospital, which involves a journey of 15 minutes. The closure of Grantham hospital will distance the health service from my constituents and it will mean that women must travel for almost an hour to either the Lincoln county hospital or to hospitals in Nottingham to have their babies. I have had babies in recent years, and I believe that that is totally unacceptable. People should be able to access local hospitals that are situated within a reasonable distance.
    I am unhappy about Lincolnshire Health's proposals. They assume that, if Grantham and District hospital cannot deliver babies utilising a consultant-led service, all
    1174
    women will go to the hospital at Lincoln. That logic is fundamentally flawed because many women will opt to go to hospitals in Nottingham. Therefore, Lincolnshire Health will lose many clients—if that is the current terminology.
    I am also extremely unhappy about the position adopted by the royal college. The Lincolnshire Health review is about finance, but the closure of maternity services at Grantham hospital is more about the position of the Royal College of Paediatricians. I accept entirely that paediatrics is a shrinking service, but I do not accept that, because members of the Royal College of Paediatricians find it inconvenient to train at a smaller hospital such as Grantham, my constituents must distance themselves from a service that they need. The Government must consider that issue: the Royal College of Paediatricians has decided that it does not want to train its paediatricians at local hospitals, so we cannot have consultant-led units at smaller hospitals and women cannot have their babies at local hospitals in rural areas. That is totally unacceptable.
    10.34 pm
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) on securing an Adjournment debate on Grantham and District hospital. My ministerial colleagues and I are well aware of the concerns that exist locally about the current and future level of health services provided by the hospital.
    The hon. Gentleman has made known his concerns about Lincolnshire Health's proposals for Grantham hospital through meetings and correspondence with Ministers, as he has said. I acknowledge his efforts and those of other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mrs. Jones), in bringing together key local people in a constructive attempt to resolve the concerns about the level of services provided at Grantham and District hospital.
    I am aware that the key issue that has prompted the hon. Gentleman to call for this debate is the decision taken by Lincolnshire Health at the end of May, in line with its consultation document, that with effect from 1 August Grantham and District hospital should provide only antenatal and post-natal out-patient care and day-care gynaecology, with consultant and midwife care being provided by other hospitals.
    I know that this has caused concern in the Grantham area, and that that concern has been expressed specifically by the South Lincolnshire community health council. I am also aware that the Royal College of Midwives has criticised the consultation process that Lincolnshire Health has followed. I shall return to the consultation process later. The health authority wishes to keep discussion open following this decision. The door is not closed. I reiterate, the door is not closed.
    I shall say a little about Grantham and District hospital before moving on to the health authority's current proposals and maternity services in general.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: The Minister says that the door is not closed, but Lincolnshire Health took a formal decision on 28 May. The community health council, equally formally, has objected to it. The door is indeed not closed; it is open to Ministers to reverse the decision taken by the health authority and to introduce some sanity

    1175
    into the provision of health care in south Lincolnshire. I hope that the hon. Lady and her colleagues will live up to those important responsibilities.
    Ms Jowell: I am well aware of the stage that decisions have reached. I am aware also that further options are still being considered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of his great concern about the issue, will make his contribution to the continuing discussions with the health authority.
    I shall say a little about Grantham and District hospital before going on to the health authority's current proposals and maternity services in general. Sadly, for most people outside the local area, Grantham and District hospital will always be associated with the evil actions of Beverly Allitt during 1991. Locally, the hospital is held in high regard. It is a real testament to the comment, dedication and professionalism of the hospital's staff that that is the case. This is illustrated by the concern shown about Lincolnshire Health's proposals to change the services provided at the hospital, obstetrics and gynaecology being the matter of the debate. Concern has been shown locally in the press and in correspondence and representations to Ministers.
    After the dreadful events of the Allitt case, paediatric services at Grantham were provided on a satellite basis by the Queens Medical Centre in Nottingham. Last year, the Queens Medical Centre made it known to Lincolnshire Health that it intended to withdraw from providing in-patient paediatric services because of concerns about clinical safety.
    That decision was based on clinical isssues. Difficulties in recruiting consultant paediatricians to run the service were being experienced. That meant that standards of support for junior doctor training were not being met. The effectiveness of the service depends on the clinical skills of staff and on the trust's ability to recruit staff of the highest calibre. It also depends on a sufficient number of patients and variety of cases to allow staff to maintain and develop their skills. Those were all issues which could not be solved in relation to paediatric services at Grantham.
    I understand, via public consultation, that the public and the CHC supported the health authority's decision to provide the majority of children's services from within Lincolnshire with an ambulatory service at Grantham hospital. The clinical implications of that development and its consequences for the obstetric and gynaecology
    1176
    services are clear. Without 24-hour paediatric cover seven days a week, the safe delivery of high-risk babies is unsustainable and clinically unsafe.
    I fully understand that any proposal to change the services in a hospital causes concern. In this case, it is important to understand that the proposals are being made on grounds of clinical safety and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark made clear, not on grounds of finance.
    Mrs. Fiona Jones: It is important to define a high-risk birth. A first birth is a high-risk birth. Therefore, any woman in my area who is having her first baby could not use a unit that is not consultant led.
    Ms Jowell: A high-risk birth is determined clinically and defined within clinical guidelines. I agree with the point behind my hon. Friend's intervention. The circumstances of hospitals that serve rural communities are an important issue in relation to this set of decisions. It is important that hospitals in rural areas can meet tests of accessibility, clinical safety and the confidence of the communities that they serve. Scattered rural communities present different issues compared with densely populated urban centres.
    As time is short, I reassure the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford, and other hon. Members who have shown so much concern about the issue, that the decision-making process is continuing. The need for safe, clinically effective and efficient services throughout the county must underpin the review of services in Lincolnshire. Those factors will be of paramount importance in making decisions about obstetric and gynaecology services in Grantham.
    Significant investment has been made by the health authority in paramedic obstetric training, with 36 staff receiving additional training in the last year to accommodate the needs of a service which is divided between two or more hospitals. That is an essential part of developing support for high-risk delivery.
    As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the CHC is seeking judicial review. I hope that it will not pursue that course, and that it will be possible to resolve the matter locally. I reiterate that the decision-making process is still open. If the matter cannot be resolved locally, the decision will fall to Ministers.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Secondary Legislation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on trends in the use of secondary legislation. [43512]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  In the ten years to 1996–97 an average of 185 instruments have been laid each session under the affirmative procedure and 1,127 under the negative procedure. While there has been a slight growth in the number of instruments laid under the negative procedure, the number of affirmatives has not altered significantly and the total (including instruments not requiring parliamentary procedure) has declined slightly. No information is yet complete for the sessions since May 1997 but I have no reason to suppose there have been any significant changes. Although the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in the House of Lords examines the order-making powers in legislation laid before Parliament, no statistics are compiled on the incidence of such order-making powers in primary legislation.

  Spending Review
  Ms Squire
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans the Commission has to commission a fundamental spending review of the departments of the House. [44583]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission will be reviewing the House's administrative spending plans for the coming three years shortly. In doing so, the Commission will seek to keep expenditure to a minimum, consistent with providing the quality of services required by Members. But the Commission has no plans for a separate review exercise.

  Portcullis House
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will estimate the(a) capital and (b) revenue expenditure on Portcullis House (i) for 1997–98 and (ii) in total to date. [44590]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  Up to the end of 1997–98, a total of £98.3 million has been spent on Portcullis House, including £39.9 million in 1997–98, all of which is capital expenditure. In addition some £29,000 was spent in 1997–98 on electrical power supplies for the construction work classified as revenue expenditure.

  Recycling Sacks
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee, pursuant to her answer of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 246, on recycling sacks, how many sacks were sent to be recycled in 1997–98. [45416]
  558
  Mrs. Roe
  Records of the number of sacks sent for recycling are not maintained. However, in the year ending 31 December 1997, 737 tonnes of mixed paper and cardboard were sent for recycling.

  Government Announcements
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the President of the Council what steps she is taking to ensure that Government initiatives are announced in the House before being released to the Press. [25364]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  Due to the administrative error following the transfer of this Parliamentary Question, this answer is unacceptably late and apologies have been conveyed for this.

  I can assure the hon. Member that I regularly remind Ministers that, as set out in the Ministerial Code (July 1997), they should bear in mind the desire of Parliament that the most important announcements of Government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much(a) oil, (b) gas and (c) electricity was purchased for the heating, lighting and powering of accommodation occupied by his Department within the United Kingdom in each year since 1989–90; and what was the total cost in real terms of each in each year. [44085]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My Department was created in April 1992 by transferring certain areas of responsibility from six Departments. However, the following details of energy consumption and costs are only available from 1993 when the Department commenced occupation of its own buildings:

  Oil

  Gas

  Electricity

  KWH

  Cost

  KWH

  Cost (£)

  KWH

  Cost (£)

  1993–941

  Nil

  Nil

  221,808

  3,810

  586,372

  49,400

  1994–95

  Nil

  Nil

  1,059,183

  14,599

  1,074,541

  64,066

  1995–962

  Nil

  Nil

  1,593,599

  15,247

  1,194,927

  67,023

  1996–97

  Nil

  Nil

  1,450,385

  11,967

  1,342,571

  78,655

  1997–983

  Nil

  Nil

  1,593,731

  12,939

  1,206,320

  78,634

  1 Occupation during part financial year

  2 Additional premises acquired part way through the financial year

  3 Replaces provisional 1997–98 figures included in my reply of 6 May 1998, Official Report, column 408.

  Staff Car Mileage Allowance
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the total real terms value of(a) staff car mileage claims paid and (b) staff rail fares paid; and what was the amount of staff car mileage for which reminbursement was made and the percentage change year on year, for each year since 1989–90. [44080]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 6 May 1998,Official Report, column 408.

  Reviews
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list, for each of the last four years, the departmental inquiries and reviews instigated by Ministers which have been chaired by individuals outside his Department; and in each case if he will give the date of establishment and the name of the chairman. [44360]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The information requested is as follows:

  1995
  Working Group on University Sports Scholarships. Sir Roger Bannister. October.

  1996
  National Reading Initiative. Joanna Trollope. October.

  1997
  Review of Area Museum Councils of England. Tony Pender. CBE. January.
  Report into IT in Public Libraries. Matthew Evans. February.
  Film Policy Review. Stewart Till (joint chairman with Right Hon. Tom Clarke, CBE MP) May.
  Football Task Force. Right Hon. David Mellor. July.
  England's World Heritage Sites, Tentative List Review. Oliver Pearcey. October.
  Review of Lyric Theatre in London. Sir Richard Eyre. November.

  1998
  Working Group on Legal Deposit. Sir Anthony Kenny. January.
  Report on the Bowes Museum, Barnard Castle Richard Foster. DL. April.

  Members

  Communications strategy working group members

  Charles Allen—Chairman

  Granada

  Judith Anthony

  Thames Valley Economic Partnership

  Colin Browne

  BBC

  Gary Crosley

  Reid Catering Titles

  Sandie Dawe

  British Tourist Authority

  Dereck Dear

  British Airways

  Harvey Elliot

  Consultant

  Jim Graham

  Border TV

  David Harbourne

  Consultant

  Simon Johnson

  Banque Credit Suisse

  Ray Kelly

  Carat UK

  Lyn Lavers

  Distinctive Publishing

  Jeremy Logie

  British Hospitality Association

  Ken McCulloch

  MHM

  Prof. Peter Jones

  Bournemouth University

  Eve Pollard

  Journalist, English Tourist Board

  Ann Scott

  Ann Scott Associates

  Diane Summers

  Financial Times

  Clare Walker

  Jannus Group

  Roy Tutty

  Department for Culture Media and Sport

  Whitehall issues working group members

  Ken Robinson—Chairman

  Tourism Society

  Peter Agar

  Confederation of British Industry

  Ailsa Blaire

  Local Government Association

  Colin Clark

  Horwath and Horwath

  Sue Garland

  British Tourist Authority/English Tourist Board

  Barry Goddard

  Council for Travel and Tourism

  Peter Hampson

  British Resorts Association

  Brian Handley

  Yorkshire Tourist Board

  Michael Hirst

  Joint Hospitality Industry Congress

  John Lee

  Association of Leading Visitor Attractions

  Jeremy Logie

  British Hospitality Association

  James Spencer

  British Holiday and Home Parks Association

  Barbara Phillips

  Department for Culture Media and Sport (observer)

  Libraries (Large Print Books)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will issue guidance to local library authorities producing annual library plans not to reduce funding for large print books; and what guidance he has issued on this matter to date. [44368]

  Mr. Fisher
  The Government recognise the importance of specialist library services, and require library authorities to report on them in their Annual Library Plan. The actual level of expenditure on different types of book is for library authorities to determine, based on local priorities and resources.

  Artefacts (Repatriation)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with UNESCO concerning the repatriation of cultural artefacts. [44378]

  Mr. Fisher
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have had discussions with UNESCO on this issue. Officials have taken part in meetings which have touched on the issue of restitution in the normal course of business.

  Tourism Forum
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the Chairman and members of the Forum Working Group into Tourism. [44933]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  There are 12 working groups attached to the Tourism Forum. The Chairmen and members are listed.
  561

  Members

  Business tourism working group members

  Michael Hirst—Chairman

  Joint Hospitality Industry Congress

  Peter Agar

  Confederation of British Industry

  Robert Ayling

  British Airways

  Barry Cleverdon

  NEC

  Sarah Dale

  Sarah Dale Travel

  Michael Edwards

  AmEx

  Sir John Egan

  London Tourist Board

  Carole Forman

  British University Accommodation Consortium

  David Hackett

  The Marketing Organisation

  Albert Hampson

  Automobile Association

  John Jarvis

  Jarvis Hotels

  Jack Monro

  Glasgow Tourist Board

  Mike Platt

  Hogg Robinson

  Peter Rand

  Rand Group

  Tony Rogers

  British Association Conference Destinations

  Georges Sampeur

  Avis

  Anthony Sell

  British Tourist Authority

  Michael Skapinker

  Financial Times

  Mike Toynbee

  Executive Travel

  Robert Watson

  British Telecom

  Ivor Warburton

  Intercity West Coast

  Roy Tutty

  Department for Culture Media and Sport

  Visitor attractions working group members

  John Lee—Chairman

  English Tourist Board, Association of Leading Visitor Attractions

  Ken Robinson

  Tourism Society

  Michael Jolly

  Tussauds

  Brian Handley

  Yorkshire Tourist Board

  Michael Ann

  English Tourist Board, Drusillas Park

  Patricia Yates

  Holiday Which, Consumers' Association

  David Beeton

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  Martin Sandbach

  English Tourist Board

  John Murphy

  Department for Culture Media and Sport, Tussauds

  DCMS:

  Nigel Pittman

  Buildings, Monuments and Sites Division

  Hugh Corner

  Museums and Galleries Division

  Richard Thomas

  Lottery Policy Branch

  Stephen Creigh-Tyte

  Economics Branch

  Human resources or "people" working group members

  Peter Moore—Chairman

  Center Pares/English Tourist Board

  David Wood

  Hotel Catering and International Management Association

  Pauline Wells

  Tussauds Group

  David Harbourne

  Hospitality Training Foundation

  Conrad Lashley

  The Council for Hospitality Management Education

  Elaine Noble

  English Tourist Board/British Tourist Authority

  Stephen Moss

  Restauranteurs Association Great Britain

  Nicola Hayward

  Seaview Hotel

  Mary Curnock-Cook

  British Institute of Innkeeping

  Matthew Farrow

  Confederation of British Industry

  Kim Parrish

  Scottish and Newcastle

  Presentation of heritage and culture group members

  David Quarmby—Chairman

  British Tourist Authority

  Mary Allen

  Arts Council

  Anthony Sell

  British Tourist Authority

  David Beeton

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  John Tod

  British Council

  Sir Jocelyn Stevens

  English Heritage

  Graham Greene

  British Museum

  Robert Anderson

  British Museum

  James Joll

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  Timothy Mason

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  Damien Whitmore

  Tate Gallery

  Martin Drury

  National Trust

  Michael Taylor

  National Trust

  Strategic planning working group members

  David Quarmby

  British Tourist Authority

  Michael Jolly

  Tussauds Group

  Charles Allen

  Granada

  Michael Hirst

  Joint Hospitality Industry Congress

  Ken Robinson

  Tourism Society

  562 563

  Members

  Michael Elliot

  Heart of England Tourist Board

  John Lee

  Association of Leading Visitor Attractions

  Peter Moore

  CenterParcs

  Jeremy Logie

  British Hospitality Association

  Councillor John Price

  Local Government Association

  Widening access to tourism working group members

  Jeremy Logie—Chairman

  British Hospitality Association

  John Bamsey

  Hilton UK

  Roger de Haan

  Saga Holidays

  Peter Holland

  The Disability Partnership

  Sir William Lawrence

  Heart of England Tourist Board

  Stephen Mills

  English Tourist Board

  David Phillips

  Holiday Care Service

  Peter Taylor

  Millennium and Copthorne Hotels

  Maundy Todd

  Tourism for All

  Alan Bishop

  National Caravan Council Ltd

  Jenny How

  Cheshire County Council

  Tim Mason

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  Phil White

  National Express Group

  Roddy Watt

  Berkeley Scott Group

  Rosemary Griggs

  Department for Culture Media and Sport

  Domestic tourism working group members

  Councillor John Price—Chairman

  Chester City Council

  Dorothy Naylor—Vice Chair

  North West Tourist Board

  Geoffrey Lipman

  World Travel and Tourism Council

  Jerry Fowden

  Rank Group plc

  Brendan Burns

  Federation of Small Businesses

  Peter Hampson

  British Resorts Association

  Bob Ackland

  North Somerset Council

  Tim Bartlett

  English Tourist Board

  Professor Victor Middleton

  International Management Consultant in Tourism

  Domestic tourism working group: quality sub-group members

  Jerry Fowden—Chairman

  Rank Group plc

  Tim Bartlett

  English Tourist Board

  Peter Hampson

  British Resorts Association

  James Spencer

  British Holiday and Home Parks Association

  Nicola Hayward

  Seaview Hotel, Isle of Wight

  Patricia Yates

  Holiday Which

  Dorothy Naylor

  North West Tourist Board

  Domestic tourism working group: distribution sub-group

  Brendan Burns—Chairman

  Federation of Small Businesses

  Bob Ackland

  North Somerset Council

  Brian Barrett

  Virgin Rail Group

  Peter Chappelow

  Holiday Cottages

  Nick Cust

  Superbreak

  Colin Doyle

  Countrywide Holidays

  Stephen Freudmann

  Association of British Travel Agents

  Ken Male

  Bournemouth Tourism

  Dorothy Naylor

  North West Tourist Board

  Martin Sandbach

  English Tourist Board

  Richard Tobias

  British Incoming Tour Operators Association

  Domestic tourism working group: sustainability sub-group members

  Geoffrey Lipman—Chairman

  World Travel and Tourism Council

  Dorothy Naylor

  North West Tourist Board

  Tim Whitehead

  English Riviera Tourist Board

  Stephen Mills

  English Tourist Board

  Richard Wakeford

  Countryside Commission

  Alex Youel

  National Trust

  Margaret Clarke

  Rural Development Commission

  Jonathon Porritt

  Forum for the Future

  Bill Breakell

  North Yorks Moors National Park

  Victor Middleton

  Oxford Brookes University

  John Dawson

  Automobile Association

  David Lunn

  Windsor District Council

  Chris Collier

  Cumbria Tourist Board

  Stephen Hodgson

  Department for Culture Media and Sport

  Note:

  Organisations listed were correct at the time the Working Groups were established.
  564

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Curfews (Electronic Monitoring)
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current average cost of a curfew order backed by electronic tagging in(a) Norfolk, (b) Greater Manchester and (c) Reading. [43879]

  Ms Quin
  It is not possible on the grounds of commercial confidentiality to provide a breakdown of current average costs of a curfew order for different trial areas. Based on the experiences of the first two years of the trials of curfew orders with electronic monitoring, the cost per order for a national roll-out was estimated to be about £1,900. However, this cost does not account for any savings achieved through providing electronic monitoring for Home Detention Curfew simultaneously with curfew orders.

  Cab Drivers (Offences)
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many cab drivers convicted of assault and rape, were(a) taxicab drivers, (b) minicab drivers who had accepted fare-paying passengers illegally and (c) minicab drivers who had accepted fare-paying passengers legally in the Greater London area in the last year for which figures are available; [44688]

  (2) how many minicab drivers convicted of assault and rape (a) had and (b) did not have previous convictions for a similar offence in the Greater London area in the last year for which figures are available; [44686]

  (3) how many prosecutions of minicab drivers for illegally seeking or accepting fare-paying passengers there were in the Greater London area in the last year for which figures are available. [44687]

  Mr. Michael
  Information held centrally on the Home Office Court Proceedings database does not identify the profession of offenders convicted or re-convicted of violent and sexual offences.

  In 1996 (latest available), there were 132 prosecutions in the Metropolitan Police (including City of London) area for offences under section 167 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—Touting for hire car service without a Public Service Vehicle operator's licence.

  There were also 19 prosecutions recorded under the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, but we cannot determine from the data held centrally whether any occurred under section 7 of the Act—illegally plying for hire (where a vehicle, which is not a licensed London taxi, is made available for immediate hire).

  In theory, provincial taxi and Private Hire Vehicle drivers could commit either of the above offences. London taxi drivers may illegally ply for hire waiting at places which are not designated ranks, but this offence is under section 33 of the London Hackney Carriage Act 1843 and, again, we can only identify prosecutions under the whole of the Act, of which there were 71 within the Metropolitan Police (including City of London) area in 1996.

  Animal Tests
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the amount spent by his Department in the two years prior to 1998–99 on research into alternatives to testing cosmetic products on animals. [44665]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Each year, the Home Office makes a budget available to the Animal Procedures Committee to fund research into replacement, reduction and refinement alternatives to the use of animals in all types of scientific procedures, not just cosmetic testing. In 1996–97, this budget amounted to £242,000 and in 1997–98 to £182,000.

  Applications are invited from those who are seeking sponsorship for projects relating to the development or implementation of alternatives. The Animal Procedures Committee, through its Research Sub-Committee, provides independent advice about which of these projects should be funded. During the last two years, no applications have been received for research relating to alternatives to the use of animals in cosmetic product testing.

  Cosmetic testing accounts for about 0.1 per cent. of all scientific procedures using animals in the United Kingdom. Available funds are best targeted at research projects which will benefit more animals.

  The cosmetic industry itself allocates considerable resources to the development of alternative tests, partly to meet the requirements of the 6th amendment to the European Communities Cosmetics Directive 93/35/EEC. The companies licensed to use animals in testing finished cosmetic products agreed in November 1997 to end, with immediate effect, this work in the United Kingdom.

  Hand Guns
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of compensation for hand guns in each police force area made under (i) option A, (ii) option B and (iii) option C are currently outstanding; and what amount has been paid out to date in each force area. [44867]

  Mr. Michael
  The information is given in the table.

  Outstanding Claims

  Name of force

  Option A/B

  Option C

  Amount paid £

  Avon and Somerset

  14

  627

  1,404,135.90

  Bedfordshire

  0

  251

  402,982.43

  Cambridgeshire

  1

  290

  509,094.10

  Central Scotland

  1

  81

  100,256.10

  Cheshire

  9

  334

  1,495,079.80

  City of London

  0

  6

  24,892.20

  Cleveland

  0

  194

  326,891.36

  Cumbria

  1

  197

  350,173.51

  Derbyshire

  3

  426

  688,420.16

  Devon & Cornwall

  3

  799

  1,602,005.03

  Dorset

  0

  434

  898,257.57

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3

  44

  79,131.35

  Durham

  4

  219

  404,494.49

  Dyfed

  3

  265

  396,507.96

  Essex

  13

  1,109

  2,402,148.43

  Fife

  0

  82

  99,228.10

  Gloucestershire

  0

  236

  399,091.11

  Grampian

  0

  207

  324,828.05

  Greater Manchester

  6

  844

  1,740,952.71

  567

  Outstanding Claims

  Name of force

  Option A/B

  Option C

  Amount paid £

  Gwent

  0

  281

  441,227.32

  Hampshire

  4

  865

  1,496,682.03

  Hertfordshire

  1

  483

  931,438.04

  Humberside

  3

  317

  563,867.62

  Kent

  4

  998

  1,587,223.61

  Lancashire

  1

  601

  1,674,785.43

  Leicestershire

  9

  236

  1,283,815.89

  Lincolnshire

  0

  350

  543,710.63

  Lothian & Borders

  2

  211

  414,950.32

  Merseyside

  3

  541

  1,090,965.34

  Metropolitan MPI

  0

  141

  310,062.30

  Metropolitan MP2

  4

  658

  1,806,678.30

  Metropolitan MP3

  17

  766

  1,371,445.05

  Metropolitan MP4

  8

  848

  1,553,036.46

  Metropolitan MP5

  9

  744

  1,203,243.53

  Norfolk

  5

  420

  841,820.92

  North Wales

  3

  300

  1,120,196.81

  North Yorkshire

  10

  352

  2,133,358.23

  Northamptonshire

  2

  181

  595,426.78

  Northern

  2

  190

  366,290.08

  Northumbria

  1

  457

  542,259.71

  Nottinghamshire

  4

  459

  1,183,314.05

  South Wales

  3

  606

  1,061,723.07

  South Yorkshire

  22

  440

  849,971.62

  Staffordshire

  2

  444

  824,134.20

  Strathclyde

  6

  511

  698,078.86

  Suffolk

  0

  540

  560,093.40

  Surrey

  3

  571

  1,256,143.54

  Sussex

  12

  673

  1,158,589.52

  Tayside

  0

  131

  215,043.15

  Thames Valley

  11

  1,127

  3,785,513.43

  Warwickshire

  1

  260

  297,773.69

  West Mercia

  8

  598

  1,188,137.34

  West Midlands

  8

  680

  1,640,524.38

  West Yorkshire

  17

  640

  1,734,827.23

  Wiltshire

  1

  279

  488,043.13

  Mediation UK
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of financial and other support his Department plans to provide to Mediation UK in the current financial year. [44948]

  Mr. Michael
  No application has been made by Mediation UK for financial support for this financial year. Mediation UK have met Home Office officials to discuss a possible application for financial support for 1999–2000 and I have also listened to local representatives of Mediation UK to consider their work.

  Foreign Nationals (Drug Offences)
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign nationals were serving a prison sentence in England and Wales in each of the last five years; and what percentage were serving prison sentences for drug offences. [45158]

  Ms Quin
  The available information is for the prison population as at 30 June each year and is given in the table. A more detailed breakdown of sentenced prisoners, by nationality, ethnicity and type of offence, is published 568
  annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (Table 9.5 of the 1996 edition, CM 3732), copies of which are available in the Library.

  Number of sentenced foreign nationals in prisons in England and Wales, and proportion serving sentences for drugs offences, as at 30 June 1993–97

  As at 30 June

  Number of sentenced foreign nationals

  Proportion serving sentences for drugs offences (%)

  1993

  2,298

  30

  1994

  2,309

  34

  1995

  2,616

  34

  1996

  2,867

  35

  19971

  3,250

  36

  1 Provisional

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Drug Testing Kits
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the President of the Council what action has been taken during the UK Presidency of the European Union in respect of the manufacture and distribution of(a) ecstasy and (b) other drug testing kits. [44162]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have been asked to reply.

  No specific work on the general availability of drug testing kits for Ecstasy or other drugs has been undertaken at European Union level during the United Kingdom Presidency. The manufacture and distribution of such kits is essentially a matter for individual member states in accordance with their domestic legislation.

  As far as the application of drug testing equipment to law enforcement purposes is concerned, the European Commission is taking forward a research project to identify the requirements for roadside drug testing equipment, which will make a comparative assessment of existing equipment or prototypes. The project is expected to start before the end of 1998.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Millennium Line
  Mr. Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to announce the preferred route for the Millennium Line. [44088]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that the Chelsea—Hackney Line has been described as the Millennium Line.

  The scheme will be examined in the light of our current work on transport integration, the development of a Greater. London Authority incorporating a London Transport Authority and our consideration of transport priorities for London.

  Leasehold Commercial Premises
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what
  569
  information he collates on the proportion of leasehold commercial premises which receive individual fuel bills based upon occupancy levels. [44382]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend does not collate information on the proportion of leasehold commercial premises which receive individual fuel bills based on occupancy levels.

  Housing Corporation
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the current annual salary of(a) the Chief Executive of the Housing Corporation and (b) the regional directors of the Housing Corporation. [44421]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The salary of the Chief Executive of the Housing Corporation is derived from Pay Bands 7 and 9 for senior civil servants. The current annual salary is £96,456 (effective from 8 April 1998). In addition, the Chief Executive is eligible for consideration of an annual performance bonus of up to 15 per cent. of current salary, and provision of a car valued for tax purposes at £6,953.

  The salaries for Regional Directors of the Housing Corporation are derived from Pay Bands 1 and 3 for senior civil servants and all fall within the range of £47,633 to £67,515. In addition they are each provided with the use of a car.

  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the annual running costs of(a) the head office of the Housing Corporation and (b) the West Midlands regional office of the Housing Corporation in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997. [44420]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is as shown:

  Annual running costs outturn

  £ million

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Headquarters

  16.6

  17.0

  16.2

  15.8

  West Midlands

  1.3

  1.2

  1.2

  1.3

  Pennine Bridleway
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on funding of the Pennine Bridleway route as far as Kirkby Stephen. [44854]

  Angela Eagle
  Funding for the Pennine Bridleway, including the proposed northern extension, comes from the Countryside Commission's budget.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library a complete list of all those in Cumbria who may be owners or have an interest in the land which may be subject to one of the possible routes of the Pennine Bridleway. [44857]

  Angela Eagle
  The Countryside Commission, for reasons of confidentiality, does not publicise the names of those participating in its informal consultations on National Trail proposals.
  570
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish each of the possible routes for the Pennine Bridleway which has been identified by the Countryside Commission. [44858]

  Angela Eagle
  The Countryside Commission is still conducting informal consultations over possible routes for the Pennine Bridleway northern extension. Once the Commission begins its formal consultation, it will publish the proposed route. The route of the Pennine Bridleway between Carsington Reservoir, Derbyshire, and Kirkby Stephen, Cumbria, was approved by the Secretary of State in 1995.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information he has received from the Countryside Commission on their plans for the Pennine Bridleway in Cumbria; and if he will make a statement. [44855]

  Angela Eagle
  I understand that the Countryside Commission is currently undertaking informal consultations on the route of the proposed northern extension of the Pennine Bridleway in Cumbria with a view to identifying a single route for formal consultation later this year. We expect that a proposal will be put to the Secretary of State next year.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the parish councils through which the proposed Pennine Bridleway might pass in Cumbria. [44856]

  Angela Eagle
  The route of the proposed Pennine Bridleway in Cumbria might pass through the following parish councils:

  Midgeholme

  Farlam

  Castle Carrock

  Cumrew

  Ainstable

  Kirkoswald and Renwick

  Glassonby

  Ousby

  Culgaith

  Milburn

  Long Marton

  Dufton

  Murton

  Warcop

  Musgrave

  Appleby

  Bandleyside

  Soulby

  Waitby

  Ravenstonedale.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) of 24 March 1998,Official Report, columns 85–86, on the Transport Council, which delegates requested a study into the employment effect of

  571
  the abolition of duty free; and which Ministers expressed regret at the reasoned opinions sent to the member states by the Commission on the EC/US air transport negotiations. [44891]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Discussion on the abolition of duty free was prompted by a proposal from the Irish delegation. The right hon. Member's question on EC/US air transport negotiations was not one on which formal votes were taken in the Council, and there is therefore no official record of the stance taken by delegations on it.

  Housing Policy Guidance (Cumbria)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish housing policy guidance for Cumbria including the Government's estimate of the additional housing required. [44860]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have recently issued to all housing authorities guidance for the 1998 Housing Investment Programme round, which includes advice on housing policy, designed to assist authorities in developing their own strategies appropriate to the needs of their area.

  Housing figures for Cumbria, based on 1992 household projections, were issued in Regional Planning Guidance for the North West (RPG13) in May 1996. These figures were an average annual net addition of 1,500 per year between 1991 and 2011, making a total of 30,000 new dwellings. These were allocated between the individual districts in Cumbria by the County Council in its Structure Plan which covers the years 1991–2006 and was adopted in July 1995.

  Housing Stock Renovation
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to assist with the renovation of housing stock in(a) Eden, (b) Carlisle and (c) Allerdale districts. [44845]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In common with housing authorities across the country, Eden, Carlisle and Allerdale receive resource allocations under the Housing Investment Programme for that purpose. In addition, Carlisle and Allerdale also benefit from the Capital Receipts Initiative. Allocations for the year 1998–99 are as follows:

  £

  Housing investment programme

  Capital receipts initiative

  Allerdale

  1,884,000

  713,000

  Carlisle

  1,543,000

  1,240,000

  Eden

  799,000

  Nil

  Eden does not receive resources from the Capital Receipts Initiative since it is a "debt free" authority, and is therefore, unlike most authorities, able to use any capital receipts it generates to invest directly according to its local priorities.

  In addition, the Government have acknowledged the particular need to address investment on Allerdale's Salterbeck estate by this year approving Estates Renewal Challenge Fund bid, with provisional approval being given grant to just under £4m over the next three years.

  Rivers (SSSI Status)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list each river in England and Wales which is proposed for SSSI status. [44844]

  Angela Eagle
  I will ask the Chief Executives of English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales to write to the right hon. Member.

  Road Signs
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to(a) evaluate and (b) introduce the Scottish Strungbow type road signs. [44861]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  These signs indicate that road users can leave and rejoin a main road via a bypassed town or village. They were included in the Traffic Signs Regulations 1994, and can therefore be used by English traffic authorities as appropriate.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on proposals for reducing the number of road signs in rural areas. [44482]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is for the relevant highway authority to decide how many signs are necessary or appropriate in the light of local circumstances. The hon. Member will know, from the debate he initiated on 18 March 1998,Official Report, column 1258–61, that studies are underway which are intended to produce researched recommendations on good design practice for rural traffic management. The CTMG demonstration projects, announced by the Minister for Transport on 31 March 1998, Official Report, column 494–95, include an assessment of the effects of removing or repositioning signs from roads on Dartmoor, but the results are not expected to be published before the end of next year.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the restrictions on the use of fibre optic traffic signs. [44483]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  All traffic signs used in this country must conform with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 (SI 1519) or be specially authorised by the Secretary of State. The TSRGD do not specify any particular technology for variable signs, but fibre optic and other light emitting signs are required to meet the Secretary of State's requirements for optical performance and safety. New designs of light emitting variable signs, actuated by vehicles travelling at excessive speed, have been specially authorised at sites in North Norfolk and elsewhere as part of a monitored experiment, which is still in progress, to assess their effect on reducing speeds and improving safety.

  Carlisle Airport (Nuclear Material)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on flights of nuclear material out of Carlisle airport. [44878]
  573
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department has received 6 such representations since May 1997.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the £140 million of new Government money for the Channel Tunnel Link becomes due, how much of it will depend on the completion of Phase II of the line. [44885]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  LCR expect to complete the CTRL by 2007. The sum of £140 million, the payment of which depends on Eurostar revenues, would not be payable before 2010—so it is not linked to any particular phase of CTRL construction.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the benefits for Coventry and the West Midlands region, from the proposed Channel Tunnel Rail Link via Stratford. [44723]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend took account of the evident enthusiasm for Regional Eurostar services including that from the West Midlands in reaching his recent agreement with LCR which he announced on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367–70. He has asked the transport operator who will take responsibility for Eurostar (UK) Ltd to assess the feasibility of running regional services and report by the end of the year.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the terms of Railtrack's option to build the second phase of the CTRL through London. [45410]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is intended that Railtrack shall be granted by LCR an exclusive option to commit to purchase the assets relating to the second phase of construction of the CTRL; that this option must be exercised no later than 1 July 2003; and that in the event that Railtrack does not exercise that option, LCR will be obliged to find another third party, or complete the second phase itself.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the new agreement on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link makes provision for sleeper services running on the link; and if he will make a statement. [44672]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The deal announced by my right hon. Friend on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367–70, does not involve provisions for sleeper services. In July 1997 European Night Services Ltd. announced that they had dropped their plans for services from the regions to Paris. I understand that the Joint Venture have no plans for sleeper services.

  Heathrow-Paris Eurostar Service
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how long it is estimated the journey time will take from Heathrow to Paris by the proposed new service announced by the Eurostar consortium; [44886]
  574
  (2) if the proposed rail service between Heathrow and Paris by the Eurostar consortium is intended to connect with any French airport; [44888]

  (3) which rail lines the service between Heathrow and Paris by the Eurostar consortium will use; and what rail services currently use those rail lines; [44884]

  (4) how frequent the rail service between Heathrow and Paris by the Eurostar consortium will be. [44887]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend announced on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367–70, that the Eurostar operator intends to run services from Heathrow through the Channel Tunnel from 2001. Precise routes, service patterns and journey times have yet to be defined.

  Travellers
  Ms Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend legislation relating to travellers; and if he will make a statement. [44604]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has no plans to amend sections 77 to 80 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which give local authorities powers to deal with unauthorised camping, and which repealed local authorities' duty to provide sites and the Secretary of State's power to pay grant for such sites.

  My Department is committed to issuing good practice advice to local authorities on unauthorised camping, and it is proposed to launch this on 29 October at a conference organised by the National Association of Gipsy and Traveller Officers in Coventry.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he plans to take to impose obligations on fuel suppliers to give advice on energy efficiency; and if he will make a statement. [44881]

  Angela Eagle
  The relevant regulators already require electricity and gas suppliers to provide customers, on request, with advice on energy efficiency. For the future, the Government's Green Paper "A Fair Deal for Consumers" proposes that Ministers will issue statutory guidance to the regulators on social, environmental and energy efficiency matters, including matters (such as advice to customers on energy efficiency) which are already dealt with in the present regulatory framework.

  Mobile Telecommunications
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authority refusals of planning permission for telecommunications masts were overturned on appeal by planning inspectors in the year 1997–98. [44951]

  Mr. Raynsford
  54 out of a total of 122 appeals made against local planning authority refusals for telecommunications masts/towers were allowed in the year 1997–98.
  575
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement regarding the future development of the mobile telecommunications industry in rural areas. [44484]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This Government's general policy on telecommunications development is to facilitate the growth of telecommunications systems while protecting the environment. Mobile services are important to an efficient modern national telecommunications network. This will help bring considerable economic and social benefits to all parts of the country, including rural areas. The establishment of such a network should not, however, happen at disproportionate cost to the environment. For that reason, we announced our expectation that operators would provide evidence to local planning authorities that they have carefully considered the use of existing masts, buildings and other structures before seeking to erect any new mast.

  Local planning authorities continue to have the opportunity to exercise control over individual mast developments, whether that be through the consideration of a full planning application or the determination of a prior approval application under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans she has to repeal those sections of the Local Government and Housing Act 1990 which require that housing benefit is paid from the housing revenue account of local authorities. [44946]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are considering all aspects of housing finance as part of our Comprehensive Spending Review. We expect to announce conclusions from the Review in the summer.

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if, in the case of housing development, only the building regulations in force at the time of submission of a planning application apply to the construction, irrespective of the date of construction; [44902]

  (2) if the Government plan to make Part M of the Building Regulations apply to all buildings constructed after the making of the regulations, irrespective of the date of the planning consent. [44903]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: I am aware of the cases in the hon. Member's constituency which have given rise to concern that housing developers may seek to use building control procedures to circumvent the changes I have announced that will apply Part M of the building regulations to new dwellings. I understand that two initial building control notices for a total of 12,000 houses will not now take effect. These related to land for which I understand there is no current prospect of planning permission for housing.

  I share the hon. Member's concern that building control procedures should not be used to circumvent the new requirements for access and facilities for disabled people.
  576
  The general position is that building work is subject to the requirements in force at the time the relevant building control notice is given.

  I have previously announced in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) on 9 March 1998, Official Report, column 12, that I envisage an interval of one year between the publication of the new Part M requirements and the coming into effect of the Amendment Regulations. This would be to allow time for guidance to be developed in support of the new requirements and also to allow time for building workers to be trained in the new techniques that will be necessary.

  Against that background, I am considering what steps to take to ensure an effective transfer to the new Part M requirements following the coming into force of the new regulations.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made into the impact of second homes on the supply of local housing. [44932]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Survey of English Housing conducted annually for my Department indicates that about 200,000 households with their main residence in England also own or rent a second home in England. That figure excludes households whose second home is the main residence of another household, and households with a second home which they intend to sell.

  Local authorities should take account of second homes in their assessments of housing need. These assessments inform authorities' housing strategies (including empty homes strategies where they exist) and development plans.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much council tax is currently raised from second-home owners. [44488]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing gave to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) on 9 June 1998,Official Report, column 509.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of the 50 per cent. reduction in council tax for second-home owners. [44487]

  Mr. Raynsford
  If a local authority has a high proportion of second homes that receive a 50 per cent. discount, and therefore a reduced tax base, it will receive more grant to compensate. Contrary to some of the concerns that have been expressed, the level of council tax bills paid by local residents will therefore not be affected unless the local authority is spending above the "standard spending" level fixed by Government as a basis for distributing grant. We have received a number of representations about the council tax and second/holiday homes. We are considering these and will set out our proposals in a White Paper this summer.

  Kent County Council
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many staff have been made redundant by Kent County Council as a result of the creation of the new Medway Unitary Authority in the year 1997–98; and how many will be made redundant in 1998–99. [44213]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: I understand from Kent County Council that, as a result of local government reorganisation, 330 of their staff were made redundant in 1997–98 and fewer than 50 are expected to be made redundant in 1998–99.

  Radioactive Material (Transport)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many crashes occurred involving(a) road vehicles, (b) aircraft and (c) trains carrying radioactive material in the United Kingdom in 1997 and 1998 to date. [44986]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The numbers of such crashes notified to the Department are:

  Year

  Number

  (a)

  1997

  3

  1998

  none to date

  (b)

  1997

  none

  1998

  none to date

  (c)

  1997

  none

  1998

  3 to date

  In none of these crashes was there any loss of radioactive material from any package.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is the Government's policy not to limit the number of movements of radioactive material by air provided International Atomic Energy Agency standards are met. [44959]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 14 July 1997,Official Report, column 15.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what procedures are currently in place to ensure the safe transportation of mixed oxide plutonium within the United Kingdom. [44724]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Mixed Oxide Fuel and plutonium, in common with all radioactive materials, are subject to the following regulations:

  Road
  The Radioactive Material (Road Transport) (Great Britain) Regulations 1996 (SI 1996 No. 1350).
  The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1983 (SR 1983 No. 344).
  The Radioactive Substances (Carriage by Road) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1986 (SR 1986 No. 61).
  578
  Sea
  The Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants) Regulations 1990 (SI 1990 No. 2605); Merchant Shipping Notice No. M 1620, "The Carriage of Dangerous Goods and Marine Pollutants in Packaged Form on Ships".

  Air
  The Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995 SI No. 1970. The Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1994 SI No. 3187 and Amendment 1996 SI No. 3100.

  Ports
  The Dangerous Substances in Harbour Areas Regulations 1987 (SI 1987 No. 37).

  Rail
  The Packaging, Labelling and Carriage of Radioactive Material by Rail Regulations (RAMRail) 1996 (SI 1996 No. 2090): Approved Requirements for the packaging, labelling and carriage of radioactive material by rail 1996 Edition. The Carriage of Dangerous Goods (Classification, Packaging and Labelling) and Use of Transportable Pressure Receptacles Regulations (CDGCPL) 1996 (SI 1996 No. 2092).

  Inland Waterways
  British Waterways Board Terms and Conditions: Dangerous Goods BWB 1981, and Schedule of Dangerous Goods ("The Green Book") BWB 1981 (Class 7).

  Merchant Seamen (Sickness)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what legal requirements merchant shipping employees on sick leave were required to fulfil in June 1991 when returning to work offshore after instructions from their employer; [45033]

  (2) what legal requirements employers of merchant seamen were required to fulfil in June 1991 when instructing employees on sick leave to return to work offshore; [45034]

  (3) if he will make a statement on amendments made since 1986 to Merchant Shipping Notice No. 1536 and Merchant Shipping Notice No. 1331 in respect of diseases of the oesophagus, stomach and duodenum; [45035]

  (4) what Health and Safety Executive regulations, relating to record keeping, were in force in May 1991 in respect of the transfer of sick merchant seamen to oil platforms in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea. [45037]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In terms of Merchant Shipping (Medical Examination) Regulations 1983, applicable in 1991, a seafarer cannot be employed on a ship covered by the Regulations unless he holds a valid medical fitness certificate. Under Merchant Shipping legislation, there are no specific or additional requirements relating to return to work after sick leave.

  Merchant Shipping Notice M1536, which listed doctors approved by the Secretary of State to carry out seafarer medicals, and M1331, setting out the medical standards for seafarers, have both been updated. While the medical fitness standards have been kept under review by the Department's medical advisers, no change has been made in respect of diseases of the oesophagus, stomach and duodenum.

  There were no regulations relating to record keeping for the transfer of sick merchant seamen to oil platforms in the United Kingdom sector of the North Sea, although

  579
  the offshore Installations (Logbooks and Registration of Deaths) Regulations 1972 required a record to be kept of all persons arriving at or departing from an installation.

  LCR and Eurostar
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representatives of Government there will be on the Board of LCR and the Eurostar management company; and if their rights, duties and responsibilities will be the same in company law as the private sector directors. [45403]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is not intended that there will be any Government appointments to the Board of either LCR or the Eurostar management company.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to protect areas of outstanding natural beauty from overdevelopment; and if he will make a statement. [44478]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning Policy Guidance note 7 affords special protection from development to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, along with other statutorily designated areas. Policies in structure and local plans and development control decisions should in general favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. It would normally be inconsistent with the aims of designation to permit the siting of major industrial or commercial development in these areas. Only proven national interest and lack of alternative sites can justify an exception.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the sites of special scientific interest in the United Kingdom distinguishing those which are in(a) England and (b) Norfolk. [44489]

  Angela Eagle
  As at 5 June 1998 there were 6,517 Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the United Kingdom. 3,991 in England and 155 in Norfolk. I shall arrange for a copy of the full list of sites to be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he will make available under the local government reorganisation costs scheme to Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council for reorganisation costs incurred by them in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [45432]

  Ms Armstrong
  Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council did not submit a bid at the initial stage of the Local Government Reorganisation Costs Scheme for 1998–99. They have since identified £400,000 of costs that are eligible under the scheme. After careful consideration, I have decided that it would be appropriate to allocate a maximum amount of £400,000 to Redcar and Cleveland Council to cover these costs in full.

  Regional Airports
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes he has decided to make to his policy on international access to regional airports in the United Kingdom following the consultation exercise on this issue earlier in the year. [45433]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government wish to encourage international access to regional airports by pursuing a policy of liberalisation. We have decided that open access to all UK airports, except Heathrow and Gatwick, should be offered to all of our bilateral air services partners, provided that UK airlines are also allowed to operate on the same routes. My officials will be writing to all of our bilateral partners where such access is not already available with details of this change of policy.

  This change in policy will allow both UK airlines and the airlines of the country concerned to operate to and from that country on such routes without restrictions on capacity or frequency, and without the need for international aviation negotiations to establish such services. This will enable UK and foreign airlines to plan the development of services with confidence that future growth will not be limited by bilateral restrictions.

  Air Quality Standards
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on the finance, management and policy review of the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards. [45745]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department has completed the first stage of the review, and we have decided to continue to sponsor the Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards. In the light of new evidence emerging on the effects of air pollution, and of growing interest in pollutants not yet covered by the Panel, we believe that the need for expert advice on these issues remains. The Expert Panel is best placed to provide that advice. The Expert Panel has served the Department extremely well over the last five years, and we are grateful for its very significant contribution to the development of air quality policy over the last five years.

  The Department will now review how the Panel should operate in future, looking at all aspects of its management, including its membership and working procedures and at its work programme for the next five years.

SCOTLAND

  Direct Labour and Services Organisations
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list by authority and service area the recorded deficits made by local authority direct labour or services organisations in Scotland that have failed to meet the rate-of-return requirements under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98 in (i) cash and (ii) constant prices; [43907]
  581
  (2) if he will list by authority and service area the surplus achieved by local authority direct labour or services organisations in Scotland for those services covered under the terms of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988 in (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98 in (i) cash and (ii) constant prices. [43908]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 3 June 1998]: I have arranged for a detailed list, taken from annual reports submitted by authorities, of the surpluses and deficits achieved by direct labour and direct service organisations of Scottish local authorities in 1995–96 to be placed in the Library. A partial list is provided for 1996–97. This covers the authorities for which annual reports have been received. Information for 1997–98 is not yet available.

  I am committed to ensuring local authority direct labour and direct service organisations achieve efficiency and value for money. Direct labour and direct service organisations exist to provide quality services competitively and I shall not hesitate to use my powers to deal with those who fail to perform as they should.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the total cost of the investigation which he has ordered into the financial affairs of the direct labour organisations in all Scottish local authorities. [44707]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: The cost of the inquiries which are being undertaken by my Department and by the Accounts Commission for Scotland will be met within existing public expenditure provision.

  Arts Sponsorship
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to promote business sponsorship of the arts. [44203]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Government fully recognise the importance of business sponsorship of the arts, which brings a range of benefits both to the sponsor and to the sponsored organisation.

  Active encouragement is given to businesses to sponsor the arts, mainly through Government funding of the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts Pairing Scheme, which provides financial awards to arts organisations which have secured sponsorship for individual projects. The Government also provide financial support for specific initiatives which aim to bring relevant business skills and improved management capabilities to arts organisations.

  Unemployment
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of registered unemployed among 18 to 25 year olds in(a) Dundee, (b) Perth and Kinross and (c) Angus found work and signed off as unemployed in (i) January, (ii) February, (iii) March and (iv) April in each year since 1986. [43411]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 4 June 1998]: Data on the destination of leavers from the claimant count are available from the Office for National Statistics for 1998 onwards for the areas requested. Information is not readily
  582
  available on the numbers aged 18 to 25 claiming unemployment related benefits and so the numbers who found work, in the table, are given for those aged 18 to 24.

  Number of 18 to 24 year olds, leaving the register and finding work1

  Unitary Authorities

  Dundee

  Perth and Kinross

  Angus

  January 1998

  55

  42

  46

  February 1998

  146

  108

  145

  March 1998

  137

  98

  117

  April 1998

  139

  93

  95

  1 Excluding clerical claims and claims with missing or invalid postcodes

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  The number of people aged 18 to 24 on the claimant count is available through the Nomis database in the House of Commons Library. Library staff are ready to assist in accessing the information.

  Fisheries Research
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into stocks of monkfish and megrim; and if he will make a statement about the future of fisheries research funding. [44806]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Government are committed to ensuring that the monkfish and megrim fisheries are exploited on a sustainable basis, and are therefore expanding their programme of scientific research in this particular area. The Fisheries Research Services (FRS) Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen routinely samples landings of monkfish and megrim into Scotland, and participates in the annual stock assessments undertaken by the Advisory Committee on Fishery Management (ACFM). In addition, the FRS is this year initiating a new biennial survey of deep-water species such as these in the West of Scotland; and is next year undertaking a dedicated monkfish and megrim survey. The FRS and Scottish Fishermens Federation (SFF) are also liaising on further data collection, and on a possible EU-funded research project on the distribution and exploitation of monkfish and megrim.

  Overall the Government retain their commitment to the funding of fisheries research, as demonstrated by the introduction into service of the new research vessel Scotia.

  Road Accident Deaths
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on road accident deaths in Scotland. [44684]

  Mr. McLeish
  As part of a continuing programme of road safety research, The Scottish Office has commissioned, in the past 10 years, 6 research studies which have included consideration of road accident deaths. These studies, which are listed below, looked at all categories of road accident casualties from fatal to slight: none has looked only at deaths. All have been evaluated by The Scottish Office Central Research Unit
  583
  except for the study on the circumstances of child pedestrian accidents, which is due for completion later this year.
  "Must Do Better"—A Study of Child Pedestrian Accidents and Road Crossing Behaviour in Scotland, published 1989;
  "The Pedestrian Casualty Problem in Scotland—Why So Many", published 1996;
  "Accidents at Signal Controlled Junctions and Pelican Crossings in Glasgow", published 1996;
  "Linking Road Traffic Accident Statistics to Census Data in Lothian", published 1996:
  "Impact of the Road Network on Scotland's Accident Rates", published 1997;
  "The Circumstances of Child Pedestrian Accidents", (not yet published).

  A Review of The Scottish Office Road Safety Research Programme 1989–97 was published in 1997 by The Scottish Office Central Research Unit.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Conditional Fee Agreements
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what net savings in legal aid will be achieved by the implementation of the Government's proposals to remove legal aid from personal injury work and other areas to which conditional fee agreements will apply. [44131]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our intention is neither to increase nor to reduce in real terms expenditure on legal aid. We have, of course, estimated what the effect on the fund's cashflow would be of removing legal aid from the categories suggested in the consultation paper, Access to Justice with Conditional Fees. These estimates are:

  1998–1999: £0 million

  1999–2000: -£69 million

  2000–2001: -£100 million.

  The saving would diminish in later years, when case costs would be recovered to benefit the fund.

  What we intend is, within a controlled legal aid budget overall, to re-focus limited resources on those most in need, particularly in the areas of social welfare law.

  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what investigations his Department has carried out into the capacity of the Bar to do conditional fee agreement work. [44132]

  Mr. Hoon
  Barristers are already taking cases on a conditional fee basis. I, and my officials, have had several meetings with the Bar Council during the development of the proposals to extend the availability of conditional fee agreements. They have responded in detail to the consultation paper "Access to Justice with Conditional Fees", as have a number of other organisations representing banisters. These, together with all the other responses, are being carefully considered before decisions are taken.

  Fast-track System
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Government will make detailed proposals for the fast-track system. [44134]

  Mr. Hoon
  Detailed proposals for fast-track procedures were the subject of public consultation last summer. In the light of that consultation, rules of court have been drafted and considered by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. Officials are currently placing the latest drafts of the rules on the website [http:www.open.gov.uk/lcd] of the Lord Chancellor's Department and these drafts should be available for viewing before the end of this month. I expect to make an announcement about a costs regime in the fast-track shortly.

  Civil Justice Reforms
  Mr. Cranston
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what resources the Government intends to provide to ensure adequate judicial training, management administration and technology for the effective implementation of Lord Woolf s proposals. [44133]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Judicial Studies Board estimated that it would require £400,000 this financial year to fund the training of the full-time judiciary in the civil justice reforms. The Board also bid for £256,000 in the next financial year to train the part-time judiciary. These sums have been allocated.

  The introduction of IT to other areas of administrative work in the civil courts will release staff to support the introduction of the Civil Justice Reforms in April 1999.

  The cost of technological support has been provided for in the Court Service's expenditure plans although the exact amounts have yet to be finalised. It is currently involved in negotiations with its IT supplier. I am not prepared to jeopardise those negotiations by disclosing indicative costs.

TREASURY

  No. 11 Downing Street (Receptions)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many receptions have been held at No. 11 Downing Street for members of regional Labour parties; what was the total cost of such receptions; and who paid for them. [44218]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I refer to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), on 26 February 1998,Official Report, column 358.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps his Department took to establish whether the adjusted Italian gross domestic product figures used in calculating Italy's convergence performance under the Maastricht criteria were accurate; [44371]
  585
  (2) what factors were taken into account by the European Commission in estimating the size of the underground economy in Italy when determining its gross domestic product to national debt ratio. [44370]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Under Council Directive 89/130/EEC, all Member States submit to the Commission (Statistical Office of the European Communities) data on gross domestic product according to the European System of Accounts (ESA 1979). As set out in Council Regulation (EC) No. 3605/93, these ESA 1979 data are used as the denominator for calculating the Maastricht definition of deficit and debt ratios.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what profit the Bank of England has derived from seigniorage on notes and coin issued in each of the last 10 years. [44452]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Any profits 'derived' from the note issues are not retained by the Bank of England but are paid to the Treasury. The profits of note issue for each of the last ten years are:

  Year

  £ million

  1988–89

  1,368

  1989–90

  1,905

  1990–91

  2,546

  1991–92

  1,875

  1992–93

  1,556

  1993–94

  1,117

  1994–95

  967

  1995–96

  1,294

  1996–97

  1,218

  1997–98

  1,528

  Note:

  Year to end February

  The Bank of England does not issue coins thus has no seigniorage on these.

  Euro
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals his Department has to adopt the European Parliament's Captain Euro publicity in respect of the preparations for the introduction of the euro. [45154]

  Mrs. Liddell
  HM Treasury has no plans at present to adopt the Captain Euro publicity in respect of the preparations for the introduction of the euro.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, and under what authority, the Office for National Statistics was given the duty of determining the allocation of expenditure to the PSBR. [44720]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In the mid-1960s, when estimates of borrowing started to be produced for the public sector as a whole, a joint technical group of officials from Treasury, the Central Statistical Office, the Bank of England and some other Government Departments was set up to consider issues of definition, classification and measurement. Such matters remain the responsibility of the technical committee. The Office for National Statistics determines what constitutes the public sector by reference 586
  to international standards for national accounts. The PSBR figures are produced jointly by the Office for National Statistics and the Treasury.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the guidance on the basis of which the Office for National Statistics determines whether expenditure incurred by or on behalf of the Government and any of its agents or partners is to be part of the public sector borrowing requirement. [44721]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The principles used are set out in Treasury Working Paper 61 of December 1993. To summarise them, cash expenditure by any part of the public sector determines the PSBR, except when such expenditure is the repayment of debt incurred by Government. As explained in my reply to an earlier question (ref: 3658N), the definition of the PSBR is the joint responsibility of the Office for National Statistics and the Treasury. The Office for National Statistics determines what constitutes the public sector by reference to international standards for national accounts.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to raise the limit below which delivery of an inheritance tax account is not required for administering a deceased person's estate. [45539]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has today laid Regulations increasing the limit from £180,000 to £200,000. The increased limit will come into operation on 1 July 1998, for estates of persons dying on or after 6 April 1998. It will simplify the administration of some 5,000 estates.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sierra Leone
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) when she was first informed of the involvement of Sandline International in Sierra Leone; [42300]

  (2) when her Private Office was first informed of the involvement of Sandline International in operations in Sierra Leone; [42304]

  (3) when she was first informed of the existence of the Customs and Excise investigation into the involvement of Sandline International in operations in Sierra Leone; [42302]

  (4) when her Private Office was first informed of the existence of the Customs and Excise investigation into the involvement of Sandline International in operations in Sierra Leone; [42298]

  (5) what meetings she or her officials have had with representatives of Sandline International since May 1997; [41940]

  (6) when she was informed of possible breaches of the UN Security Council Resolution 1132 concerning Sierra Leone; [41942]

  (7) what contacts officials in her Department have had with representatives of Sandline International. [41939]
  587
  Clare Short
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the speech by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the House on 18 May 1998,Official Report, columns 604–11, in which he 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. The Foreign Secretary intends to publish the report of the investigation.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) when her Private Office was first informed of the plan for military intervention to restore the Government of President Kabbah of Sierra Leone; [42303]

  (2) when she was first informed of the plan for military intervention to restore the Government of President Kabbah of Sierra Leone. [42299]

  Clare Short
  The Government did not have prior knowledge of the military intervention by the Military Observer Group of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOMOG) of 5 February 1998.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what(a) British aid to Sierra Leone was delivered by and (b) deliveries of British aid to Sierra Leone were assisted by Sandline International or organisations hired on behalf of Sandline International. [41941]

  Clare Short
  None. Neither Sandline International nor any organisation acting on their behalf have assisted the delivery of British aid to Sierra Leone.

  Indigenous People
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the role of her Department in assisting the World Bank group in the promoting of dialogue between indigenous people and(a) project organisers and (b) private sector organisations. [41042]

  Clare Short
  The World Bank's indigenous peoples policy—first introduced in 1982 and revised in 1991—is currently being revised again as part of the programme of revisions to the Bank's Operational Policies (OPs). We have strongly encouraged the Bank to undertake wide consultation on its OPs, as we have for other areas of policy development and project implementation. We have

  Name of inquiry/review

  Name of chair

  Date of establishment

  Changing Roles Group (examining the prospective role of new health authorities)

  Joint chairs Jeremy Hallett and David Pritchard

  February 1995

  Child Care Procedures and Practice in North Wales

  Adrianne Jones

  December 1995

  The Environmental Impact of the Sea Empress Oil Spill (by the Sea Empress Environmental Evaluation Committee)

  Professor Ron Edwards CBE

  March 1996

  North Wales Child Abuse Allegations: investigation of papers

  Nicola Davies QC

  June 1996

  North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal

  Sir Ronald Waterhouse

  June 1996

  Welsh at Key Stage 4 in 10 secondary schools

  Rudi Plaut

  July 1997

  588
  also played a leading role in helping the Bank to increase its capacity to address social development issues, including those relating to indigenous peoples.

  The Bank has prepared an Approach Paper outlining the revision process, and is currently designing a consultation strategy for stakeholder input—including that from indigenous peoples and their organisations. Consultation will take place over several months. We expect the revised policy to include guidance for private sector investments, drawing on the experience of the recently established Social Unit in the International Financial Corporation (IFC) and the Bank's Social Development Department, which undertakes training for Bank, IFC and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) staff on indigenous peoples and economic development.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the progress made at the recent G8 summit in Birmingham in relation to the redemption of debt of developing countries; and if she will make a statement. [44993]

  Clare Short
  At the G8 Summit in Birmingham on 15–17 May, we made useful progress in speeding up the implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) debt Initiative. The Communiqué set out the objective of getting all those countries which need debt relief under the Initiative, likely to be around 20 in number, into the process by the year 2000. This constitutes a significant step towards meeting the aims of the Government's Mauritius Mandate. And following a British initiative, the Summit also agreed on the need to look at ways of providing more and earlier debt relief to help heavily indebted post-conflict countries. We shall be pressing in all appropriate forums for the implementation of these targets.

WALES

  Reviews
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, for each of the last four years, the departmental inquiries and reviews instigated by Ministers which have been chaired by individuals outside his Department; and in each case if he will give the date of establishment and the name of the chairman. [44367]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information is listed as follows:
  589

  Name of inquiry/review

  Name of chair

  Date of establishment

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Inquiry (joint with other departments)

  Lord Justice Phillips

  December 1997

  Review of the National Curriculum

  Rudi Plaut

  January 1998

  Changing Roles Group (examining the prospective role of new health authorities)

  Joint chairs Jeremy Hallett and David Pritchard

  February 1995

  Child Care Procedures and Practice in North Wales

  Adrianne Jones

  December 1995

  The Environmental Impact of the Sea Empress Oil Spill (by the Sea Empress Environmental Evaluation Committee)

  Professor Ron Edwards CBE

  March 1996

  North Wales Child Abuse Allegations: investigation of papers

  Nicola Davies QC

  June 1996

  North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal

  Sir Ronald Waterhouse

  June 1996

  Welsh at Key Stage 4 in 10 secondary schools

  Rudi Plaut

  July 1997

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Inquiry (joint with other departments)

  Lord Justice Phillips

  December 1997

  Review of the National Curriculum

  Rudi Plaut

  January 1998

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of economic and monetary union on(a) the Welsh farming industry, (b) small businesses in Wales and (c) the Welsh economy as a whole. [44035]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I am concerned that Welsh businesses and farmers should be well placed to meet the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities presented by the EMU. The Government are committed to helping businesses to adapt and are providing advice to businesses about the euro.

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was his subvention to(a) the National Orchestra of Wales, (b) the National Museum of Wales and (c) the principal theatres in Wales in 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [44595]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is as follows:

  (a) the Welsh Office does not provide direct support for the arts but does so through grant in aid to the Arts Council of Wales. In 1997–98 the Arts Council's grant to the BBC National Orchestra was £609,875;

  (b) Welsh Office direct grant in aid to the National Museum and Galleries of Wales was £12.3 million;

  (c) the Arts Council's grants to the mainstream producing theatres Wales in 1997–98 amounted to £1.4 million.

  Orchestras
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on support for regional orchestras; and if he will make a statement. [44593]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Welsh Office support for music is channelled through the Arts Council of Wales. The Arts Council's music budget for 1998–99 has been set at
  590
  £3.5 million. Out of this, the Arts Council funds the BBC National Orchestra of Wales and the orchestra of the Welsh National Opera.

  Millennium Projects
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the millennium projects in North East Wales, indicating their locations and his Department's support for each; and if he will make a statement. [44597]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My Department does not provide direct financial support for millennium projects. However, the following projects in North East Wales have been awarded grants by the Millennium Commission, which is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport:

  St. Cynfarch and St. Cyngar Church

  Floodlighting, Wrexham: £16,882

  Erbistock Village Hall, Wrexham: £27,300

  Ceiriog Centenary Hall, Llanarmon, Wrexham: £143,000

  Section of the Sustrans National Cycle

  Network: £468,000.

  Projects in North East Wales are also being considered for Millennium Commission grants for umbrella projects stretching across the United Kingdom.

  Theatres
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to assist regional theatre; and if he will make a statement. [44592]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Welsh Office support for drama is channelled through the Arts Council of Wales. The Arts Council's drama budget for 1998–99 has been set at just over £3 million.

  Tourism
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list his initiatives for the development of tourism in(a) Wales, (b) North Wales and (c) North East Wales; and if he will make a statement. [44596]

  Mr. Hain
  We continue to fund the Wales Tourist Board's section 4 capital grant programme. The Board has targeted grant at resorts and historic towns in North Wales generating investment of £11.75 million over the past three years and is also involved in developing a new North Wales Regional Tourism Strategy. In North East Wales the Board has allocated £600,000 to support development in Denbigh and Ruthin with new initiatives likely to come from the new regional strategy.

  Government support also enables the Board to support tourism through marketing, product development, training, quality grading and research initiatives. The Board is soon to consult the industry on a new tourism strategy for the next century.

  Museums
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to assist the principal museums of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [44594]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My Department provided funding of £12.3 million to the National Museums and Galleries of Wales in 1997–98. In addition, the Council of Museums in Wales, the body which represents non-national local museums throughout Wales, received £522,000 and a grant of £100,000 was made to the Big Pit mining museum at Blaenavon.

  Cricket Clubs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales in what ways he has assisted cricket clubs in North Wales; what grants he has made; and if he will make a statement. [44598]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Further to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 19 May 1998,Official Report, column 31, I understand that the Chief Executive of the Sports Council for Wales has written to my hon. Friend with details of all grants made to cricket clubs in Wales over the last five years. A copy of his letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Boundary Reviews
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local government boundary reviews being carried out under the current review process(a) have been completed and (b) are awaiting completion; when each of the outstanding reviews is due to be completed; and if the 1999 unitary council elections within all unitary authorities will take place within the new local government boundaries. [43491]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Following local government reorganisation 2 boundary reviews were completed in February 1996 by the Local Government Boundary Commission. A further boundary review is being undertaken by the Commission, and is expected to be completed by Spring 1999. The 1999 local government 592
  elections will take account of the 2 boundary reviews completed in February 1996. It will not be possible to take account of the most recent boundary review in time for these elections.

  In addition to these boundary reviews the Commission is undertaking a review of the electoral arrangements in all Welsh local authorities following local government reorganisation. It has submitted 14 reports to the Secretary of State to date, and a further report is expected shortly. The final 7 reports have yet to be completed. The outstanding reports have to be submitted to the Secretary of State by 1 December 1999. The Secretary of State is still considering whether these reports should be implemented in time for the May 1999 elections, in the context of his consultation on the modernisation agenda for local government.

  Housing
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many local authority houses in Wales were assessed to be unfit for human habitation(a) in total and (b) by local authority in 1997. [43494]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Information is not available for 1997. The latest Welsh House Condition Survey was conducted in 1993. From this, it is estimated that 37,900 occupied local authority dwellings, 15.8 per cent. of the total, in Wales were unfit. Information on individual local authority areas is not available from the survey.

  The 1997 Welsh House Condition Survey is in progress. Information from this survey which will provide results for local authority areas is expected to be available later this year.

  House Renovation Grants
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums were allocated by his Department to private sector renovation grants for the financial years(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [43492]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Department issued Supplementary Credit Approvals of £179.5 million in 1996–97 and £149.6 million in 1997–98 specifically for private sector renovation and disabled facilities grants. Further Supplementary Credit Approvals of £17 million in 1996–97 and £14 million in 1997–98 were issued for area renewal schemes. Authorities may additionally use part of their Basic Credit Approval or Supplementary Credit Approval issued under the Capital Receipts Initiative for individual grants and area renewal.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the level of spending by each local authority in Wales on (i) renovation grants, (ii) disabled facility grants, (iii) home repair grants, (iv) common parts grants, (v) conversional grants and (vi) empty home grants or their equivalent for the financial years(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98. [43493]
  593
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The available information is given in the following table. Detailed information on the split of local authority expenditure for housing grants is not held centrally.

  Local authority expenditure on renovation and other housing grants

  £ million

  (a) 1996–97

  (b) Renovation grants

  (c) Other housing grants

  (b) (d) 1997–98 Renovation grants

  Blanenau Gwent

  5.3

  0.0

  4.9

  Bridgend

  6.0

  0.0

  5.8

  Caerphilly

  9.3

  1.2

  6.9

  Cardiff

  21.2

  0.0

  14.6

  Carmarthenshire

  13.2

  0.0

  13.2

  Ceredigion

  6.8

  0.0

  5.9

  Conwy

  4.0

  0.0

  4.4

  Denbighshire

  2.6

  0.0

  1.1

  Flintshire

  7.4

  0.0

  6.4

  Gwynedd

  7.8

  1.9

  9.0

  Isle of Anglesey

  3.8

  0.0

  4.4

  Merthyr Tydfil

  4.0

  0.0

  3.2

  Monmouthshire

  2.3

  0.0

  2.0

  Neath Port Talbot

  8.3

  0.0

  7.2

  Newport

  5.9

  0.0

  3.6

  Pembrokeshire

  7.2

  0.0

  7.7

  Powys

  7.3

  0.0

  7.6

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  17.4

  0.0

  16.3

  Swansea

  11.0

  0.0

  10.2

  Torfaen

  2.5

  0.8

  2.9

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  5.0

  0.0

  4.2

  Wrexham

  5.5

  0.0

  5.8

  Wales

  163.8

  3.8

  147.2

  (a) Provisional outturn

  (b) Includes renovation, disabled facility, home repair, common parts grants and grants to homes in multiple occupancy

  (c) Includes all other housing grants

  (d) Local authority forecast. Information is not yet available for 'other' housing grants

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 7 April 1998,Official Report, column 159, and her letter of 7 May, if she will list the ECGD exposure which was not included in the original figure but included in the revised figure of £848 million. [43699]

  Mrs. Roche
  In my answer to my hon. Friend of 7 April I quoted a figure of £654 million as the level of ECGD's current exposure on Indonesia which is in respect of defence equipment. It subsequently emerged that this figure understated the actual total by £194 million as a result of an error in the computer programme which ECGD used when converting foreign currency liabilities into the total current exposure in sterling.

  As soon as the error was identified, I wrote to my hon. Friend advising her that the correct total was, in fact, £848 million.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences have been(a) granted and (b) refused since 1 May 1997 for the export of military goods to (1) Algeria, (2) Angola, (3) Bahrain, (4) Botswana, (5) Cambodia, (6) China, (7) Colombia, (8) Egypt, (9) Eritrea, (10) Ethiopia, (11) Georgia, (12) India, (13) Indonesia, (14) Jordan, (15) Kuwait, (16) Kenya, (17) Malaysia, (18) Mexico, (19) Morocco, (20) Mozambique, (21) Namibia, (22) Oman, (23) Pakistan, (24) Peru, (25) Qatar, (26) Saudi Arabia, (27) Singapore, (28) Sri Lanka, (29) Syria, (30) Turkey, (31) UAE, (32) Uganda, (33) Yemen, (34) Zambia and (35) Zimbabwe; and if she will specify the number of licences granted in each of the categories set out under Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989. [44040]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 3 June 1998]: The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated, and the results are contained in tables which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Post Office
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to give the Post Office the commercial freedoms enjoyed by the(a) German Post Office and (b) Dutch Post Office. [44676]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 63, the current review of options that will best deliver greater commercial freedom for the Post Office is taking account of the ways in which overseas competitors and analogous organisations are facing, or being set up to face, the challenges of the changing market. We plan to present our proposals following the review in the Autumn; these will cover the extent and form of future commercial freedoms for the Post Office.

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will establish an inquiry into the workings of Dounreay with specific reference to the reported loss of highly enriched uranium; and if she will make a statement. [44873]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reported to this House on 3 June 1998, Official Report, column 365, there is no evidence to suggest that enriched uranium from Dounreay has been stolen or has fallen into the hands of terrorists. The Safeguards Office of my department are studying the UKAEA report "Dounreay Shaft Inventory" and if they see any reason for further investigation I will of course ensure that the necessary work is put in hand. Since 1973, nuclear material accountancy at Dounreay and other nuclear sites in the UK has been subject to independent oversight by the Euratom Safeguards Directorate. In

  595
  addition, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) are already conducting a review of safety at Dounreay and I expect their findings to be made public.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current estimated cost of refurbishment of the reprocessing facility at Dounreay to be used to process the uranium fuel recently received from Georgia; when the plant is expected to be ready; and what further foreign customers she expects to use the plant. [40670]

  Mr. Battle
  [pursuant to his reply, 11 May 1998, c. 32]: I need to amend the information that I gave to my hon. Friend then that unirradiated fuel amounts to 80 per cent. of the uranium fuel in the consignment received from Georgia.

  The correct percentage is 70. I have now been informed that the full details of the material from Georgia are as follows:
  The precise quantity of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) is: 4.125 kg of unirradiated material (which contains 3.7052 kg of Uranium-235); and 0.6191 kg of irradiated material (which contains 0.5537 kg of Uranium-235).
  The balance of the material is approximately 9.5 kg of low enriched uranium (LEU), which is not immediately weapons useable and therefore of less proliferation concern. The LEU

  Percentage

  Research council and year

  Project grants

  Programme grants

  Special grants

  Studentships1

  Fellowships

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences

  1995

  27.9

  23.1

  26.3

  55

  n/a

  1996

  29.8

  25.8

  16.7

  54

  8.25

  1997

  31.3

  30.1

  24.5

  50

  8.55

  Engineering and Physical Sciences

  1995

  66.3

  —

  n/a

  78.6

  10.4

  1996

  46.0

  —

  n/a

  78.4

  9.5

  1997

  38.9

  —

  58.2

  76.7

  10.7

  Economic and Social

  1995

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  26

  n/a

  1996

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  25

  n/a

  1997

  17

  n/a

  n/a

  28

  n/a

  Medical

  1995

  37

  61

  n/a

  46

  20

  1996

  32

  59

  n/a

  46

  15

  1997

  26

  57

  n/a

  43

  16

  Natural Environment

  1995

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  10

  1996

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  16

  1997

  26

  21

  n/a

  n/a

  17

  Particle Physics and Astronomy

  1995

  59

  —

  n/a

  79

  9

  1996

  54

  —

  n/a

  84

  13

  1997

  67

  —

  n/a

  85

  9

  1 There are no data for the studentship applications because, with the exception of the ESRC research studentships, the Research Councils allocate studentships by quota to institutions which are responsible for the subsequent award. The figures given are therefore the percentage of studentships awarded to men, with the exception of the ESRC which shows the percentage of applications for research studentships by men which were successful

  Notes:

  1. The EPSRC and PPARC do not distinguish project from programme grants. In addition, the EPSRC figure for these grants and for the special grants is the percentage of applications by men in applications where the gender is known

  2. NERC figures for project grants represent NERC non-thematic (responsive) grants, and for programme grants NERC thematic (directed) grants

  3. The success rate for MRC programme grants relates to final applications rather than applications submitted

  4. Some Councils do not run special grants intended for new investigators, or are in only the first year of doing so
  596
  consists of 5.840kg of unirradiated material (which contains 0.584 kg of Uranium-235) and 3.7449 kg of irradiated material (which contains 0.3609 kg of Uranium-235).

  In summary therefore, the total quantity of Uranium received from Georgia was 14.329 kg—made up of LEU of 9.5 kg and as previously stated HEU of 5.0 kg.

  The irradiated material when it is eventually reprocessed will result in no more than two barrels of Intermediate Level Waste, again as previously stated.

  Research Councils
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 14 May 1998,Official Report, columns 189–90, what percentage of applications from men, in relation to each of the research councils, was successful for (a) project grants, (b) programme grants, (c) special grants intended for new investigators, (d) studentships and (e) fellowships, in 1997 and in each of the two previous years. [44586]

  Mr. Battle
  The available data are shown in the table.

  In answer to my hon. Friend's previous question on 14 May 1998, Official Report, columns 189–90, the figure for the percentage of applications from women who were successful for Medical Research Council fellowships for 1996 was wrongly stated. The figure should be 13 per cent., not 34 per cent.

  Eureka Programme
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the impact of the Eureka programme on British industry. [44926]

  Mr. Battle
  Since 1985, 513 UK industrial organisations, 225 of them SMEs, have participated, or continue to participate, in 345 Eureka projects. DTI accepts the findings of the 1997 independent evaluation of Eureka, that 70 per cent. of industrial participants achieved new products or processes by the end of their projects.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the financial contribution of the United Kingdom towards the Eureka programme. [44927]

  Mr. Battle
  DTI has so far made offers totalling £155.08 million towards projects involving UK participants since Eureka began in 1985. Spend to the end of Financial Year 1997–98 was £130.71 million.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to revise the Eureka programme before the year 2000. [44925]

  Mr. Battle
  The UK will work with the other members of Eureka to adapt the initiative so that it continues to be relevant to all sectors of European industry. Any changes will take into account the increasing global nature of R&D, and the changed political and business environment since Eureka's inception. They will appear in the next Eureka Medium Term Plan in June 2000.

  Human Genome Sequencing
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the share of the world's effort in human genome sequencing which is being undertaken in the UK. [44980]

  Mr. Battle
  We estimate that the UK undertake one third of the world's effort in sequencing the human genome. The UK contribution is made primarily through the work of the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council.

  Nuclear Weapons (Developing Countries)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she has taken to ensure that no plutonium from the United Kingdom has been used in the production of nuclear weapons in developing countries. [44725]

  Mr. Battle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the detailed answer given to the hon. Member for Perth (Ms Cunningham) on 1 June 1998,Official Report, columns 119–20.

  The stringent controls described in that answer would apply to any applications to export plutonium to a developing country.

  Nuclear Power Stations (Health Risks)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what new proposals she has to improve transparency in respect of the health risks arising from nuclear power stations. [43511]
  598
  Mr. Battle
  None. Existing arrangements already provide for a high degree of public openness about health, safety and environmental issues associated with the UK civil nuclear industry.

  Nuclear operators publish annual reports which provide detailed information about both the environmental and the health and safety considerations associated with their activities. Those bodies responsible for the regulation of the civil nuclear industry, including the Health and Safety Executive, the Environment Agency, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the National Radiological Protection Board, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, also publish detailed annual reports. Where they believe there to be a matter of particular public interest to be addressed, regulators also published reports covering specific regulatory issues.

  Independent expert consideration of the potential implications of the civil nuclear industry for public health is further provided for through the existence of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE). COMARE was established by the Government in 1985 with a remit to investigate and advise on the health effects of both natural and man-made radiation and on the need for further research in this area. COMARE has undertaken investigations into the incidence of cancers in the vicinity of a number of UK nuclear installations and in each case has published a detailed report setting out its findings.

  For safety and environmental issues associated with the UK civil nuclear industry, independent expert scrutiny is provided for through the existence of two advisory committees, the Nuclear Safety Advisory Committee (RWMAC). NuSAC publishes a biennial report setting out details of the work of the committee and its sub groups and of its future programme of work. RWMAC publishes a similar report on an annual basis.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of BSE on the knackers' trade. [44357]

  Mr. Rooker
  Cattle displaying clinical signs suggestive of BSE are not sent to knackers yards. They are slaughtered on farm and the carcases taken to incineration facilities contracted to the Department to deal with BSE suspects.

  Following the announcement on BSE in March 1996, some £97 million was made available for the rendering industry in the financial year 1996–97. In return, renderers were required to maintain pre-crisis prices and charges to all their suppliers of animal waste. A further £59 million of aid, also designed to help the entire red meat/animal waste chain, was made available during the financial year 1997–98. The support was always intended to be temporary and was phased out gradually during 1997–98 to enable the chain to adjust to the changing economics.

  The knacker industry is playing an important role in the collection and transport of Over Thirty Months Scheme casualty animals to incineration facilities. Over 140,000 have been handled to date. However, the Government are

  599
  aware of the concern being expressed by the knacker industry about the increased costs of collecting other fallen stock following the removal of support. Officials are liaising with farming representatives to consider how farmers should, in future, dispose of fallen stock and to encourage the industry to put suitable arrangements in place.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the incidence of BSE by cattle breed in 1997 and 1998 to date. [44897]

  Mr. Rooker
  The number of cattle confirmed as having BSE in Great Britain in 1997 and 1998 to date are listed by cattle breed in the table.

  Number of confirmed cases by breed and year of slaughter as at 5 June 1998

  Breed

  1997

  1998

  Aberdeen Angus

  8

  1

  Aberdeen Angus x

  16

  0

  Aberdeen Angus x Charolais

  1

  0

  Aberdeen Angus x Friesian

  15

  2

  Ayrshire

  23

  4

  Ayrshire x Shorthorn

  1

  0

  Belgian Blue

  1

  1

  Belgian Blue x

  3

  2

  Black Hereford

  1

  0

  Blonde d'Aquitaine

  3

  0

  Blonde d'Aquitaine x

  3

  1

  Blonde d'Aquitaine x Friesian

  6

  0

  Blue Grey

  1

  0

  British White

  1

  0

  Brown Swiss

  10

  1

  Brown Swiss x

  5

  0

  Brown Swiss x Friesian

  13

  2

  Brown Swiss x Guernsey

  1

  0

  Canadian Holstein

  1

  0

  Charolais

  7

  1

  Charolais x

  17

  1

  Charolais x Belgian Blue

  1

  0

  Charolais x Friesian

  7

  2

  Charolais x Guernsey

  1

  0

  Charolais x Hereford

  1

  0

  Charolais x Holstein

  1

  0

  Charolais x Limousin

  1

  0

  Charolais x Simmental

  1

  0

  Charolais x South Devon

  1

  0

  Devon x Friesian

  1

  0

  Friesian

  3,055

  474

  Friesian x

  11

  2

  Friesian x Ayrshire

  4

  0

  Friesian x Belgian Blue

  2

  0

  Friesian x Galloway

  0

  1

  Friesian x Holstein

  322

  59

  Friesian x South Devon

  1

  0

  Guernsey

  37

  6

  Guernsey x Jersey

  1

  0

  Guernsey x Merse Rhine Issel

  1

  0

  Hereford

  15

  1

  Hereford x

  118

  13

  Hereford x Friesian

  122

  11

  Hereford x Simmental

  2

  0

  Highland

  3

  0

  Holstein

  90

  21

  Holstein x

  2

  0

  Jersey

  40

  2

  Jersey x

  1

  0

  Jersey x Friesian

  3

  0

  Limousin

  17

  2

  Limousin x

  64

  9

  Limousin x Friesian

  37

  3

  Limousin x Hereford

  0

  1

  600

  Number of confirmed cases by breed and year of slaughter as at 5 June 1998

  Breed

  1997

  1998

  Limousin x Jersey

  1

  0

  Limousin x Luing

  1

  0

  Limousin x Simmental

  1

  0

  Longhorn

  1

  0

  Meuse Rhine Issel

  2

  0

  Meuse Rhine Issel x Guernsey

  1

  0

  Meuse Rhine Issel x Jersey

  1

  0

  Montbelliarde

  1

  0

  Murray Grey

  1

  0

  Murray Grey x Friesian

  1

  0

  Murray Grey x Jersey

  1

  0

  Not recorded

  61

  90

  Red Friesian

  8

  0

  Red Friesian x

  2

  0

  Red Poll

  2

  0

  Saler x

  1

  0

  Saler x Friesian

  1

  0

  Shetland

  1

  0

  Shorthorn

  1

  0

  Shorthorn x

  3

  0

  Shorthorn x Friesian

  2

  1

  Simmental

  19

  4

  Simmental x

  56

  9

  Simmental x Friesian

  33

  4

  Simmental x Holstein

  2

  0

  Sioux

  0

  1

  South Devon

  2

  1

  South Devon x

  0

  1

  Sussex x

  1

  0

  Sussex x Friesian

  3

  1

  Welsh Black

  2

  1

  Welsh Black x

  1

  0

  Total

  4,313

  736

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Dr. Narang has supplied his Ministry with the information his scientists had requested in order to validate his BSE testing method; and if he will make a statement. [44866]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department is not awaiting any information from Dr. Narang. Research funded by the Medical Research Council is underway at Leeds University to investigate the feasibility of diagnosing pre clinical BSE using cattle urine. Dr. Narang is collaborating in this work.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effectiveness and accuracy of the methods advocated by Dr. Narang for detecting BSE. [44894]

  Mr. Rooker
  Dr. Narang has advocated a method to detect pre clinical BSE in cattle using urine. Research is currently underway in Leeds University to investigate the feasibility of such a method. It is too early to comment on effectiveness or accuracy.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the urine test method of detecting BSE in cattle. [44890]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is too early for an assessment to be made. The research currently underway at Leeds University to investigate the feasibility of using cattle urine to diagnose pre clinical BSE is in its early stages.
  601
  An independent advisory panel set up by the Medical Research Council is overseeing the work and will be meeting in early July to consider preliminary findings.

  E. Coli
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research, by whom and at what cost, his Department has commissioned into E. coli in(a) cow's milk, (b) sheep's milk and (c) goat's milk. [45016]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: The Department has recently undertaken a survey of the microbiological quality of unpasteurised sheep and goats' drinking milk on sale in England and Wales, at a cost of £11,926. It is also in the process of carrying out a more general survey of the microbiological quality of unpasteurised sheep and goat's milk, at an expected cost of £35,700. The analyses carried out in the surveys include testing for the presence of E. coli in the milk. ADAS was commissioned by the Department to undertake both surveys.

  My Department has also commissioned a significant amount of other research on E. coli much of which will be of relevance to the presence of the organism in milk.

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on protecting areas of environmental importance from coastal erosion. [44464]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department expects coastal authorities to make the potential impact on habitats, and the environment generally, a key consideration when planning works to prevent or reduce coastal erosion. They should start from the presumption that natural river and coastal processes should not be disrupted except where life or important man-made or natural assets are at risk. Schemes which are not environmentally acceptable are not eligible for grant aid.

  Last year the Department introduced a priority scoring system (taking account of Ministerial priorities, urgency and benefit:cost ratio) with a view to optimising the allocation of available funds. Sites of environmental significance are specifically identified within Ministerial priorities, with particular priority being given to sites of international importance.

  Toxocariasis
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the incidence of toxocariasis in rural areas compared to urban areas. [44443]

  Ms Jowell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The data available on numbers of cases of human toxocariasis are based on laboratory reports received by the Public Health Laboratory Service's Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (CDSC). However, reporting of cases is not a statutory requirement and therefore not all laboratory diagnosed cases are necessarily reported to the CDSC.
  602
  From the data received by CDSC in recent years no significant change has been noted in the number of reports (1993–25; 1994–25; 1995–38; 1996–19; 1997–18).

  The location of the laboratory reporting an infection does not necessarily indicate the area of residence of the patient, or whether this is urban or rural, or the country (United Kingdom or overseas) in which infection was acquired.

HEALTH

  Chiropody
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the final version of the recent report on chiropody service levels. [44124]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand that the report referred to is entitled "On Your Feet: Older People and NHS Chiropody Services" and was published by Age Concern in March 1998. Copies are available in the Library.

  Recruitment Agencies
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of agencies which have supplied contract labour from outside the United Kingdom to the NHS in the last 10 years and the total amount paid in commission fees by the NHS to such firms in each of the last 10 years. [44500]

  Mr. Milburn
  This information is not available centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost. Each National Health Service trust is responsible for recruiting its own staff and may choose to use a recruitment agency to help it do so.

  Travel Vaccinations
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received about the possibility of privatising the provision of travel vaccinations; [44701]

  (2) what consultation he is undertaking on proposals for the future provision of travel vaccinations. [44703]

  Ms Jowell
  Inconsistencies and ambiguities have arisen over the years in the arrangements for travel vaccines and the prescribing of medicines for overseas travel and there are differences in the way that the various vaccines are dealt with. The Department, as part of an ongoing internal review, is seeking to resolve the anomalies which exist at present in the arrangements for travel vaccines. Once we have recommendations to present we will consult the relevant professional bodies.

  As a routine, Ministers and officials of the Department receive a number of letters from interested hon. Members and members of the public about the arrangements for travel vaccines and the prescribing of medicines for overseas travel. These letters express a range of views. In particular, letters have been received from the Patients' Association, the Overseas Doctors' Association, various student unions, the Primary Care Virology Group, Pasteur Merieux MSD and the Royal College of Nursing.
  603
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost to the NHS of travel vaccinations in each of the last three years. [44702]

  Ms Jowell
  It is not possible to say how much is spent in total on travel immunisation each year. The net ingredient costs for vaccines which may be given for the purposes of travel were:

  Year

  £ million

  1994

  40.5

  1995

  47.0

  1996

  149.1

  1 The vaccines are those preparations in the British National Formulary (issue 30, September 1995) section 14.6—International travel: Bacille-Calmette-Guérin, cholera, diphtheria, hepatitis A, meningococcal A&C, normal immunoglobulin, poliomyelitis, typhoid, typhoid-paratyphoid A&B and yellow fever. Some of these vaccines will have been prescribed for reasons other than travel.

  Note:

  The net ingredient cost refers to the costs of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees.

  However, these costs include some vaccines which will have been prescribed for reasons other than travel. It is not possible to identify separately the cost of vaccinating patients in general practice.

  Fatal Diseases (Overseas Travel)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will estimate how many NHS patients are currently suffering from potentially fatal diseases caught while travelling overseas; [44689]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of treating United Kingdom citizens for potentially fatal diseases caught while travelling overseas in the last year for which figures are available. [44699]

  Ms Jowell
  Estimates are not available of the cost to the National Health Service of treating United Kingdom citizens for potentially fatal diseases caught while travelling overseas. It is not possible to estimate reliably how many NHS patients are currently suffering from potentially fatal diseases actually caught while travelling overseas, since many diseases which could be caught overseas can also be caught in the UK and it is often impossible to identify where a patient contracted an illness.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's estimate of the number of United Kingdom citizens making overseas trips in 1997 to areas at risk to potentially fatal diseases. [44700]

  Ms Jowell
  The Office for National Statistics advise that, during 1997, 46.8 million United Kingdom residents made visits abroad, of which 5.4 million were to areas outside North America and Western Europe (preliminary figures).

  There is the risk of contracting a potentially fatal disease anywhere in the world.

  Ongar War Memorial Hospital
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to announce his decision on the proposed closure of the Ongar War Memorial Hospital. [44883]
  604
  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State will announce his decision when he has given full and proper consideration to the proposals once they have been put forward by North Essex Health Authority.

  Pathogen Sales
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what pathogens were sold and at what price to the American Type Culture Collection in Rockville, Maryland, by his Department's installations between(a) 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1984 and (b) 1 January 1990 and 31 December 1997. [44184]

  Ms Jowell
  The Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research (CAMR) has not sold or supplied any pathogens to the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) between 1 January 1980 and 31 December 1984, and 1 January 1990 and 31 December 1997.

  The National Collection of Type Cultures (NCTC), Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) does not have complete records for the whole period 1 January 1980 to 31 December 1984. From the records it does have relating to this period and to the period between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 1997, the NCTC has not sold or supplied to the ATCC pathogens categorised as Hazard Group 3 (pathogens such as Bacillus anthracis and Mycobacterium tuberculosis belong to this group). A wide range of biological agents which are less hazardous are categorised as Hazard Group 2 and, although information on which strains have been supplied to the ATCC can be provided, this will take considerable time to compile. I will write to the hon and learned Member with details as soon as possible.

  The National Collection of Pathogenic Fungi, PHLS, has supplied as follows:

  Date

  Strain number

  Species

  1984

  NCPF 2109

  Aspergillus fumigatus

  1984

  NCPF 2140

  Aspergillus fumigatus

  1993

  NCPF 2808

  Ramichloridium mackenziei

  These cultures of fungi were supplied in response to requests by the ATCC for strains to be added to their catalogue and as such were not charged for.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors and nurses are currently working in community hospitals. [44479]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information is not collected centrally in the format requested.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to health authorities on the closure of community hospitals. [44480]

  Mr. Milburn
  In our White Paper "The New NHS—Modern, Dependable" we set out the important role community hospitals can play in providing locally based services. Within this broad framework, health authorities are responsible for determining the appropriate balance of care for their populations.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to promote awareness and understanding of myalgic encephalomyelitis among doctors and the general public; what help is offered to people who suffer from the illness; and if he will make a statement. [44923]

  Ms Jowell
  The National Health Service provides a wide range of services to which sufferers of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)/chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) have access and such patients are seen within a wide range of community services and hospital specialties. Patients can discuss the options available to them with their general practitioner and they may also request an assessment of their needs by local authority social services departments. It is the responsibility of health authorities to decide how the needs of ME/CFS sufferers should be met and whether or not they should purchase dedicated services. All such decisions are made in the light of competing priorities.

  Raising awareness and understanding about ME/CFS is a major part of the work of the ME/CFS voluntary organisations. Since 1988, the Department has provided substantial funding to ME/CFS organisations, amounting to almost a quarter of a million pounds. Some of the ME/CFS organisations provide information packs to GPs about the condition, as well as to sufferers and their families.

  Abortion
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of abortions in the first trimester to the National Health Service in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [43490]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on the costs of specific operations is not held centrally.

  Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health following the recent review of expenditure, if he will list the reductions in funding for complementary and alternative medicine services by category and amount broken down by(a) homeopathy, (b) acupuncture and (c) therapeutic touch in the East London and The City Health Authority; and if he will make a statement. [45136]

  Ms Jowell
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested. East London and The City Health Authority ceased funding complementary medicine with effect from 1 April 1997. This represented some £120,000 in contracts with a number of National Health Service trusts and other providers.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the key business targets for the Medicines Control Agency for 1998–99. [45278]

  Ms Jowell
  We have today placed copies of the 1998–99 high level business targets of the Medicines Control Agency in the Library.

DEFENCE

  Ex-service Men
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects of counselling for ex-servicemen. [44387]

  Dr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence has not commissioned or evaluated any research into the effects of counselling for ex-Service personnel. However, my Department maintains links with numerous ex-Service organisations and charities, including the Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society (Combat Stress), which provides limited counselling facilities. We very much value the contributions which these organisations make towards the resettlement and aftercare of ex-Service personnel.

  Army Personnel
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the personnel numbers for(a) the full strength and (b) the current strength of each Army regiment. [44189]

  Dr. Reid
  I will write to the hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Royal Navy Vessels (Crew)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy vessels are below full crew complement; and by how many. [44190]

  Dr. Reid
  The major ships of the Surface Flotilla all experience a degree of gapping which, on average, amounts to 5 per cent. of the full crew complement. In the case of minor ships, this average is 4 per cent. No submarines are operating below their full crew complement.

  Nuclear Threat Assessment
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the(a) extent and (b) sources of the external nuclear threat to the United Kingdom. [45038]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We do not see any immediate nuclear threats to the United Kingdom. However, while large nuclear arsenals and risks of proliferation remain we cannot be certain that this situation could not change. Our minimum deterrent therefore remains a necessary element of our security.

  Western European Union (Training)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many joint WEU training missions the(a) Royal Navy, (b) British Army, and (c) RAF have participated in over the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [44183]

  Dr. Reid
  The exercise programme of the Western European Union (WEU) is focused on testing crisis management procedures at the headquarters level; exercises of this type organised by the WEU have involved UK personnel, including Service personnel. UK
  607
  forces train with those of other WEU nations for the types of missions which the WEU might undertake; this training is organised by nations, not by the WEU.

  Royal Navy (Fuel Quota)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if it is the practice to allocate each ship in the Royal Navy an annual quota of fuel. [44185]

  Mr. Spellar
  Fuel is allocated to the RN surface Flotilla on an annual basis. Individual HM Ships receive a monthly allocation based on their forward programme requirements.

  Soldiers (Exercises and Operations)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average annual number of days spent on(a) exercises and (b) operations by an infantry soldier in each of the last 10 years. [44186]

  Dr. Reid
  This information is not held centrally by my Department and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Iraq
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of the RAF's involvement in policing the air exclusion zones over Northern and Southern Iraq in each year since 1992; and from what budget heading the cost of the operations has been met. [44180]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The additional costs of the RAF's involvement in policing the air exclusion zones over Northern and Southern Iraq, i.e. in Op Jural and Op Warden, and the budget headings from which the costs were met are shown in the table:

  Year

  North (£ million)

  South (£ million)

  Budget

  1992–93

  3.865

  3.303

  Class 1. Vote 1.(Personnel cost, support and other services)

  0.038

  0.678

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Procurement)

  1993–94

  4.892

  2.157

  Class 1. Vote 1. (Operational and support costs)

  0.199

  0.229

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  1994–95

  5.963

  3.932

  Class 1. Vote 1. (Operational and support costs)

  0.333

  0.622

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  1995–96

  0.512

  0.457

  Class 1. Vote 1. (Operational and support costs)

  0.260

  0.728

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  1996–97

  0.639

  0.938

  Class 1. Vote 1. (Operational and support costs)

  0.105

  0.134

  Class. 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  1997–98

  0.165

  0.31

  Class 1. Vote 1. (Operational and support costs)

  0.296

  0.294

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  Note:

  Changes in the MOD Budget Structure in 1993 resulted in the renaming of Budget Headings.

  Persian Gulf
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the Royal Navy's involvement in operations in the Persian Gulf in each year since 1992; and from what budget heading the cost of the operations has been met. [44181]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The additional costs of the Royal Navy's involvement in operations in the Persian Gulf, (ie Op Granby and Op Bolton), and the budget headings from which the costs were met are shown in the table:

  Year

  Cost (£ million)

  Budget

  1992–93

  0.906

  Class 1. Vote 1. (Personnel cost, support and other services)

  10.512

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Procurement)

  1993–94

  0.770

  Class 1. Vote 1. (Operational and support costs)

  17.031

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  1994–95

  0.320

  Class 1. Vote 1. (Operational and support costs)

  14.854

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  1995–96

  0.011

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  1996–97

  0.00

  N/A

  1997–98

  4.506

  Class 1. Vote 1. (Operational and support costs)

  0.630

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  Note:

  Changes in the MOD Budget Structure in 1993 resulted in the renaming Budget Headings.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost of the RAF's involvement in operations in the Persian Gulf in each year since 1992; and from what budget heading the cost has been met. [44191]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The additional costs of the RAF's involvement in operations in the Persian Gulf, i.e. Op Granby, Op Driver and Op Bolton, and the budget headings from which the costs were met are shown in the table:

  Year

  Cost (£ million)

  Budget

  1992–93

  1.117

  Class 1. Vote 1. (Personnel cost, support and other services)

  54.700

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Procurement)

  1993–94

  2.347

  Class 1. Vote 1. (Operational and support costs)

  25.940

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  1994–95

  0.511

  Class 1. Vote 1. (Operational and support costs)

  -2.276

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  609

  Year

  Cost (£ million)

  Budget

  1995–96

  0.892

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  1996–97

  0.086

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  1997–98

  1.688

  Class 1. Vote 1. (Operational and support costs)

  0.219

  Class 1. Vote 2. (Logistics services)

  Note:

  Changes in the MOD Budget Structure in 1993 resulted in the Brazil renaming of Budget Headings. These figures exclude the costs of the No Fly Zones over Southern and Northern Iraq.

  Royal Navy (Peacekeeping)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the Royal Navy's involvement in peacekeeping operations IFOR and SFOR; and from what budget heading the cost of the operations was met for(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97. [44182]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The additional costs of the Royal Navy's involvement in IFOR and SFOR operations and the budgets from which the costs were met are as follows:

  Year

  IFOR (£ million)

  SFOR (£ million)

  Budget

  1994/95

  0.00

  0.00

  n/a

  1995/96

  0.360

  0.00

  Class 1, Vote 1. (Operational and Support Costs)

  7.321

  0.00

  Class 1, Vote 2. (Logistics Services)

  1996/97

  4.806

  1.693

  Class 1, Vote 1. (Operational and Support Costs)

  16.734

  6.497

  Class 1, Vote 2. (Logistics Services)

  1997/98

  0.00

  1.600

  Class 1, Vote 1. (Operational and Support Costs)

  0.124

  13.454

  Class 1, Vote 2. (Logistics Services).

  Overseas Personnel
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the numbers and locations of UK armed forces' personnel stationed overseas. [44187]

  Mr. George Robertson
  This information is not held centrally. However, the countries in which UK military personnel were serving on 1 April, together with the number in each country, based on those records which we do have available, are given in the table.

  Country

  Number of UK armed forces personnel

  Algeria

  12

  Angola

  1

  Antarctica

  3

  Antigua and Barbuda

  1

  Argentina

  4

  Ascension Island

  25

  Australia

  65

  610

  Country

  Number of UK armed forces personnel

  Austria

  2

  Bahrain

  86

  Baltic States

  6

  Bangladesh

  2

  Barbados

  11

  Belgium

  434

  Belize

  192

  Bermuda

  3

  Bosnia

  5,200

  Brazil

  6

  British Virgin Islands

  4

  Brunei

  1,049

  Bulgaria

  2

  Canada

  684

  Chile

  1

  China

  4

  Colombia

  3

  Croatia

  2

  Cyprus

  3,938

  Czech Republic

  3

  Denmark

  29

  Diego Garcia

  40

  Egypt

  3

  Ethiopia

  2

  Finland

  1

  France

  50

  Georgia

  1

  Germany

  21,480

  Ghana

  6

  Gibraltar

  794

  Greece

  3

  Guatemala

  2

  Guinea

  1

  Gulf Region (at sea)

  1,851

  Hungary

  2

  India

  5

  Indonesia

  4

  Iraq

  4

  Ireland

  2

  Israel

  3

  Italy

  203

  Jamaica

  2

  Japan

  3

  Jordan

  3

  Kenya

  36

  Korea (South)

  3

  Kuwait

  572

  Lebanon

  6

  Malaysia

  6

  Mauritius

  1

  Mediterranean area (at sea)

  170

  Mexico

  2

  Morocco

  1

  Nepal

  66

  Netherlands

  294

  New Zealand

  9

  Norway

  70

  Oman

  239

  Pakistan

  5

  Philippines

  1

  Poland

  880

  Portugal

  44

  Qatar

  1

  Romania

  2

  Russia

  10

  Rwanda

  7

  Saudi Arabia

  413

  Sierra Leone

  4

  Singapore

  4

  Slovakia

  1

  South Africa

  15

  South Atlantic (including Falkland Islands)

  1,907

  611

  Country

  Number of UK armed forces personnel

  Spain

  10

  Sri Lanka

  3

  Sweden

  4

  Switzerland

  2

  Syria

  2

  Thailand

  2

  Turkey

  189

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  4

  Uganda

  1

  Ukraine

  2

  United Arab Emirates

  14

  United States of America

  1,299

  Venezuela

  1

  West Africa Region (at sea)

  255

  West Indies Region (at sea)

  260

  Yugoslavia (Fed Rep)

  2

  Zimbabwe

  18

  Total

  43,074

  These figures include personnel attached to Embassies, those on exercise, those on loan or exchange postings, those training overseas personnel or undergoing long term training themselves, and those serving in NATO headquarters and our overseas garrisons. They do not include ships or aircraft on passage or undertaking temporary visits, but do cover personnel on ships engaged on operations or longer deployments overseas. Germany based personnel deployed to countries of the former Yugoslavia are shown against the latter.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Algeria
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will urge the United Nations to appoint a special rapporteur on Algeria with a mandate to co-ordinate an investigation into the massacres and other human rights abuses there. [44065]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In our regular contacts with the Algerian Government, we continue to emphasise the contribution to transparency and international confidence that would follow from co-operation with Special Rapporteurs. To date the Algerians have declined to allow rapporteurs to visit. We continue to watch developments in Algeria closely and will consider our position carefully at this year's United Nations General Assembly.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with the Algerian Government concerning the human rights situation in Algeria since 19 February. [44384]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Officials have had a number of discussions with Algerian counterparts on human rights in Algeria since February. This subject was covered when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met the Algerian Foreign Minister on 3 June.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights situation in Algeria; and what is his assessment of changes since the visit of the Minister of State on 20 January. [44383]
  612
  Mr. Fatchett
  We note that the level of violence has decreased substantially since Ramadhan, although terrorist activities do continue, particularly bombings in the capital. We understand that the Algerian Government have successfully carried out counter-insurgency operations. The authorities have arrested a number of officials on charges of human rights abuses; and over a hundred members of the Algerian police force languish in prison on similar charges. Nevertheless, we remain deeply concerned about the situation in Algeria and the allegations of continued human rights abuses there. We continuously monitor the situation, through official, NGO and media reports. Throughout our Presidency of the European Union we have maintained a broad-based political dialogue with Algeria, most recently a meeting between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Algerian Foreign Minister.

  Sudan
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he is taking to make the Sudanese government more mindful of the rights of the people of Southern Sudan. [44125]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to put pressure on the Government of Sudan to respond to the concerns of the international community about human rights violations in Sudan. The UK co-sponsored the UNHCR resolution which was passed by the 54th session of the Commission on Human Rights on 21 April 1998 and was highly critical of the Sudanese Government.

  The UK has long supported the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace process as the best chance to bring an end to the civil war in Sudan through a comprehensive negotiated settlement that respects the rights of all Sudanese.

  As Presidency we issued an EU Declaration on 1 May which voiced European concerns and called for an immediate cease-fire. At UK instigation, Sudan was discussed at the UN Security Council on 5 May, and a press statement was made by the President expressing the UN's concerns. As a next step, we have pressed for an early meeting of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development Partnership Forum. I shall represent the UK at a meeting in The Hague on 18 June.

  Chevening Scholarships
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the countries of the recipients of Chevening scholarships, (b) the names and occupations of the recipients and (c) the amounts spent on Chevening scholarships since May 1997. [44344]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 4 June 1998]: Chevening Scholarships are offered each year to scholars from more than 150 countries and territories. A list of those countries and territories is set out in the following list. In the last Financial Year more than 1,800 new Chevening Scholars arrived in the UK to begin their studies. The amount spent on the Chevening Scholarships Programme in the 1997–98 Financial Year was £32 million. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office contributed about £15.5 million of this and the Department for International Development, £12.5 million. The remaining £7 million was raised by

  613
  co-sponsors. The names and occupants of Chevening Scholars cannot be disclosed for reasons of personal privacy.

  List of countries and territories eligible for Chevening Scholarships

  Albania

  Algeria

  Angola

  Anguilla

  Antigua

  Argentina

  Armenia

  Australia

  Austria

  Azerbaijan

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belarus

  Belgium

  Belize

  Benin

  Bermuda

  Bolivia

  Bosnia

  Botswana

  Brazil

  British Virgin Islands

  Brunei

  Bulgaria

  Burkina Faso

  Burma

  Burundi

  Cambodia

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Cape Verde

  Cayman Islands

  Central African Republic

  Chad

  Chile

  China (including Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)

  Colombia

  Comoros Islands

  D.R. Congo

  Congo

  Costa Rica

  Cote d'Ivoire

  Croatia

  Cuba

  Cyprus

  Czech Republic

  Denmark

  Djibouti

  Dominica

  Dominican Republic

  East Jerusalem

  Ecuador

  614

  Egypt

  El Salvador

  Equatorial Guinea

  Eritrea

  Estonia

  Ethiopia

  Falkland Islands

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gabon

  Gambia

  Georgia

  Germany

  Ghana

  Gibraltar

  Greece

  Grenada

  Guatemala

  Guinea

  Guinea Bissau

  Guyana

  Haiti

  Honduras

  Hungary

  Iceland

  India

  Indonesia

  Iran

  Irish Republic

  Israel

  Italy

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kazakhstan

  Kenya

  Kyrgyzstan

  Kiribati

  Korea

  Kuwait

  Laos

  Latvia

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Liberia

  Lithuania

  Luxembourg

  FYR Macedonia

  Madagascar

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldive Islands

  Mali

  Malta

  Mauritania

  Mauritius

  Mexico

  615

  Micronesia and Marshall Islands

  Moldova

  Mongolia

  Montserrat

  Morocco

  Mozambique

  Namibia

  Nauru

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  Nicaragua

  Niger

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Panama

  Papua New Guinea

  Paraguay

  Peru

  Philippines

  Poland

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Romania

  Russia

  Rwanda

  Sao Tome and Principe

  Saudi Arabia

  St. Helena

  St. Kitts/Nevis

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Senegal

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  Solomon Islands

  South Africa

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  Sudan

  Surinam

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Syria

  Tadjikistan

  Taiwan

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Togo

  Tonga

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Tunisia

  616

  Turkey

  Turks and Caicos

  Turkmenistan

  Tuvalu

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  United Arab Emirates

  Uruguay

  USA

  Uzbekistan

  Vanuatu

  Venezuela

  Vietnam

  Western Samoa

  Yemen

  Yugoslavia

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe.

  People's Europe Event
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which bodies were asked to nominate individuals to serve on the Executive Committee of the People's Europe event in London of 5 to 7 June; what criteria he used in selecting these; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter and accompanying material requesting their co-operation. [44449]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Decisions about the composition of the Executive Committee for the People's Europe 98 conference were the responsibility of the organisers. At the Government's suggestion, the organisers sought to ensure that a wide range of opinion was represented on the Executive Committee. The Committee included representatives of the CBI SME Unit, the TUC, the Local Government International Bureau, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the European Movement, Chatham House, Green Alliance and the office staff.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the cost to public funds of the People's Europe event in London on 5 to 7 June; and what sums will be received from(a) Her Majesty's Government, (b) the European Commission, (c) the European Parliament, (d) other public bodies and (e) voluntary bodies. [44450]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer my hon. Friend to answers I gave on 1 April 1998,Official Report, columns 534–35.

  The European Parliament is providing 30,000 ECU, or £20,313, towards the costs of the People's Europe event.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those inquiries requested by his Department or other agencies launched without Ministers being informed since 1 May 1997. [42097]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 14 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

  617
  Sierra Leone, officials acted perfectly properly in referring allegations to Customs and Excise. It is general practice for allegations and information about potential breaches of arms embargoes or UK export controls to be reviewed in the Restricted Enforcement Unit, as that case was, without Ministers being consulted. The decision on whether it merited investigation was for HM Customs and Excise, not the FCO.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the British Government have given to English-speaking opposition parties in Cameroon. [44931]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our High Commission in Cameroon supports a wide range of projects to promote good governance and human rights. These are to help all people in Cameroon, regardless of political affiliations or ethnic origin. In addition, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) has provided support for the Social Democratic Front (SDF) and Union des Populations Camerounaises (UPC), both opposition parties in Cameroon.

  Our priority is to promote a genuine multiparty democracy in Cameroon.

  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards proposals for minority rights recognition for the English speaking minority in Cameroon at the Human Rights Convention in Geneva. [44934]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We expect Cameroon to adhere to the Harare Declaration of Principles which include a commitment to equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief. Cameroon is also a party to the UN International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination. We welcome any discussion which raises awareness of minority rights issues, including at the UN Minority Rights Working Group in Geneva.

  Yemen
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Government of Yemen in respect of the kidnapping of three BBC journalists; and what action he proposes to take to secure their release; [44995]

  (2) what representations he has received on the kidnapping of three BBC journalists in Yemen; and if he will make a statement. [44994]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There has been no kidnapping of BBC journalists in Yemen.

  Three BBC journalists were detained by the Yemeni authorities on 26 May and released on bail on 28 May. They were subsequently charged with filming in an area without permission. The case was heard in Court on 6 and 7 June and the journalists were found not guilty. When delivering his verdict the Judge observed that Yemen
  618
  believed in the freedom of the press, and that the press was a necessity in this age. Her Majesty's Government greatly welcome this satisfactory outcome.

  We understand that the journalists have now returned to the UK.

  James Miles and Paul Loseby
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the cases of James Miles and Paul Loseby, imprisoned in Venezuela. [44996]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friend to my remarks in the Adjournment debate of 9 July 1997,Official Report, columns 1044–52 and to my answer to his question of 18 February 1998, Official Report, column 679. On 18 July, Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby were informed that they had been sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. On appeal, this was increased to 5 years. The result of the appeal was made known to them on 5 February 1998.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests have been made by James Miles and Paul Loseby to the British Embassy in Caracas for dental treatment; what assessment the Embassy has made of the requests; and what steps are in place to ensure that their medical and dental requirements are met. [44997]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby have made several requests to see a doctor and a dentist. Such requests are always taken seriously and given high priority by the British Embassy in submitting them to the Venezuelan authorities. The British Ambassador has written on 5 occasions to the judges involved in the case requesting appropriate medical attention: on 27 November 1996, 10 April 1997, 10 July 1997, on 27 January 1998 and on 17 March 1998. On 14 April the judges informed the Ambassador that instructions had been issued for Mr. Miles and Mr. Loseby to be seen by a doctor and a dentist.

  Mr. Loseby was seen by a doctor on 3 April 1998. Both men were seen by a doctor on 23 April 1998. The Embassy continues to press the Venezuelan authorities to arrange for both men to be seen by a dentist.

  Tehran Embassy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total forecast cost is of the present refurbishment of the British Embassy in Tehran; and if he will list the works being undertaken and their specifications. [44960]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The total forecast cost of the refurbishment of the British Embassy in Tehran is £995,000. This figure includes the estimated cost of works, fees, furnishings and travel costs.

  The Embassy offices in Tehran are in a 4 storey building built in the 1960s. Essential services, finishes and fittings are in a poor condition and need to be upgraded to a modern and secure standard.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Government Information and Communication Service
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action has been taken following the publication of the report of the Working Group on the Government Information Service. [43507]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Progress Report of the Head of the Government Information and Communication Service shows that the majority of recommendations have been implemented. The Report will be issued to the Select Committee on Public Administration and placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received regarding the Government Information Service. [43518]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  As the hon. Member will be aware, there is an inquiry into the GICS by the Public Administration Committee. In addition, I have been asked a number of questions by Members of this House.

  Better Government White Paper
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the publication of the Better Government White Paper. [43513]

  Dr. David Clark
  Work is progressing to publish the Better Government White Paper later this year. This White Paper will outline the measures the Government have in mind to modernise the business of the public services and ensure the delivery of better services to our citizens.

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the impact on local democracy of the Better Government project. [43516]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Better Government programme is about revitalising the public sector. Local government is a key partner. Improving public services will be an important contribution to renewing the democratic relationship between the public and all levels of government. Alongside the important developments in local government democracy being taken forward by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the Better Government programme will contribute to making local government more open and responsive to the needs of users.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress towards freedom of information legislation. [43515]

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress he has made towards publishing draft freedom of information legislation. [43519]

  Dr. David Clark
  We are making good progress in turning the policy proposals set out in the White Paper Your Right to Know into draft legislation. I greatly welcome the support of the Select Committee on Public Administration in their recent substantial report on our
  620
  proposals. My colleagues and I are now considering carefully the detailed recommendations that the Committee has made. When we have done so I intend to publish the draft bill, again for consultation, as soon as possible.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his public consultations on measures to make his Department more open. [43521]

  Dr. David Clark
  My Department like all government departments will be subject to our proposals for a Freedom of Information Act. As regards the result of consultations on those proposals, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on 1 April 1998,Official Report, columns 587–89.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his recent consultations on his proposed freedom of information legislation. [43522]

  Dr. David Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on 1 April 1998,Official Report, columns 587–89.

  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many responses he has received to his Freedom of Information White Paper. [43510]

  Dr. David Clark
  I received 557 responses to the consultation exercise on the Freedom of Information White Paper,Your Right to Know.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent representations he has received on his proposals for open government. [43517]

  Dr. David Clark
  I recently received the Report of the Select Committee on Public Administration on the Government's White Paper,Your Right to Know, which described the proposals as "a radical advance in open and accountable government".

  Clergymen
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his powers to appoint clergymen to livings; and on how many occasions he has exercised such powers since 1 May. [43524]

  Dr. David Clark
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible for appointing incumbents to 42 church livings on behalf of her Majesty the Queen in Right of Her Duchy of Lancaster. Since 1 May 1997 I have approved the appointment of one clergyman and one woman priest to two of these livings which had become vacant.

  Civil Service (UK Nationals)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many posts are classified as restricted to United Kingdom nationals only in the Civil Service, by department. [45114]
  621
  Dr. David Clark
  A full survey of the number of 'Public Service' posts (i.e. posts which, under the terms of the EC Treaty, member states may reserve for their

  Department

  Number of public service posts

  Public service posts as % of total

  Number of non public service posts

  Non public service posts as % of total

  Total number of posts

  Agriculture

  1,536

  14

  9,063

  86

  10,599

  Customs and Excise

  18,704

  72

  7,305

  28

  26,009

  Cabinet Office

  774

  35

  1,446

  65

  2,220

  Charity Commission

  0

  0

  714

  100

  714

  Central Office of Information

  0

  0

  515

  100

  515

  CPS

  36

  1

  6,399

  99

  6,435

  Crown Office

  52

  5

  1,001

  95

  1,053

  Defence1

  46,075

  40

  69,381

  60

  115,457

  Education

  74

  3

  2,249

  97

  2,323

  Employment Department

  637

  1

  58,472

  99

  59,109

  Environment

  243

  9

  2,513

  91

  2,756

  FCO

  6,581

  100

  0

  0

  6,581

  Government Actuary's Department

  10

  13

  67

  87

  77

  Health

  42

  1

  4,633

  99

  4,675

  HMSO

  8

  1

  2,041

  99

  2,049

  Home Office

  728

  2

  47,772

  98

  48,500

  Inland Revenue2

  51,015

  70

  21,721

  30

  72,736

  Intervention Board

  20

  2

  1,020

  98

  1,040

  Land Registry

  2

  1

  8,535

  99

  8,537

  Legal Secretariat Law Officer

  21

  75

  7

  25

  28

  Lord Advocates Department

  20

  91

  2

  9

  22

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  1,091

  9

  11,346

  91

  12,437

  National Heritage

  309

  28

  793

  72

  1,102

  National Investment and Loans Office

  0

  0

  39

  100

  39

  National Savings

  31

  1

  5,569

  99

  5,600

  Northern Ireland Office

  185

  83

  39

  17

  224

  ODA

  227

  20

  882

  80

  1,109

  Office of Fair Trading

  47

  11

  371

  89

  418

  Ofsted

  10

  2

  577

  98

  587

  Office of Water Services

  0

  0

  156

  100

  156

  OPCS

  0

  0

  1,879

  100

  1,879

  Ordnance Survey

  11

  1

  2,053

  99

  2,064

  Paymaster Generals Office

  0

  0

  730

  100

  730

  Privy Council Office

  22

  67

  11

  33

  33

  Public Records Office

  11

  2

  455

  98

  466

  PSA

  0

  0

  458

  100

  458

  Royal Mint

  6

  1

  988

  99

  994

  Scottish Courts Administration

  14

  1

  1,001

  99

  1,015

  Scottish Office

  510

  8

  5,714

  92

  6,224

  Scottish Prison Service

  8

  1

  4,642

  99

  4,650

  Social Security

  189

  1

  84,070

  99

  84,259

  Trade and Industry

  1,793

  18

  8,319

  82

  10,112

  Transport

  336

  2

  15,269

  98

  15,605

  Treasury2

  121

  12

  931

  88

  1,052

  Treasury Solicitor

  45

  9

  458

  91

  503

  Welsh Office

  522

  23

  1,768

  77

  2,290

  Total

  132,066

  25

  392,574

  75

  524,640

  1 1996 figures

  2 1997 figures

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how many posts he estimates will become restricted to United Kingdom nationals only in the Civil Service, due to retirement over the next five years, by department; [45112]

  (2) how many posts have become restricted to United Kingdom nationals only since the 1996 Civil Service rule change, due to retirement, by department. [45113]

  Dr. David Clark
  'Public Service' posts (i.e. posts which, under the terms of the EC Treaty, member states may reserve for their own nationals) are defined by the
  622
  own nationals) was last undertaken in 1994. The findings of that survey, adjusted to include more up to date information from the Ministry of Defence, are as follows:

  nature of the work undertaken in them. For this reason their number is not directly affected by changes of personnel.

  Prior to the last change to the civil service nationality rules in 1996, these posts were also open to citizens of the Republic of Ireland and of Commonwealth countries. Post holders from those countries at the date of change were granted reserved rights to continue to work in such posts for the duration of their careers. No central records are available either of the number of 'public service' posts which at the time of the change in the rules were filled by non-UK nationals or of the number of 'public service' posts which are still filled by non-UK nationals.

  Marsham Street
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when the former Department of the Environment building in Marsham Street will be demolished. [44945]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to Property Advisers to the Civil Estate. I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. John Locke, to write to the hon. member.

  Letter from John C. Locke to Mr. Edward Leigh, dated 10 June 1998

  Demolition of 2 Marsham Street

  You tabled a written Parliamentary Question to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asking when the former Department of Environment building in Marsham Street will be demolished. The care and maintenance of 2 Marsham Street is now the responsibility of the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate (PACE) and as Chief Executive I have been asked to reply to your question.

  The Department of Environment and Transport vacated the building at the end of April 1998 and Government's intention was to let a contract for its demolition this summer with the work expected to take some 18 months to complete.

  Demolition is however conditional on any overriding Government need for temporary decant accommodation. If such a need materialised then reuse would prove to be a better value for money solution to the Exchequer than immediate demolition.

  Two government departments are planning to refurbish their HQ accommodation and are currently considering proposals which might lead to the temporary use of Marsham Street. Temporary reoccupation will have the effect of deferring demolition until Autumn 2002 at the earliest.

  Crown Copyright
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he has evaluated the responses to his consultation on "Crown Copyright in the Information Age"; and if he will make a statement. [43520]

  Dr. David Clark
  The responses have been evaluated. As I mentioned in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), on 20 May 1998,Official Report, column 374, plans are being formulated for the future administration of Crown copyright which take the responses into account. I shall inform the House in due course of the way forward.

  GCSE average point score of 15 year old pupils by institution and gender 1997

  Maintained schools1

  All schools

  Average GCSE point score

  Number of pupils

  Average GCSE point score

  Number of pupils

  Male

  32.5

  273,136

  33.5

  299,509

  Female

  37.3

  264,526

  38.3

  287,257

  All 15 year old pupils

  34.9

  537,662

  35.8

  586,766

  1 Including special schools

  E-mail
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many Ministers have published their e-mail addresses; and how many are now equipped with electronic red boxes. [43523]

  Dr. David Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), on 10 November 1997,Official Report, column 441, regarding Ministers' e-mail addresses.

  The electronic red box is still at the prototype stage of development. During this early stage, only the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry and I are experimenting with these prototypes.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each of the pilot areas for the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds, how many of those eligible failed to join any of the four available categories. [43369]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Statistical information on the progress of those joining the New Deal in the Pathfinder areas to 31 March is available in the Library. The bulk of those commencing the New Deal during the period were still in the New Deal Gateway, the period of up to 4 months help before New Deal participants start on New Deal options.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received from individual teachers regarding the staging of their pay award. [44373]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department has received 89 letters from members of the general public about staging the pay award.

  GCSE/GNVQ Scores
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the national average GCSE point score of(a) male, (b) female and (c) all 15 year old pupils (i) in total and (ii) in maintained schools including special schools in 1997; and if he will indicate the numbers of pupils in each category. [44952]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: The information requested in respect of national average GCSE point scores is shown in the table.
  625
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the average GCSE/GNVQ point scores in 1997 of(a) male, (b) female and (c) all 15 year old pupils in maintained schools including special schools with 15 year old pupils assigning GNVQ grades points on the basis that at intermediate level a distinction equals 7.5 points, a merit equals 6 points and a pass equals 5 points, and at foundation level a distinction equals 4 points, a merit equals 3 points, and a pass equals 1.5 points. [44954]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: The information requested in respect of average GCSE/GNVQ point scores in maintained schools is:

  Average GCSE/GNVQ point score

  Male

  32.5

  Female

  37.4

  All 15 year old pupils

  34.9

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the national average GCSE/GNVQ point score of(a) male, (b) female and (c) all 15 year old pupils in 1997, assigning GNVQ grades points on the basis that at intermediate level a distinction equals 7.5 points, a merit equals 6 points, and a pass equals 5 points, and at foundation level a distinction equals 4 points, a merit equals 3 points, and a pass equals 1.5 points. [44953]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]: The information requested in respect of national average GCSE/GNVQ point scores in all schools is:

  Average GCSE/GNVQ point score

  Male

  33.5

  Female

  38.4

  All 15 year old pupils

  35.9

  Music Funding
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the local education authorities which have reduced funding for music in schools in 1998–99. [44481]

  Mr. Byers
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on future funding of music in schools. [44486]

  Mr. Byers
  Music teaching which forms part of the National Curriculum will continue, as now, to be funded through schools' delegated budget shares. So far as instrumental music tuition is concerned, the Government's recently published consultation paper 'Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools' set out a proposal to fund LEA provision for such tuition through the Standards Fund. A decision on this will be announced at the same time as decisions on the new Devolved Funding system.

  School Closures
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools have been notified to his Department as being subject to proposals for closure since 1 May 1997; and if he will indicate their size. [44490]

  Mr. Byers
  Statutory proposals for the closure of 167 mainstream schools have been published since 1 May 1997. This figure includes 17 nursery schools. Of the closure proposals, 101 involved the amalgamation of schools to form new schools. The numbers of pupils on the rolls of the schools proposed for closure ranged from 1 to 980.

  Village Schools
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department has issued to local education authorities on the future of rural village schools. [44485]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) on 26 February 1998,Official Report, column 364.

  Our announcement of 28 February 1998, made it clear that all proposals to close rural schools would be called in for decision by the Secretary of State and that there would be a presumption against the approval of proposals to close such schools.

  Primary Schools
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many primary schools with fewer than 40 pupils there are in(a) England and (b) Norfolk. [44644]

  Mr. Byers
  As at January 1997, there were 364 maintained primary schools with less than 40 full-time pupils in England. The equivalent figure for Norfolk Local Education Authority area was 34 schools.

  School Exclusions (West Chelmsford)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children at(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the West Chelmsford constituency were excluded from school in each of the past five years. [44415]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on the number of pupils permanently excluded from schools in the West Chelmsford constituency is shown in the table. Information on permanent exclusions was not collected prior to 1994–95. The Department does not currently collect information on fixed period exclusions:

  Permanent exclusions from maintained schools in the West Chelmsford constituency

  Type of school

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Primary

  2

  3

  Secondary

  4

  8

  Special

  0

  0

  Total

  6

  11

  Exclusions data for 1996–97 are currently being collated and will be published later this year.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the future position of grant-maintained schools. [44922]

  Mr. Byers
  Subject to the School Standards and Framework Bill gaining Royal Assent, a new framework for the organisation of schools will be established on 1 September 1999. All existing types of school, including grant-maintained (GM) schools, will be replaced by five new categories: community, foundation, voluntary, community special and foundation special. Schools will be allocated to the category which most closely reflects their current characteristics. However, GM schools will be able to choose an alternative category at the outset if they wish. Under the new framework, GM schools will be able to retain many of their present characteristics, for 628
  example in terms of employment of staff and ownership of premises. But all categories of school will operate within a framework based on fair funding, fair admissions and partnership between schools and LEAs.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on arrangements for the transfer of children on the assisted places scheme to another school(a) on compassionate grounds, (b) where there is a financial saving and (c) where there is an educational need. [44491]

  Mr. Byers
  The Education (Schools) Act 1997 allows the transfer of an assisted place between schools only where a school closes, merges with another school, or notifies the Secretary of State that it no longer wishes to participate in the scheme. Transfer is not legally permitted in any other circumstances.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before today's business begins, I should like to take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be hosting a luncheon on behalf of Her Majesty's Government for the President of South Africa on Monday, 15th June. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Falkland Islands: Oil and Gas Exploration
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their responsibility for the Falkland Islands includes devising systems to license exploration for oil and gas in the Falklands' exclusive economic zone and to license production, should commercial quantities be discovered, or introducing an associated tax regime.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Falkland Islands Government are responsible for granting licences for exploration and production of oil and gas in Falklands' waters, and also for the introduction of a suitable tax regime. However, they were assisted during the drafting of the relevant legislation by the DTI, the Inland Revenue and the Health and Safety Executive.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. As exploration drilling has just started in the Falklands' designated sea-bed zone, has it yet been decided, if oil and gas are discovered, how any tax revenue will be divided between the Falklands Government and the British Treasury?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, although it is clear that any such revenue would accrue to the Falklands Government, revenue sharing was discussed with the islands' council during the recent visit of my honourable friend Tony Lloyd to the Falkland Islands in April. Both sides agreed to take forward discussions on arrangements for the sharing of potential revenues.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government will make sure that the Falkland Islands
998
Government receive all possible assistance to ensure that environmental considerations receive a very high priority?
Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords; part of the advice received from British departments covers precisely those points.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what the Government's reaction is to a recent statement by the Argentinean Government that they would charge a 3 per cent. revenue tax on any oil and gas found in the Falkland Islands?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are aware of that proposition and there is some draft legislation before the Argentinian congress. We do not believe that the Argentinian Government have the right to charge such revenues. Therefore, we hope that they will not proceed with such legislation. If they do, we would not regard it as acceptable.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether this particular agreement concerning the Falkland Islands bears any relation to the deep sea mining agreements of some years ago when the USA was the only major power which would not sign them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I would need greater technical advice to know whether this related to the deep sea mining operations. However, I do know that the geology of the Falkland Islands area is very similar in many ways to that of the North Sea. Therefore, much of the expertise which was gathered by British companies and British Government agencies during the North Sea exploration is being made available to the Falkland Islands Government.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, as far as concerns the special co-operation area, which is administered jointly by the British and Argentinian Governments, can the Minister tell the House whether the discussions which are being pursued have got as far as deciding what the tax revenue will be in that respect?
Lord Whitty: No, my Lords; not conclusively. The special co-operation area lies, I believe, to the south-west of the Falkland Islands and the co-operation between Britain and Argentina in that area sends a strong signal to the oil industry that we can co-operate. However, the technical details of both the tax and licensing regime have yet to be finalised. Indeed, discussions are still going on.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, while the Government can give very wise advice about the tax regime and its structuring, can the Minister tell the House what provisions will be made to pay for our military presence on the islands out of the revenue, if it materialises?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have already referred to the possibility of sharing revenue. However, that is not in any sense directly related to our continuing military

999
presence. Whatever the revenue from oil exploration—and we must recognise that actual production of commercially usable oil is many years away—Her Majesty's Government retain a commitment as regards the defence of the Falkland Islands.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what is the limit of the sovereignty of sea territoriality claimed by the Falklands?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the territorial waters, there is a 200-mile limit around the Falkland Islands, subject to the joint co-operation area to the south of the islands which is run by agreement between Britain and Argentina.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the assurances that he has just given the House are most welcome? Can the noble Lord give us a further assurance that the brief from which his answers have come has been copied to other Ministers in the Foreign Office and been read by them?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I regret the way in which we have a cheap intervention from the Opposition Front Bench, which will not be appreciated by the Falkland Islanders. However, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that all Ministers who have responsibility for the Falkland Islands are aware of everything that I have told noble Lords today. That will continue to be the case.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that he is replying to this Question because his noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean is in North America? If that is so, will my noble friend assure her on her return that absolutely no one who knows her or anything about her work could ever accuse her of misleading the House?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I warmly endorse the sentiment expressed by my noble friend. No Minister in this House in my time has shown greater diligence and respect for the requirements of this Chamber than my noble friend Lady Symons.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, has the designated area now been accepted internationally? In the area of special co-operation, agreed with Argentina, has the system of drilling licence applications yet been agreed with Argentina?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as regards the noble Lord's second point, these are subject to continuing technical discussions. However, as regards the joint co-operation area, there is a willingness on the part of both Governments to state their sovereignty claims, to put them to one side and to co-operate in that area. The Falklands' territorial claim stems from the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Argentina has not accepted that claim. However, the British Government continue to assert it.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that everything he has said about the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, may well be true, but some serious accusations have been made which reflect both on her and on this House? Will he comment on whether or not she will be able to come to this House as soon as possible to make a Statement to clarify the situation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am advised by my noble friends that those comments have little to do with the Question. However, the House should know that my noble friend has been in North America and is in North America today. She will obviously have seen the headlines and I am sure she will consider carefully what has been said. On her return she will, as always, take the appropriate action to respect the views and requirements of this House.

Health of the Nation: Government Policy
2.44 p.m.
Lord Rowallan Lord Rowallan asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why, and at what cost, the Department of Health has dropped its logo which states "improving the health of the nation" from its stationery and whether that statement remains the policy of the Government.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is concerned more with reckless expenditure by the Department of Health or a basic change of philosophy. I hope that I can reassure him on both points. The stationery on which the previous government's logo was printed is being phased out. However, I am delighted to show your Lordships' House an envelope which I picked out of my letter rack today which still has the old logo. Replacement is taking time and no additional costs have been incurred. I reassure the noble Lord that the Government certainly have ambitious policies to improve the overall health of the whole population which go well beyond those reflected in the previous government's slogan. To retain the stationery logo over a long period would be as inappropriate as to use one which states,
"Improving the NHS internal market".
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am delighted to hear that she still considers it is necessary to improve the health of the nation. That is definitely marked on the envelope I have in front of me. However, that is rather peculiar when one considers that one of the main planks on which this Government were elected was national health. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government are doing everything possible to reduce waiting lists, which have now increased by 100,000 when the Government said they would cut waiting lists by 100,000? Will she take

1001
this opportunity to advise us of the average waiting time for treatment which is important? Has that increased or decreased?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord's questions are rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. The answer to his first question is yes. The answer to the second is, "It varies".
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what logo will the new stationery have, if any?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as regards stationery that is used by Ministers, letter paper will contain the relevant Minister's name. That is convenient and usual. I do not think even those most concerned about public expenditure would have expected the incoming Government to have tippexed out, for example, Mr. Dorrell's name to replace it with Mr. Dobson's name. The envelopes will be plain.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister has not made clear whether the policy remains to improve the nation's health. It has been said that the old logo has been removed from the stationery as it equated to the internal market. However, there is no parallel whatsoever between the internal market and improving the nation's health.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, the Minister must agree that through the internal market we discovered which procedures were unnecessarily expensive or badly carried out. That was a valuable form of clinical audit which—as we have discussed at Question Time in the past few days—is to be replaced next year.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I hope I made it clear in my response to the Question that improving the overall health of the nation is the Government's continuing policy. The slogan has been replaced by the title of the new public health document, Our Healthier Nation. I reassure the Opposition Front Bench that this decision was taken collectively by all the health Ministers.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, was not this slogan dropped out of deference to the record of the previous government, who far from improving the health of the nation increased wide-ranging inequalities?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my noble friend has given me the opportunity to expand my original Answer. The public health document of this Government, Our Healthier Nation, devotes much attention to reducing inequalities of health. That is an important subject.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Government's policy of improving the health of the nation not rather stultified by the Chancellor's policy of conserving the wealth of the nation?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, if the noble Lord looked at the increases in public expenditure directed towards the Health Service in the two Budgets of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could not possibly ask that question.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, does the Minister realise that this question arose because she sent me a letter on the back of which the words, "Improving the Health of the Nation", were scored out. I asked the department why it had scored the words out. I was told simply: "It is no longer government policy".
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I should need to know the source of that scoring out. I think that it is at about the same level as the tippexing out of the Secretary of State's name to which I referred in answering a previous question from the other side.
Lord Acton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware how delightful it is to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in his place in such obviously good health?

Local Government: Public Participation
2.50 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they welcome the steps that local authorities are taking to encourage greater participation by the public in local government.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government very much welcome the creative and innovative steps taken by many local authorities, including that led by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, to increase public participation in local government. As set out in a recent consultation paper on local democracy and community leadership, the Government want every local authority to be closely in touch with the needs and aspirations of those they serve.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the range of activities undertaken by local authorities last week as part of Local Government Democracy Week? Does she agree that public participation schemes may do much to improve the level of turn-out at local elections?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are aware of the very wide range of opportunities being taken by local authorities across the country. The week has been immensely successful. We wish publicly to congratulate the Local Government Association for what it has done to underpin the work of individual member authorities.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that often it is common sense which dictates people's attitude to the way in which local government performs?

1003
If the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, would allow me 10 minutes of his time, I could give him any number of examples of how the population of Brighton is very discontented with its current Labour rulers.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it would not be reasonable for me to answer for my noble friend as to the amount of time he has available for discussion of the matter. Suffice it to say from my own contact with local government and my experience as a councillor, it is impossible to please all of the people all of the time, as the previous Conservative Government found.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I welcome the innovative and exciting steps taken by many local authorities which, I agree, have not required any change to the legislative structure. However, do the Government accept the recent findings of a Local Government Association survey which indicated that 36 per cent. of people do not believe that voting in local elections makes any difference to the levels of local taxation or services? Do they further accept that the only way to encourage greater participation in local government is to return real power and financial freedom to our town halls?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is precisely because of the Government's concern about the pattern of treatment of local government they inherited—matters had reached an all-time low ebb—that they initiated wide-ranging consultations on the role of local government and the powers necessary to local government to enable it to meet the wishes of the people it represents.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, how do the Government view the introduction of an executive mayor and cabinet-style government in Hammersmith and Fulham? When considering the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, they appeared to accept that legislative changes were needed before such a system could be introduced.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government welcome the developments in Hammersmith and Fulham. We welcome the fact that many local authorities are developing innovative management structures and seeking to change the way they work without legislation. However, legislation is necessary. Hammersmith and Fulham is going as far as it believes it can within the current legislative framework to adopt a modern decision-making structure and policy. It is essential that the opportunity is provided as soon as possible to broaden the scope of those decisions.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that it is still part of government policy to encourage democratic participation through the development of regional assemblies?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I assume that the right reverend Prelate refers to the issue of assemblies in the English regions. It is government policy to move initially through regional development agencies and then towards directly elected regional assemblies as it is demonstrated that the people in those regions desire them.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of her welcome for the new pay structure for the leader of Hammersmith council, is the Minister saying that she would like to see all authorities move towards a situation in which there is a well-paid elected executive instead of the system that has existed for so long?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, to my knowledge it has been recognised since 1991 at government level that different models may be more appropriate for different authorities depending on the circumstances of those elected. A pattern which allowed a split in terms of an executive role, with a smaller number of full-time councillors, would permit the election of other people with fewer demands on their time during the day. They would be able to represent their communities in a different way. That could be a very good model for encouraging more women to become active in local government.
Earl Russell: My Lords, further to the question put by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, does the Minister agree that, pending the abolition of capping, central government limits leave local authorities no more control over their spending than Conservative spending limits leave this Government over their spending?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is because of the concerns we have that we have undertaken consultation on good financial management and arrangements between central and local government. I shall not trespass on national Treasury questions in the context in which the noble Lord invites me.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the trend over 50 years of diminishing electoral interest in local government is almost precisely reciprocated by a trend in the opposite direction of increasing moneys coming from central government so that there is less and less of a direct relationship between a local councillor and the taxes he raises? Does she agree that that is a deep, indeed fundamental, problem? I am aware that the Government are examining the question of capping in a marginal way. However, is there any strategic ambition to do anything about that fundamental problem?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I congratulate and compliment the noble Lord. I am aware of the many hours, indeed years, of his time that he has personally devoted to local government. It is precisely because of those concerns that the consultation

1005
on the future financing of local government is taking place. An evaluation will be made by the Government at the end of the consultation process.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the noble Baroness reconcile the answers given so far about power being in the hands of local government and the creation of organisational committees and an adjudicator as set out in the School Standards and Framework Bill?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Yes, my Lords. As the noble Baroness is aware, the heresy—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Inheritance, my Lords. The inheritance and legacy of the present Government from the government of the noble Baroness was a fragmentation of the education service. The purpose of the proposals for the new committees is to bring together at local level all partners in providing education for children in that locality. My experience in Lancashire leads me to believe that the local partners will wish to work well together in the way suggested in the government proposals.

Feature Films: Lottery Funding
3 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland The Viscount of Falkland asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are concerned about the performance at the box office of feature films which have received lottery funding towards part of their production costs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am aware that there has been criticism of lottery film funding on the basis of box office performance, but I take the opposite, more positive view. Films which do well at the box office return money to the National Lottery, which can be re-used; films which have been less successful at the box office still extend the range of what is on offer to the public. In addition, films which have not attracted many UK cinemagoers may yet reach larger audiences through international sales and video and television exploitation.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I agree with most of what he said. Does he agree that the present programme of funding of film through the lottery is a complicated and long-term business, although the funding is obviously very welcome to the industry? It is probably inappropriate at this stage to comment on the success or failure of individual films. However, as the noble Lord said, there has been some critical comment in the press. Will he therefore reiterate the long-term aims of the Government in supporting the film industry and tell us how the Government would monitor that over that long period?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I could make a long and positive speech in response to that question. The noble Viscount is right that we have yet to see, after less than two years, the full fruits of the lottery funding. But the thrust of our policy, through the film policy review, as the noble Viscount knows, is not so much support for production as support for distribution, which is the weak link in so much of the British film industry.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is part of the duty of government to supply finance for any area of the arts which is unable to sustain itself by box office alone?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the film industry is a curious industry, in the sense that it has enormous economic and commercial importance, as well as very considerable cultural importance. To that extent, my noble friend is right. It is right that, for both commercial and cultural reasons, we should continue to find ways to help the British film industry. These need not necessarily be directly through government funding.
Lord Puttnam: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that, implicit in the noble Viscount's Question, and in my noble friend's Answer, is the extraordinary chaos and confusion which exist over the collection and analysis of statistics related not just to the film industry but to many other related areas, and the equal chaos and confusion caused by ill-informed press speculation on matters which the press truly does not understand? Can the Government reassure me that a much better statistical base will be created for these industries so that the press can be dealt with effectively and policy can be created in an intelligent manner?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right, to the extent that the press comment about the success of lottery-funded films has been about the UK box office receipts. As has been clear from the previous questions and answers, they are only a very small part of the total receipts. There are also international sales and video and television exploitation. In many cases, receipts from those areas greatly outweigh the UK box office receipts, which are all that are available to us for the moment. In due course, because of the agreements which have been reached between the film producers who have received lottery funding and the Arts Council for England, we shall know more about the total receipts because returns will be made to the lottery funds. In that way, we shall achieve the objective to which my noble friend rightly draws attention.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind the lack of diversity of films available to the general public in the United Kingdom, the films available being predominantly American blockbusters, can my noble friend tell the House what action the Government are considering to introduce more diversity in the distribution and availability of films for the British public?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again, my noble friend is right, in the sense that a good deal of film production and a very high proportion of film exhibition in this country is in other than British hands. Even though there are more screens than previously, and box office receipts in this country have increased and our film industry is going through a very successful phase, it is still true that a large number of British films fail to find a distributor. That is why, as I indicated earlier, the film policy review is working urgently on the distribution side, to help with the production of copies of films and with advertising and marketing, which appear to us to be the greatest areas of weakness.

Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (132) as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 2, page 1, leave out from the beginning of line 21 to the end of line 10 on page 2 and insert—
("(2) In this Act "contract for the supply of goods or services" means—

(a) a contract of sale of goods; or

(b) a contract (other than a contract of sale of goods) by which a person does any, or any combination, of the things mentioned in subsection (3) for a consideration that is (or includes) a money consideration.

(3) Those things are—

(a) transferring or agreeing to transfer to another the property in goods;

(b) bailing or agreeing to bail goods to another by way of hire or, in Scotland, hiring or agreeing to hire goods to another; and

(c) agreeing to carry out a service.

(4) For the avoidance of doubt a contract of service or apprenticeship is not a contract for the supply of goods or services.
(5) The following are excepted contracts—

(a) a consumer credit agreement;

(b) a contract intended to operate by way of mortgage, pledge, charge or other security; and

(c) a contract of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(6) An order under subsection (5)(c) may specify a description of contract by reference to any feature of the contract (including the parties).
(7) In this section—
"business" includes a profession and the activities of any government department or local or public authority;
"consumer credit agreement" has the same meaning as in the Consumer Credit Act 1974;
"contract of sale of goods" and "goods" have the same meaning as in the Sale of Goods Act 1979;
"property in goods" means the general property in them and not merely a special property.")
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 6 and 7. Amendment No. 1 to Clause 2 is technical and the other amendments in the group are consequential. The changes ensure that contracts which are part service provision and part supply of goods are covered. We had been relying on the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 for our definition of
"contract for the transfer of goods"
and
"contract for the hire of goods".
However, we were advised that the 1982 Act did not foresee the possibility that a contract might be for supply of a good or goods, in the singular or plural, and the provision of a service. The amendment makes clear that such contracts will be covered by the legislation.
We also took the opportunity, in redrafting the clause, to make clear that contracts where the consideration is part money and part something else are covered. It will, of course, be only the money element of the consideration that will bear the interest. This idea is already in the Bill, expressed at Clause 2(3)(a). I think, however, that it is important that the Bill be as transparent as we can make it.
Amendment No. 7, in light of the amendments made to Clause 2, revises Clause 16, which provides definitions of terms used in the Bill. The definitions are now more free-standing and less dependent on other Acts, which makes for clarity.
Amendment No. 3 to Clause 4 and Amendment No. 6 to Clause 11 reflect the fact that the term,
"a contract for the hire of goods",
is no longer defined in the Bill.
Although the amendments are somewhat lengthy, their effect is technical and they help to clarify the extent of the Bill. I hope the House will agree the amendments.
Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
The Earl of Home: My Lords, I am not surprised to see that some fairly major changes were made to the Bill during its passage through another place. Despite quite lengthy and good discussion in your Lordships' House, the Bill was perhaps not a perfect document when it left us. I fear that it is still not a perfect document. We had hoped, for instance, that the Government would listen to the points, which were not at all party political. However, that was not to be. I am

1009
pleased that they have obviously listened to some of the practitioners, as far as Amendment No. 1 and the consequential amendments are concerned.
We on these Benches agree that Clause 2 now provides further clarification and covers more eventualities. One would perhaps have hoped that, with all the drafting skills at their beck and call, Ministers might have come up with something akin to this clause in the first place. I know that it is hard to legislate for every eventuality. My colleagues in another place described in Committee other situations which might occur. From the Hansard report of that debate, I do not believe they received proper answers. I therefore feel that the Bill may still not be quite as complete as it might be.
I come from north of the Border and draw some personal comfort from the amendment to Clause 2. It indicates that the Government now recognise that Scotland actually exists. Perhaps it has something to do with a rather important fixture that Scotland has in Paris in around one-and-a-half hours. I am sure that your Lordships will want to join me in wishing the Scottish team well this afternoon.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Earl of Home: My Lords, we will not oppose the amendment, particularly as it is supported by the bodies representing both small and medium-sized industries. Of course we wish to support them as well.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I too express appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for having the courtesy to write to us in regard to these amendments and to explain their background. I find the amendments entirely reasonable in that we want to make the Bill as watertight as possible. If it was suspected that contracts which comprise both goods and services would have escaped the intentions of the Bill, it is right that that should be corrected.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Home, that perhaps the amendment could have been introduced at an earlier stage when we would have had an opportunity of expressing our opinions on it in this House. Nonetheless, I welcome the amendments; I believe that they improve the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Home, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for their comments. Listening to the noble Earl, Lord Home, one might be tempted to think that no government in the past on either side had ever introduced amendments to their legislation. My memory does not accord with that.
The amendments are narrow in scope. However, I join with the noble Earl—though I have not consulted with the Scottish Office about this—in wishing the Scottish team every possible success, right through to the final when, of course, they will be playing England.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 4, page 3, line 4, after ("debt") insert ("or (where that amount is unascertained) the sum which the supplier claims is the amount of the debt")
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
This is a single technical amendment which seeks to improve the transparency of the text. It makes clear from when interest would run where the contract did not stipulate a price and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 or the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 supply a duty to pay a "reasonable price". An example of such a contract would be where someone was called out to fix a boiler. No price would be agreed ahead of the service being rendered but there would be a duty on the customer to pay a "reasonable price". The amendment provides that the default credit period should start to run from the time that the debtor has notice of the amount the creditor claims. This is so even if the debtor turns out to have good cause for disputing the amount. Interest would only run on the reasonable amount. If the creditor's conduct caused delay, Clause 5, on remission of interests, could then be used by the debtor to remit any undeserved interest.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
The Earl of Home: My Lords, the Minister gave an example of someone being called out to fix a boiler when no price had been agreed before the service was rendered. That is a rather unfortunate example as anyone who ever comes to fix my boiler invariably says that it is unfixable. In those circumstances, no service is rendered and yet a call-out charge is levied. Perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to give me the name of his boiler fixer.
The Minister in another place, Mrs. Roche, said that the amendment was not a charter for suppliers to start claiming out of order. With that assurance, we accept the amendment.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we too accept the amendment. Perhaps I can respond to the problem posed by the noble Earl. I am in the boiler business. If he has any difficulty—we deal with large installations and no doubt he has a large installation in his home—we shall be pleased to help.
I should like to ask the Minister one question in relation to the amendment. Where the price is not stipulated beforehand and the interest runs from the time when the account is rendered, the recipient of the services might well say that the amount is somewhat excessive. It appears that the only recourse the recipient then has is to resort to court proceedings. Is that the case?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I believe that is right. Apart from the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, so nobly volunteering his services to the noble Earl, Lord Home,

1011
the man I had in mind was Augustus Horatio Bloggs—with whom noble Lords will be familiar. I thank noble Lords for their response to the amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 4, page 3, line 6, leave out from ("sum") to end of line 7 and insert ("due in respect of a period of hire of goods")
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 11. page 5, line 23, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 29 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.")
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5. This is a technical amendment.
Following the Committee stage in the other place, we reviewed the Bill to ensure that none of the amendments made during the passage of the Bill had inadvertently caused things to fall outside the Bill which should be covered. This amendment picks up the one issue that we identified. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Bill operates on stage payments; that is, interim payments in respect of work actually done.
During discussion in the Moses Room, the Government brought forward an amendment to clarify the operation of Clause 4 on the period for which statutory interest runs. Inadvertently, however, the amendment put stage payments into a state of limbo as they are caught by the definition of an advance payment in Clause 11, but the clause does not stipulate from when interest will run.
Rather than invent a "rule" in Clause 11 for genuine stage payments, we feel that the best approach is to take them out of Clause 11 altogether. That is achieved through Amendment No. 4. 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. 5 is consequential to Amendment No. 4. The new wording for Clause 11 requires a change in the word structure in Clause 11(4). It also serves to
1012
remove an element of ambiguity as the obligation to pay the price is, in one sense, always present in a supply contract. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
The Earl of Home: My Lords, as the Minister said, this clause has been rather chopped and changed in the course of attempting to get it right. An amendment as important as this shows that despite the claims that they consulted widely on producing the Bill, the Government did not understand the implications. The alternative is that the Government are playing fast and loose with Parliament. Had I thought the latter, I would have created more fuss. However, the Minister was kind enough to write to me explaining the reason for the amendment. As he said, the previous amendment inadvertently put stage payments into a state of limbo.
I am sure that what the Minister said to the House was said in good faith and I accept it in good faith. We shall watch carefully to see how this and the other clauses work in practice and will no doubt return to the matter in due course. In the meantime, we will not oppose the amendment from these Benches.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, stage payments are an important part of certain contracts. I am glad that the situation has now been clarified. We support the amendment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their constructive comments. The Government did understand the implications; they simply got the wording wrong.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 Clause 11, page 5, line 38, leave out ("the obligation to pay it arises") and insert ("is payable")
6 Page 5, line 42, leave out from ("sum") to end of line 43 and insert ("due in respect of a period of hire of goods")
7 Clause 16, page 7, leave out lines 12 to 31 and insert—
(""contract for the supply of goods or services" has the meaning given in section 2(2);
"contract price" means the price in a contract of sale of goods or the money consideration referred to in section 2(2)(b) in any other contract for the supply of goods or services;
"purchaser" means (subject to section 13(2)) the buyer in a contract of sale or the person who contracts with the supplier in any other contract for the supply of goods or services;
"qualifying debt" means a debt falling within section 3(1);
"statutory interest" means interest carried by virtue of the term implied by section 1(1); and
"supplier" means (subject to section 13(2)) the seller in a contract of sale of goods or the person who does one or more of the things mentioned in section 2(3) in any other contract for the supply of goods or services.")
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 7.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 7.—(Lord Clinton-Davis.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.19 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.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 99 [Designation of grammar schools]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 231E:
Page 74, line 30, leave out ("at the beginning of the 1997–98 school year").
The noble Baroness said: We come now to a part of the Bill which really does show the present Government up in their real colours. The agenda is not difficult to detect. One has only to go back a little way in the record to establish the thinking behind these clauses. The current Secretary of State, when interviewed by the Daily Mail in January 1996, made clear his approach to the question of grammar schools. He was quoted as saying on that occasion:
"It is 30 years since Crosland embarked on this. I don't think anyone should expect me to complete his work in the first three months of a Labour Government".
Implicit in that statement is that if he cannot do it in three months, he will certainly be doing it at some time—perhaps the timescale will be a little longer.
More recently than that, in fact just days before the election was called in 1997, when visiting the Wirral, the current Secretary of State made absolutely clear that grammar schools "are safe with us" and he went on to say that there was no threat to their continuance or to their ethos or to their quality. There is a threat to their continuance; there is certainly a threat to their ethos, because of the instability that will be created by these clauses and the activities that will flow from them; and definitely, if they go, there will be an impact on the quality of education.
My first amendment is on a very narrow point. It concerns the designation of grammar schools, which is a prerequisite for setting up what I believe is a pernicious system of petitioning and balloting. My point is that if a school is wholly selective and is a grammar school, at whatever period in time that is, that school should be available for designation. Why have the Government chosen the beginning of 1997? I do not know whether any schools have been created since the beginning of the academic year 1997–98 or whether one will be created between now and Royal Assent. I merely say that if a
1014
school is selective at the time the order is placed, I do not believe a date should be put on it other than the date at the time of the order. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: In response to what the noble Baroness said at the beginning of her remarks, I should make it clear that our policy on grammar schools was set out in our manifesto. There will be no return to the 11-plus. We believe that selection at the age of 11 divides children into successes and failures at far too early an age. But we have said that in relation to existing grammar schools we are letting parents decide whether selection at these schools should continue.
I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment because it appears to the Government to be redundant. The amendment would remove the reference to admissions during the 1997–98 academic year for the purposes of designating a school as a grammar school. This would have the effect of allowing a school which later operated as a grammar school to be designated as such. This would only be necessary for any school which introduced fully selective admissions from September 1998 onwards. As the clauses in the Bill do not allow the introduction of new grammar schools—indeed, as I have said, the Government made it absolutely clear from the start that they are opposed to their introduction—there does not appear to be a need to allow a mechanism for later schools to be designated other than in the case where a new grammar school is established to take the place of an existing grammar school, something which is not likely to occur very often and for which in any case Clause 99(5) makes provision. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: It will be no surprise to the noble Baroness that I am disappointed by her reply. If she has looked at the amendments on the Marshalled List she will know that it is our plan to try to persuade the Government that there should be a two-way traffic. If parents are to be asked whether they wish selection to cease in their area, why should they not be given an opportunity to consider whether selection should continue in their area where it does not exist now? We have tabled an amendment to the effect that if parents wish it—in other words, if they vote for it—they should be allowed to have selection.
We do envisage grammar schools being created beyond the academic year 1997–98, hence my wish to remove the date from the Bill. I have no desire whatever to agree with the Government that a line is drawn in the sand and that from that moment on there shall be no question of a grammar school ever being created again.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am a little puzzled by what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has said. I take it from the quotations she gave from Labour Party documents that she is concerned about the word "threat". There is no threat. If there is a threat at all, as I understand what she said, the threat would come from the parents as the onus is now on the parents. Would she consider it a threat to grammar schools if parents

1015
decide? Through all the education debates we have had for many years now the Opposition have placed the emphasis on the wishes of parents. That is all the Bill is saying. Does she consider it a threat if parents decide to have a non-selective school instead of a grammar school?
Baroness Young: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may answer the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand. He is not comparing like with like. When schools were asked whether they wanted to have grant-maintained status there was a vote of the parents of the children in the school. Those who were most directly involved were asked to vote on the matter. The 20 per cent. margin was therefore established. Perhaps I may say in passing that nothing was more disgraceful than the sustained and extremely unpleasant campaigns which were conducted against the heads, the staff and the parents in those schools which wished to become grant-maintained. The record of it in education is a disgrace. In this Bill what is being called for is not a ballot of the parents of the children at the school; it is a ballot of parents in feeder schools and in quite large areas around. We are therefore asking all kinds of people whose children are not in the school and who do not have a direct interest to vote on the matter.
Perhaps I may make a final point. To trigger the ballot, as I understand it, there has to be a petition of 20 per cent. of the parents. Anyone who has had experience of petitions knows that it is a fairly easy job to get up a petition.
So I think it is perfectly true that all grammar schools are under threat and that the net effect of this unpleasant part of the Bill is that a lot of children in grammar schools, which achieve some of the very best academic results in the country, particularly in science and mathematics, will not be so well off in the future.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I am interested in what the noble Baroness has said but in fact my question was addressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Perhaps she will respond. She may well agree with what has just been said. But that contribution went much wider, if I may say so, than the specific question which I asked.
Baroness Young: I am quite sure that my noble friend—
Lord Orme: Oh!
Baroness Young: The noble Lord will not, I hope, just sit and interrupt me like that. I entirely accept that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, addressed his question to my noble friend Lady Blatch. It is the normal procedure during the Committee stage of a Bill—perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Orme, that I have been in this House for a very long time—that people can intervene to respond. If one supports what one's noble friend on the Front Bench says, it is quite normal to stand up and say so. I quite agree that I widened the point but the narrow point made by the
1016
noble Lord, Lord Dormand, was not in fact accurate. I am perfectly entitled to have my say. I have not the slightest doubt that my noble friend Lady Blatch will say what she thinks about the matter.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am not only delighted with what my noble friend said, but I am also delighted to have her intervention at this point. The Committee stage is a less formal stage than Report stage. Any Member of this House may intervene before I or the Minister sits down and join in with other Members of the House. That is entirely within the rules of the House and no convention has been broken.
The points that my noble friend made are pertinent. Why are the Government asking parents to vote on whether a grammar school should exist, or in one ballot getting rid of every single grammar school in the whole of an area—for example, in Kent, Lincolnshire, Trafford or Buckinghamshire? Why not have a ballot of parents to see whether they want comprehensive education in their area? Why not have a ballot of parents to see whether they want specialist schools or whether they want voluntary-aided schools?
This is a vindictive policy. It started with Crosland. Almost every Labour Party manifesto and every old Labour activist has pursued a vendetta against selection, grammar schools and the collegiate system of Oxford and Cambridge. There is now what is called, and what is reputed to be, new Labour and enlightened Labour, with old Labour policies. This Bill is old Labour writ large.
In the previous debate the noble Baroness took us back to the glories of ILEA. Those of us who remember ILEA have some pretty painful memories of the standards that it produced. It spent the most money on children and produced the worst educational results of the whole country. I have said it before: as long as I have breath I shall fight for what is good in education. I believe that our grant-maintained schools and our grammar schools have added immeasurably to the quality of education in this country.
What we have before us is a licence for those who are disgruntled, disaffected, bigoted and philosophically opposed to good education. If we do nothing else we shall make sure that it is more difficult to bring about the end of these schools which, in many cases, have been established not just for decades but for centuries. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, this question: what is democratic about giving a vote for a raft of schools to cease to exist when there is not another vote given to ask whether we want non-selective education in our area or specialist schools, CTCs or anything else? Why single out grammar schools? I believe that this is pernicious and politically bigoted. It is old Labour and we oppose it most vigorously.
Lord Peston: Some of us have listened with great tolerance to the noble Baroness on the Opposition Front Bench for several days now. We have listened to her speaking wide of any amendment down in her name or that of any other Member of this House. On the whole,

1017
we have not objected because we believe very much in the tolerance of your Lordships' House. But on this occasion I believe that she has overstepped the mark beyond anything that I find tolerable. I disagree with her, but I do not use words like "bigoted" or any of the other words that she has used.
I fought for 30-odd years for comprehensive education. We believe that it is desirable on educational grounds. Some of us sent our children to comprehensive schools. In my case, and in many others, that was highly successful and the children had a very good education. I am not willing to sit here and listen to the noble Baroness making such disparaging remarks about the majority of children and schools in this country.
We disagree about selection. I am implacably opposed to academic selection and the segregation that results from it. I have intervened in these matters over the years with a modicum of restraint and intelligence. I shall not be here for the next few hours, but those who have to sit it out should not have to suffer the kind of remarks that the noble Baroness has made. On reflection she may feel that she does not want to make such remarks.
Perhaps I may add that she made her remarks not merely about one or two Members of your Lordships' House. I take them personally because she knows that I have been involved with comprehensive education for a very long time. She has made remarks about my honourable and right honourable colleagues, one or two of whom are no longer alive. They were reputable people and held sincere views on education. We should not have to sit and listen to the suggestion that we are not committed to education. To suggest that those of us who sent our children to comprehensive schools were not committed is not acceptable. The noble Baroness should think about the language she is using, especially as my noble friend Lord Dormand asked a fairly innocent question. How we have got to this stage I do not know, but it must not be allowed within the self-governing nature of your Lordships' House and permitted to continue in this way.
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Lord can point to any single statement that I made about individuals when speaking to this amendment I shall consider an apology. I referred to the policy that we are talking about here. I make no apology for that. The noble Lord accuses me of making disparaging remarks about all other forms of education and comprehensive education in particular.
My children went to a comprehensive school and they did extremely well. Like my party, I believe in the full tapestry of provision for education. I believe in grammar schools, comprehensive schools, specialist schools, city technology schools, voluntarily controlled schools and voluntary aided schools. I have no philosophical objection to any one form of education, but I do have a philosophical objection—and this is where my remarks were directed—to a fully comprehensive system. That has been the policy of the Labour Party over the years since Crosland. It is also the policy of the party today.
1018
My comments about philosophical objections and a bigoted and pernicious Bill have everything to do with the policy and nothing to do with personalities. If the noble Lord is irritated by what we do my answer is that we are doing a job in this House, just as the noble Lord did when he was in opposition and I found it tiresome to have to listen to people taking Bills apart. The truth is that we shall fight this Bill vigorously. I shall fight with all the enthusiasm that I have and use every technical facility I have at my disposal. I am fighting for the survival of a category of schools and I will be joined by some of my noble friends. We shall fight until it is over. With the might of the vote in the other place the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has not long to wait. Because of the might of that vote he will get what he wants, and that is the disappearance of some of the best schools in the land.
Lord Peston: The noble Baroness still goes too far. I am fully committed to comprehensive education and I have never resiled from that. But I do not use words like "bigoted" about the noble Baroness and her views. I use words such as, "I believe that she is mistaken". When I was in opposition I did not use such words as "bigoted". I do not find it acceptable. It is all very well for the noble Baroness to say that she has not named an individual, but she knows perfectly well that people like me were involved with my late and much missed right honourable friend Mr. Crosland and many others in pursuing comprehensive education. I am perfectly willing to be persuaded on that or any other matter that I am mistaken, but I am not willing to have the word "bigoted" used about me or, directly or indirectly, about my friends or my noble friends on the Front Bench.
I have no objection to vigorous opposition. As the noble Baroness is aware, that was what I most enjoyed doing. It is much more enjoyable than sitting on this side of the House. But there is still a form of language that we use and we have responsibilities in that regard to your Lordships' House. I do not believe that we should debate these matters about which we disagree with language as intemperate as the noble Baroness used.
Lord Shepherd: As an elderly hereditary Peer, perhaps I may seek to calm the waters. Unless the fire brigade is called out to calm the waters, then heaven help us by the time we finish the Committee stage this evening. That will not be to the benefit of this House nor the benefit of the legislation that we are considering. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord have spoken with considerable power and very deep conviction. Perhaps we should now seek to proceed with the Bill. If we cannot be so persuaded then it is open to noble Lords on either side of the House to decide what to do. In the interests of this Committee and the Bill, I do not think that we should continue to have a great argy-bargy at the moment. Perhaps it would be appropriate later at night, but now, at the very beginning of this business, I think that we should call it a day and get a move on.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I rise to speak with diffidence, as a new Member of your Lordships' House,

1019
but I feel that I can justify taking a minute or two of the Committee's time because I come from a county in which we have the good fortune to have about one-quarter of the grammar schools that survived the attentions of the 1970 Labour Government. There are four grammar schools in my former constituency, and they are strongly supported. While paying every respect to what has just been said by noble Lords opposite, I want to defend the care with which my noble friend Lady Blatch is addressing this issue. We are now down to about 160 grammar schools in the country. I think that we are entitled to know whether we should be looking at the arrangements relating to petitions for triggering ballots and to the ballots themselves. We are entitled to know whether those arrangements are motivated by something that could properly be described as a "threat" to the grammar schools, by which I mean an antipathy to the survival of grammar schools on the part of Ministers.
It is entirely proper for my noble friend Lady Blatch to refer, as she did at the outset of her remarks this afternoon, to statements which are on the record and come not only from the present Secretary of State but also from Mr. Crosland, whom the noble Lord, Lord Peston, invoked. Incidentally, I was surprised to find Mr. Crosland invoked as an exemplar of emollient language in this context. Nevertheless, we are entitled to know whether those citations, which we have relevantly heard today, represent the thrust of the Government's policy.
I agree that the Government can say, "We are leaving this to ballots'', but the question with which we shall be dealing later today is how those ballots are to be triggered and operated. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will say whether the remarks made by the present Secretary of State, to which my noble friend Lady Blatch referred, represent the thrust of the Government's policy—that is, that we cannot be expected in a few weeks or even a few months to complete the policy begun by Mr. Crosland.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may intervene. I must admit that I am considerably puzzled as to which of the amendments to speak. That is partly because when we reach the next clause, we find that all the regulations that will affect ballots and selective schools—
Lord Whitty: I intervene because I believe that the noble Lord has touched on precisely the point. Many of the matters to which I believe that he is about to refer, and to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, referred, relate to later amendments. I go along completely with my noble friend Lord Shepherd who said that we should take the heat out of the situation. Noble Lords should recognise that some of the points now being made relate to later amendments and not to Amendment No. 213E. Both on this amendment, and subsequently in this Committee, we should concentrate on the provisions in hand.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Referring to what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and my noble friend
1020
Lady Blatch were discussing, it is necessary here to make a slight incursion into ideology because later amendments are close, tight and important, but they spring from the motive behind the issue now under consideration. Grammar schools exist—albeit in a minority form in England—and, as we know, selection is not a dreadful sin. It occurs in Europe and in many parts of the world. People are not stunted by it; they do not turn green; they continue to exist where there is selection. About 20 per cent. of entrants to the finer universities come from that small number of grammar schools.
When my noble friend Lady Blatch looks at the ideology behind this Bill, in answer to the simple question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, the question that we are posing is whether the ballots are fair or whether they are really directed in order to manipulate the situation. I believe that I can use the word "manipulate" without accusing anyone of being a manipulator. Are the ballots directed to achieve the result that the Government want? The questions which my noble friend were asking will recur again and again, like the theme of a symphony throughout the next hour or so. In a way, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, supported my argument because he said that he definitely wants rid of grammar schools.
The point is that the Executive is preparing the ballot. Are we in the position of Napoleon III who, whenever he held a ballot or plebiscite, knew what the answer would be? We are saying that the ballots may not really be asking parents what they want. We shall prove that the ballots will be so arranged that the answers produced will be those which the Government expect. Basically, that is all that I want to say.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to follow the advice of my noble friend Lord Shepherd who is no longer in his place. It would be helpful to the Committee if we tried to keep the temperature down, so I do not want to respond now to some of the more ideological points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. If the noble Baroness wants to make such points, they would be more appropriate in relation to later amendments. Furthermore, the points which the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has just made about ballots can be better answered when we reach the specific amendments on balloting.
Perhaps I may answer one question asked by the noble Baroness. She asked why we are not in favour of extending selection and why we are having what I think she called a "one-way process". The answer is clear: we were elected on a manifesto commitment that made it absolutely clear that we had no intention of extending selection. We had a huge majority—indeed, it was the biggest landslide of this century. It is obvious that the electorate accepted that manifesto commitment and, having been elected on it, it would be quite wrong now if we went back on that commitment and included in this Bill proposals to allow the expansion of selection and the creation of new grammar schools.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister either believes in selection or she does not. If the Government really

1021
meant what has just been said, they should have included in this Bill clauses to dispose of grammar schools. Instead, the Government have chosen to leave selection in the Bill—selection by aptitude; selection by aptitude and/or ability and in many other forms, including for banding. We shall return to that subject.
The rationale behind the plans of the Minister and her colleagues for grammar schools is, "Let the parents speak". However, in another part of the Bill, as my noble friend Lady Young said, having spoken and having voted school by school to become grant-maintained, those parents will be denied the right to vote to cease to have grant-maintained schools. Those schools will, by edict, leave the status of being grant-maintained. They will have to choose any colour of car as long as it is the colour dictated by the Government. In other words, such schools will have to lose their complete autonomy and move back into the arms of the local education authority. It seems wholly inconsistent to use the argument, "Let the parents speak", in this instance under this very rigged system, but not to allow those parents to express their view on any other category of school. I make no apology for using the word "inconsistent".
This debate has opened up as a result of the Minister's answer to my question. The date is on the face of the Bill to ensure that there shall never be another grammar school. We suggest that there could be other grammar schools if that is what parents wish and that they should be allowed to apply to have selective schools. Therefore, removing the date has some meaning. It is difficult to confine our discussions to this point simply because of the way in which the Minister herself opened up the debate by saying that there shall be no more grammar schools. I shall reflect upon what the noble Baroness said. The inconsistencies are piling up historically and currently. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Procedure for deciding whether grammar schools should retain selective admission arrangements]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 75, line 30, after ("schools,") insert—
("(bb) to any grammar school of a religious character, provided that the ballot arrangements made by regulations under this section make provision for restricting eligibility for the purposes of both petition and ballot to those parents of pupils registered at such a grammar school and those parents of pupils at primary schools of the same religious character in the catchment area of the grammar school,").
The noble Baroness said: The noble Lord, Lord Alton, is very sorry that he cannot be here. His university is drawing towards the end of term and he is very tied up. He much regrets not being here. Amendment No. 232 seeks to restrict some of the proposals in the Bill. It applies to a grammar school of a religious character. The proposal is that eligibility for the purposes of both the petition and the ballot should be confined to parents of pupils in the particular grammar school and/or parents of pupils at primary schools of the same religious character.
This is a very serious and important point. There is no doubt that parents greatly value grammar schools or comprehensive schools that are voluntary aided or have a definite religious character. Clearly, even if the school itself is to change they will want that particular character to be retained. The proposal is that those who vote will have committed their children to schools of a similar character. The scope is somewhat narrower.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the Bill but it appears to me that in the case of ballots for grammar schools there may be circumstances in which the parents of all the feeder primary schools can vote about the future of the school. This amendment would restrict voting to the parents of children in a voluntary aided school or a school of a religious character that fed into a grammar school which was voluntary aided or of a religious character. It is a very important distinction that I hope the Government will consider seriously. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: The Churches through their formal structures do not support this amendment. The number of selective Church grammar schools is very small. There are seven Roman Catholic grammar schools and an even smaller number of Church of England grammar schools. Both Churches believe that a wider ballot is necessary than is provided for in the amendment. We do not believe that different treatment should be give to Church schools from that given to other schools in the maintained system. We adopted that stance in relation to grant-maintained schools and we adopt it in relation to this proposal. Neither Church sees its schools as being in isolation from the total provision in the neighbourhood. Therefore, we do not agree with the narrowing of the petition and ballot community. The Churches must have regard for all schools, not just grammar schools.
Referring to Church of England schools and its tiny number of selective grammar schools, it is inappropriate that petition and ballot should be limited to feeder primaries of the same religious character. I take as an example St. Olave's, Orpington, which is one of the small number of such schools. Its feeder schools exist not only in the catchment area of Orpington but in a wider historic area that extends through to Southwark. Moreover, those feeder schools are not simply of a religious character. There is a variety of primary schools, both voluntary and county, that feed both that grammar school and other grammar schools. Therefore, the ballot should at least include all feeder primaries of any secondary school and not just the Church feeder primaries.
The Roman Catholic Church takes an equally strong line. Perhaps there have been some crossed wires. I am aware that the Catholic Education Service has been consulted about this amendment and expressed concern. Neither the cardinal nor the bishop, David Constant, chairman of the Catholic Education Service, supports this amendment. Two Roman Catholic dioceses are particularly affected. Both believe strongly that a more general ballot within the authority is necessary, not one restricted on religious grounds. Their reasons for maintaining that position are quite simple; namely, if Roman Catholic schools are to be the only ones voting

1023
on the future of Catholic grammar schools there may be a difference between Roman Catholic and LEA provision. There could be Catholic selective schools with the rest of the provision non-selective. If that happened Roman Catholics would be extremely worried. Both the dioceses concerned and the formal structures of both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England oppose the amendment.
The noble Baroness moving the amendment made one point that I did not understand. I thought I heard her say that the ballot might result in the school losing its religious character. I do not see any such possibility in the Bill. Surely, even if a ballot were to be successful and a school ceased to be selective it would remain an aided school. I do not see any possibility of its religious character being lost.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Is it not somewhat odd for the right reverend Prelate to speak for other Churches? Are there not enough Roman Catholics to speak for Roman Catholics? I am slightly surprised to hear the right reverend Prelate speak as though he is the spokesman for the Roman Catholic Church.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: It was the Catholic Education Service who approached me to ask that I make this point forcefully. Therefore, I speak with its authority. That body mandated me to make reference both to the chairman of the Catholic Education Service and to the cardinal.
Lord Northbourne: The amendment confuses me. I believe that there are two completely different points at issue. The noble Baroness can perhaps clarify the position. Does a Roman Catholic grammar school subject to a ballot in which the parents vote to cease being selective automatically and without question become a Roman Catholic non-selective school? If so I would have difficulty supporting the amendment. On the other hand, if there is any doubt on the matter, I strongly support the very important point that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, made.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I might immediately respond to the point just made in order to clear up any possible misunderstanding. It is essential that the Committee is clear that a ballot cannot change the religious character of a school. Even if the parents balloted that it should become non-selective it would remain a Catholic school.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness raises an interesting point. There is absolutely nothing in the Bill to protect the life of a school once it has ceased to be selective. Perhaps the noble Baroness when she replies will identify the part of the Bill which provides that protection. I run through what happens in practice. If a single ballot takes place in a county such as Kent—a county with the most schools and one with schools of religious character—it will be incumbent on the local education authority to reorganise education in the whole of Kent, because a very large number of schools will
1024
cease to be grammar schools, on a comprehensive basis. We know that many of those schools are relatively small compared with comprehensive schools. All involve a relatively narrow band of ability range, so they will have to change dramatically. Nothing in the Bill states that the school shall exist following reorganisation. Those schools may be merged with one, two or more schools in the area. The non-selective system may take out some schools—both buildings and eventually children. They will be reorganised on a regional basis throughout the county, or an area basis where there is an area ballot.
Let us consider a relatively small school with a religious character which is joined with a comprehensive non-selective school which does not wish to have a religious character. No provision in the Bill restrains local education authorities so that existing schools with grammar school status may survive in their new guise as schools with religious character. I have been through the Bill page by page and word by word. There is no constraint on the LEA. There is no provision on this issue in the regulations. We know that local authorities will be obliged to produce their own reorganisational plans to introduce comprehensive education in the whole of Kent, for example.
I understand the arguments put on behalf of the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church in opposing my noble friend's amendment. I am deeply surprised that there has been no attempt by the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church at least to preserve the existence of a school with a religious character under the non-selective arrangement. If the noble Baroness can tell me that that provision is in the Bill, and that constraint on LEAs when making their reorganisational proposals is codified, I shall withdraw my objections.
4 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may answer that question immediately. It is clearly specified in the Bill under Clause 27(11)(a)(i) and Clause 32(2). I do not know whether the noble Baroness would find it helpful for me to state what Clause 27(11)(a)(i) provides. It makes absolutely clear that,
"'alteration', in the context of a prescribed alteration to a maintained school, means an alteration of whatever nature, including the transfer of the school to a new site but excluding any change in the religious character of the school".
That is repeated in Clause 32(2).
Baroness Blatch: If a school is to be merged with a school of a non-religious character—the grammar school may be too small to be a fully comprehensive school—and it is not possible to find another school in the immediate location with a religious character, does that mean that whether or not the school likes it, because of the constraints of Clause 27(11) (which I believe refer to something else) that school will have a religious character—Catholic, Anglican, or both?
Baroness Blackstone: I think it highly unlikely that any school organisation committee would want

1025
to make a merger between a denominational and a non-denominational school unless it had been agreed with the Catholic Church and its diocesan representatives.
Baroness Blatch: The Committee must forgive me for pressing the noble Baroness. We are making legislation here. A school may not be viable in size and ability range and therefore needs to become a comprehensive school. When one has a reorganisation as large as that in Kent, Trafford or Buckinghamshire, the likelihood is that there will be mergers. It is the only way to cope. If a school is not viable in size as an all-ability comprehensive school and has to be merged with another school, or closed and the children dispersed around schools in the area, what can an LEA do?
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Baroness asks questions of a very hypothetical nature. I think it highly unlikely that where the parents of children in a Roman Catholic grammar school chose for it to become non-selective, it would then not be viable. There are many small comprehensive schools around the country. Some are in inner city areas, and in small towns. I am absolutely clear that even though the school is small, if it is what the parents want the school will be able to survive as a non-selective school. There may be some question about whether it should continue to be a school for 11 to 18 year-olds if the sixth forms are small. But changes would be made only in dialogue with the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Catholic Church would be the authority that would take the main view about the future of the school in those circumstances.
Baroness Blatch: That is helpful. I shall bring forward an amendment to make the position clear. It will be helpful if the noble Baroness will again confirm this. A school may be deemed to be smaller than is desirable for a fully comprehensive school. The point is not hypothetical; the situation will occur in some of the counties deemed to be whole ballot counties. It may not be convenient for good educational purposes to merge it with another school of the same religious character. Will that school be protected? Will the school continue to exist as a school with a religious character, however inviable the numbers, but in a non-selective form as opposed to a selective form?
If the noble Baroness will give me that guarantee, I shall ensure that an amendment is tabled at the next stage of the Bill to ensure that the protection spelt out by the noble Baroness is built into the Bill. It will be a material constraint on local authorities when they reorganise their schools.
Baroness Blackstone: I have said that the school organisation committee, on which there is Catholic representation, will make decisions about this kind of issue. It will be up to the school organisation committee. In a certain area, the Catholic Church, the local education authority and other bodies involved in deciding the nature of educational provision may decide that there was a case for a merger. I shall not give an absolute guarantee that they will never make that decision. It would not be right for me to do so. We
1026
have set up provisions in the Bill for school organisation committees to resolve those questions. We should be flexible. For me to say now that that will not happen would be incredibly inflexible. It would go against the proposals in the Bill for the new school framework.
Baroness Blatch: I apologise again to the Committee. I am not in a mood to be flexible. I am arguing for the survival of a school which may have had its grammar school status taken from it but which is nevertheless a school with a religious character. In the light of the earlier answers given by the noble Baroness, we wish to be certain that those schools would survive in some form with a religious character.
The noble Baroness's final answer worries me even more. Let us consider that those on the organisation committee who represent the Churches vote that the school should survive and retain its religious character as a non-selective school, but the remainder of the committee, or even one other body on the committee, votes to the contrary. The local education authority may vote to the contrary because it will have financial constraints placed upon it. In the case of Kent, they will be severe. Unlike the understanding that the Church had originally, there is no veto for the Church; we tried to achieve that provision. Therefore, that case will go to the adjudicator, who can overrule the Church and ensure that the school is merged with another school, in the process losing its religious character.
We need some guarantee from the noble Baroness that the school which loses its grammar school status will not lose its religious status in any new arrangements. If the noble Baroness does not do so, we shall bring forward an amendment to protect the religious character of a school under the reorganisation proposals.
Baroness Blackstone: I shall certainly not bring forward an amendment. The noble Baroness said that she cannot be flexible. We think it is sensible to be flexible and to have legislation that is flexible enough to take on board possible substantial changes in the population of an area where there may be a big decline, for example, in the number of Roman Catholics.
I should remind noble Lords that we are talking about seven schools. There are only seven selective Catholic secondary schools in the country. I cannot give a guarantee that every school will continue for all time even if it were felt that it was quite the wrong size, or that it did not have enough pupils to fill its places.
The great majority of Catholic schools is expected to be either voluntary aided or foundation schools so they will be able to publish their own proposals for change. The local education authority cannot publish them.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Young: We have had an interesting, short debate on this matter. I should like to make two points about this issue. I am disappointed that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon did not feel able

1027
to say anything in support of this. It is not, I regret to say, the first time and no doubt not the last time, that that will be the case. Nevertheless, one soldiers on in this difficult world. I am reminded of a local example of something rather similar to this and it does not give one confidence.
It is a good idea when discussing these schools to go back to what would happen on the ground. Almost certainly, most of these grammar schools will be either two-form or three-form entry schools. They will be small schools. That is therefore a relevant factor in whether they convert into a viable comprehensive. I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said, but many educationists think that that is too small. It is certainly too small to support a sixth form. So one is looking at something very different.
I had not appreciated that Clause 27, which was referred to, applied in this circumstance. I thought that that clause was about mainstream schools and their alteration of status. That is rather different from these particular grammar schools and the voting procedures. I am bound to say that the way we have understood that the school organisation committees will operate, as we debated last week, with the final decision being taken by the adjudicator, with no redress for anybody, does not inspire confidence in every case.
I am very sorry that the right reverend Prelate and the Government feel that they cannot move on something which really matters. However, I shall read in Hansard what has been said, and I shall consider whether to come back to this at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 233 not moved.]
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233ZA:
Page 75, line 31, at end insert—
("() Before any ballot under this section takes place, the local education authority or authorities within whose areas the relevant grammar schools referred to in subsection (2)(a), (b) or (c) are situated shall prepare and publish fully costed proposals for the reorganisation of schools consequent upon a successful ballot and such proposals shall include capital expenditure, setting up costs and predicted annual revenue costs.").
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 233AE. We talked, in passing, on the previous amendment about the work that a local education authority will have to do under the regulations if a ballot is successful. Kent will probably be the largest re-organisation and the one which will cause a great deal of anxiety to the local authority. Equally, I take a small local authority like Trafford, which will also be a whole LEA ballot. Should one ballot be successful, all the grammar schools in that area will cease to exist. It will be important for the local authorities to set about producing proposals almost immediately, which will reorganise schools in such a way that there will be a fully comprehensive system in those areas.
We all know just how costly that will be. We also all know that local education authorities will have their programmes and their priorities already determined, and
1028
not just for the current year, because most local authorities plan well ahead. They will have their plans laid down for one, two or even three years. The re-organisation proposals resulting from a decision by a ballot to cease selective education in the whole of an LEA area or part of an LEA area will pre-empt all their capital programmes, and indeed revenue programmes, because there will be revenue costs also.
A parent, who has not had much to do with grammar schools in Kent may be stopped in the market on a Saturday morning to sign a petition. That parent may happily sign away that he would support non-selective education in the authority. He may be blissfully unaware that in doing so he has put his signature to the demise of a large number of schools in that authority, at a stroke and that the local education authority will incur substantial expenditure.
We are compiling information at the moment about how many of these schools own their own land and their buildings. Local education authorities will need to buy into their properties and their land. In areas where the land is held by trustees, it may well be that local authorities will have to make other provision. Mergers are costly; reorganisational plans are costly and the costs will have to be met. It seems to me to be important that when being asked to vote, parents should know that they are not just voting for a fanciful philosophical idea; but that they are voting also for some very substantial costs that will fall upon that community as a result of the decision.
It is incumbent upon the local authority to place before the parents either an options paper, or certainly the proposals that would ensue from a successful ballot, so that as the signatures are called for, the parents know the full picture.
The other important issue is the academic and other achievements of the schools. Now that the information is readily available and in a form that is publishable, the achievements of the schools affected, directly or indirectly, including the grammar schools and all other schools around, should also be made available in a form that is understood by the parents. They will then have some understanding of what the achievements are in the area and what may be at stake. They can make their own judgments about what to do with the information. But it is information which is material to the question that will be asked of parents. They will need to consider the repercussions of signing up to a petition that will trigger a ballot if the requisite number of signatures is achieved. In the case of Kent that would result in the cessation of education in a large number of schools, which would give rise to a set of proposals which would be costly to the local education authority.
There is no case for arguing that that information should not be made available in outline form. No one can produce it in detailed form because clearly consultations will have to follow. It is important that parents have the full information in outline form before they sign up to the death of the grammar schools. I beg to move.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I shall not speak for too long because I know that Members of the

1029
Committee opposite do not like to hear two voices from the Front Bench. However, mine is a gentle voice and I ask the Committee to bear with me.
This is perhaps one of the most important amendments in the Bill because it deals with the very practical point of the expense of reorganisation. The only reason that I am standing on my feet is to speak in detail about one city, Canterbury, which would be drastically affected by the Bill, and it bears out the points made by my noble friend.
Ofsted—and the noble Baroness knows this—and most people in education say that the ideal comprehensive should have a sixth-form entry. I can assure the noble Baroness that that is what Ofsted says and if she would like me to, I can write to her about that. In Canterbury, there are seven schools showing the whole gamut of the English history of education over the past 40 years. There are the girls' and boys' grammar schools; there is a former secondary school; there is a Catholic school; there is a former secondary modern, now grant-maintained; and there is one other school which I believe used to be a single sex girls' school but which is now co-educational.
There is no doubt that there will have to be amalgamation. This morning I have spoken to the chairman of the Kent education committee. Parents have asked for a costing to be prepared for the whole county. Obviously, that is in its early primitive stages, but he said that I could quote him in this House in saying that it is in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds.
In their ideological thrust to get rid of grammar schools, the Government have forgotten the enormous costs of reorganisation, especially in those counties where grammar schools comprise the normal system; that is, Kent, Buckinghamshire and Trafford. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to say how she can produce good education in those counties without reorganisation.
I was not happy with the noble Baroness's answer that the small comprehensive can work quite well. In other words, they get what they get, so to speak. My view and the view of many in education in Kent is that a large capital cost will be laid on the county; the burden will fall on all schools; and even those who would rejoice in the streets at the abolition of the grammar schools would not wish to see the devastation that resulted unless the noble Baroness can persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be extremely generous.
The point that I make to support my noble friend is that this ideology will cost money. I say to the Government that I hope where their mouth is there is their heart and their pocket.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I was quite amused to hear the noble Baroness insist that local education authorities should publish all sorts of information, because my impression has been that where education authorities have informed governing bodies of the effects of changing from being an ordinary school to being a GM school, that effort has been resented on the part of the noble Baroness's party.
1030
However, as regards this amendment, there may be some merit in having some sort of regulations governing those ballots. It does not do any harm for people to understand, when they take a vote, what are likely to be the consequences of that vote. Perhaps the Minister will respond on the subject of regulation for those ballots.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I add my voice in support of the first amendment in particular. The Government are taking credit for leaving the decision as to the future of grammar schools with the parents. At face value, that is very commendable. It reflects that they should know what will be the character of the schooling and that they should have a say in what it will be in the future.
However, the question will be limited solely to, "Are you in favour of a non-selective system or do you prefer that a selective system should continue?" I suggest that it would frequently be the case that unless the cost consequences and implications are brought specifically to the attention of parents, they will be neglected. At first instance, they will suppose that there is no cost implication. Is that satisfactory? I suggest very strongly that it is not because it is the parents who will be paying, along with everybody else.
Therefore, since it is right—and the Government accept that it is right—that the parents should have a say in the future of the schools, and the question is put to them, it must be right that they should be informed of a cost implication. As my noble friend Lady Blatch makes clear, that should be done in outline terms at least, and, as my noble friend Lord Pilkington said, in Kent the cost is likely to run to hundreds of millions of pounds.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, is minded to accept the amendment, but if she is not, I hope that she will explain how, in principle, she justifies withholding that information as part of the question which will be put.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to support this amendment. On occasion, I may seem to drift slightly from the specific point of the amendment. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for that, but I do not wish to burden it too often with interventions this afternoon. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will understand if I stray slightly from the very specific point.
In Essex, we are fortunate to have a very small number of grammar schools left. In the county as I knew it, we had eight grammar schools serving perhaps 4,000 out of 100,000 secondary pupils. That is a very small proportion. In the north of the county, we have the Colchester Royal Grammar School and the Colchester County High School, operating in competition with an extremely successful sixth-form college, I might add. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as to what is a comprehensive system. It is perfectly possible to have a comprehensive system of education which does not consist exclusively of comprehensive schools. There is a very clear distinction. In fact, I suggest that a comprehensive system which does not include a wide

1031
variety of schools, including some selective schools, probably ceases to be comprehensive because it loses its centres of excellence.
I return to the relevant point of this amendment. Those schools are perforce very small. The largest will have at most four forms of entry and some will have fewer than that. Early in my day, we had to do a great deal in Essex because we had a very rapidly expanding population. When there is a rapidly expanding population, it tends to be the younger sectors of the community who move. That meant that we had a huge child population. Therefore, we had to have a vast building programme for schools. We had to build those schools under the utterly pernicious Circular 10/66 which required—and it may be uncomfortable—that if an LEA were to have a capital building programme, it could build only comprehensive schools. I paraphrase slightly. It was not worded quite like that but that is what it meant.
In those days, the received educational expertise required that an effective and efficient comprehensive school, able to give the breadth and depth of education that was required for all pupils from the ablest to the less able, should consist of eight to 10 forms of entry.
Thank heavens, we have come away from that. But even so, the point made by my noble friend that for a comprehensive school you need a considerable size is valid. You really cannot operate very effectively in comprehensive education with fewer than six forms of entry, albeit you can draw the line in by going down to 11-to-16 schools and then there is not a problem provided that there is somewhere else to send the children—either the FE sector, a tertiary college or a sixth-form college.
What will be the future of a redundant grammar school if we go through the ballot procedure? We will have a strange situation because we will have a small set of buildings taking three or four forms of entry with an intense concentration of high quality, specialist facilities such as laboratories which would not normally be provided. If exclusively unselected children are put in the school the use of those buildings will be partly redundant from the first day and over time they will no longer be used. The real question is how to fit into that small set of buildings a non-selective entry group of pupils to try to make them part of a comprehensive system. To be frank, it is extremely difficult and the cost is likely to be extremely high.
I turn to the practicalities of who makes the decision, assuming we provide all the relevant information. In my county of Essex, for example, the Colchester Royal Grammar School and the Colchester County High School for Girls in the north of the county draw pupils from the whole of that area. Unless one polls every parent across the north of the county one will not be testing a valid area. Places in either school are greatly prized. Both appear regularly at the top of the list of state schools in performance terms.
There is an even more complicated situation in the centre of the county. The King Edward VI Grammar School and the Chelmsford County High School for
1032
Girls draw across the whole of the county. The county comprises 1.5 million people, with 1.1 million electors, a high proportion of whom are parents. It is an extremely difficult, not straightforward, issue. I sympathise with the people who will have to deal with the decisions at local level.
The issue of resources is important. There has not been generous provision in local authorities for a long time. Where provision has become more generous—and I pay tribute to those areas—it is properly devoted to additional teaching, wherever that is possible, and so forth.
The amendment deals with capital resources. Referring again to that county of mine, there are large areas of development and the population is rapidly expanding. The capital burden is difficult to meet under existing circumstances, and if we impose an additional burden it is likely to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. That is a serious situation which neither the LEA nor anyone else will find it easy to live with.
I support the amendment. One of the dangers we face is that insufficient information will be before those who must make the decisions. The debate might have been easier had we had draft regulations. They may exist and I may have missed them. However, I sympathise with the Minister because had draft regulations existed they might have had to be amended in the light of the points raised during this discussion. I am in considerable sympathy with the difficulty in which the Minister finds herself. We are discussing a Bill which enables something to take place. But it is something which does not exist, and we do not know what it will be. That is always difficult.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The two amendments seek to add compulsorily to the range of information available to parents. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in Amendment No. 233ZA, is proposing that LEAs publish in advance of a ballot proposals for the reorganisation of schools, with full costings, should the outcome of the ballot be in favour of change. In Amendment No. 233AE, she is proposing that LEAs be required to send parents details of test and exam results. The debate has not focused on those issues: it has focused more on the issue of costs. The noble Baroness also suggests that the costs of an LEA's proposed reorganisation scheme should be made available to parents in a ballot.
I am afraid to say that the proposals are unacceptable for several reasons. Amendment No. 233ZA, which requires the LEAs to publish fully costed proposals in advance of a ballot, is unworkable because the costs cannot be known in advance. Furthermore, in my view, it is unnecessary. Let us take, first, the apparent underlying assumption that any vote for change will necessarily and inevitably involve massive costs. There has been a great deal of hyperbole about that, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, talking about costs running into hundreds of millions of pounds and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggesting that they will be huge for a local authority such as Essex. I dispute that.

1033
Incidentally, perhaps I may correct the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I sympathise with him for not knowing that draft regulations have been published and are available. I also draw the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, to that fact. The regulations are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. So we shall be able to debate them when they are in their final form.
I return to the issue of costs. The Government recognise that there may be costs in some cases. It may be that some retraining of teachers is desirable to prepare them to teach all-ability classes. It may be that some remodelling of premises is helpful to accommodate new patterns of the curriculum. It may even be that some reorganisation is desirable if it is concluded that once the grammar school becomes comprehensive it should become a different size. Much of the debate has focused on that issue.
None of that is in any way automatic. Equally, there may be some savings; for example, on transport if more pupils can attend their local school. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, mentioned that some pupils in Essex travel long distances. We should remember that over the decades the move from selective to comprehensive education has taken place in most areas of the country without fuss, without disruption and without massive reorganisation. Indeed, a great deal of reorganisation took place under the Conservative Government of Mr. Edward Heath between 1970 and 1974. More grammar schools disappeared during the period when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Secretary of State for Education than during the occupancy of that position by any other Member of the other place. Therefore, this is not a new experience. Some of the interventions of Members on the Conservative Benches have given the impression that the proposal is new or has never been undertaken successfully.
Moreover, the change will take place gradually. The effect of a ballot will not be to change the whole of a grammar school's current pupil population; for the most part, it will affect only the new pupils admitted in the first year of an all-ability intake. That will be more than a year after the ballot result is known. All existing pupils admitted on a selective basis will remain in the school. So change will happen gradually; indeed, in an 11 to 18-year comprehensive school over a period of 11 years and in an 11 to 16-year school over a slightly shorter period of time. That gives ample time for the implications and any associated costs to be considered and phased
While I am mentioning 11 to 16-year schools, perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, that I am not aware of Ofsted having said that every comprehensive school should, ideally, have a sixth form—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I should point out to the Minister that I said six form entry, like three or four form entry.
Baroness Blackstone: I apologise to the noble Lord. I have to say that that might be the ideal situation, especially if they are going to have a sixth form.
1034
However, many areas of the country have an 11 to 16-year structure where a somewhat smaller comprehensive school can do a very good job. Indeed, some comprehensive schools even have a sixth form with a smaller intake in terms of the number of classes. However, in those cases, I admit that they would probably need to have some sort of consortium arrangement at sixth form level if they were to do the best possible job for pupils at that stage.
I return to the question of costs. The scale of any costs will depend on the circumstances of each case. That will be best worked out locally once the outcome of the ballot is known. When it is clear that there will be change, various mechanisms will be in place to ensure that the consequences are properly worked through. In particular, we are setting up in the Bill new mechanisms for local decision-making on school organisation matters, as Members of the Committee know because we have already discussed them.
Following a ballot for change, if it is felt desirable in a particular area that there should be some reorganisation of the pattern of schools, that will be properly handled through the publication of proposals for consultation locally and for decision in the local school organisation committee. Only that committee, with the adjudicator if needed—and we hope that in most cases an adjudicator will not be needed—will be able to take final decisions. The committee's remit will include looking at the capital costs associated with reorganisation proposals, and considering how those costs can best be met.
Therefore, it would be most misleading for the LEA on its own to be preparing proposals and costings and presenting them as the only solution to the possible changes ahead. I do not believe that that would be helpful to parents. There are of course a number of other parties involved locally, not least the grammar schools themselves, who have their own views. In the new framework the LEA will not be the only body which can publish proposals. Foundation and voluntary schools can also publish proposals in their own right. I imagine that the noble Baroness would not want the LEA asserting plans when, in law, this is properly a matter for schools to publish their proposals on.
There is nothing to stop LEAs or others undertaking contingency planning and telling people what range of consequences might flow from a ballot for change. It is possible that parties locally will want to explain their view of the options and that they will propose to do so in the event of such a ballot. However, I believe that that is best left as a matter for local discretion before a ballot. After a ballot, the implications and options are best examined in the forum which is being specifically set up for the purpose; namely, the school organisation committee. It would be quite wrong to pre-empt all that before a ballot has even taken place on the basis of speculation and hypothesis.
Perhaps I may move on and say something briefly about the noble Baroness's second amendment, which has not really been touched upon in our debate. The amendment says that the ballot administration company will have to get LEAs to prepare a statement to be sent

1035
to all eligible parents, detailing tests and exam results for all the schools directly or indirectly involved in the ballot, together with,
"a summary of the recurrent and capital expenditure which would result".
from a ballot for change. I have already discussed the cost question, but the new element in the amendment is the reference to exam results and key stage 3 results. However, I should point out that they are already in the public domain. Indeed, the information is published every year. It is published both nationally and locally and receives an enormous amount of publicity, especially locally. Any parent can obtain that information easily if he or she believes that it will be relevant. Therefore, what possible justification can there be for putting LEAs to the extra time and expense of publishing information already published?
I realise that the noble Baroness is trying to ensure that parents have information upon which to make an informed case in a ballot. I am sympathetic with that aim. We are certainly not planning to stop any party to the debate issuing information which it thinks relevant to the choice that parents will make, as long as it is factual and objective. However, there is no need to make that a statutory requirement. It is a matter best left for local discretion, drawing on the very wide array of performance information already required to be published. In the light of that response, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: We now know officially from the department that the information parents will have at the time of being asked for their signatures, and certainly at the time of the ballot, will be pretty sketchy. In fact, they will not know physically, even in outline, what is likely to happen to their schools and their children. Some of the Minister's remarks have given me more cause for worry and will certainly give parents more cause for concern, especially those whose children attend grammar schools.
At this point, perhaps I may address the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, as regards the read-across to GM schools. I should point out to her that those schools were not being closed or reorganised; they were there before and after the ballot in the same form. In other words, a school was not allowed to change its status or be reorganised at the time of the ballot.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I do not really want to pursue the issue, but the noble Baroness must accept that a number of schools went grant maintained in order to avoid being closed. I could give the Committee several examples. I really think that these arguments are well wide of the mark.
Baroness Blatch: Those schools certainly had a time-scale which was better than the one now proposed and they also had a more democratic system in operation. Having been involved in that policy, I can confirm that a great deal of information was made
1036
available to them. Indeed, even if it was a closure proposal, that information was before the local community and those concerned knew what the alternatives were. However, in this case, the local community will not know anything. Those concerned will not know whether there might be a closure or a reorganisation; whether the children will just be dispersed among other schools in the area; or whether they will fill up vacant places in poorer schools. We simply do not know. That is the point I am trying to make.
It would be helpful if the Minister could give one piece of information; namely, the time-scale envisaged. I read both the background paper to the Bill and the regulations, but I cannot discern from that reading the time-scale in which the department is expecting the proposals to be finalised, nor indeed the time-scale over which they will be implemented. It seems to me that the Minister is now talking about the proposals taking up to eight, nine or even 10 years to be implemented. It would be most interesting if we could have that confirmed.
The costs which will result from a ballot to end existing grammar schools will be considerable. I am surprised that the Government are prepared to allow this use of money at a time when every pound is needed, both by LEAs and by schools. To see it dissipated in this way seems unbelievable.
The Minister says that our proposals are unworkable. I agree with the noble Baroness to some degree in that fully-costed proposals may well be difficult to produce, although not in every case. Therefore, I would be entirely happy to see outline proposals on the sort of ideas that an LEA might have if suddenly, overnight, and as a result of a ballot, it had to make reorganisation proposals for what, in the case of some authorities, would be a large number of schools.
The Minister referred to the move to comprehensive education and the reorganisations in the 1970s. I do not know where the noble Baroness was at that time, but I suspect that she was in ILEA and, therefore, would not have had any idea of what was going on in the rest of the country. I can tell her that the most awful reorganisations were proposed. There were proposals to link former grammar schools with secondary modern schools on the other side of a town which would result in children "snaking" through towns and cities. Many schools had to wait for decades for proper reorganisation proposals. Many of the proposals involved heavy costs. However, what was even worse was that bad reorganisation proposals were accepted which did not involve spending a great deal of money. Schools situated great distances apart were merged. Far from transport costs being saved, they rose quite dramatically. Such reorganisations meant that either children "snaked" through a town from one building to another, or staff did so in minibuses. That was an unsatisfactory state of affairs altogether.
We are now getting a hint of what lies behind the Government's thinking. It appears that Kent will have to carry out these proposals on a shoestring. That will be unsatisfactory. If the Government will not allow certain information to be made available to parents when

1037
petitions are drawn up and before ballots take place we shall have to try to help grammar schools to make that information available in the public domain. Are the Government now saying that three or four forms of entry will be acceptable for a comprehensive school? That appears to be the case from some comments that the noble Baroness has made. Will grammar schools remain small and compact but with all ability entry rather than selective entry? I find it difficult to believe that that is what the Government intend. They ought to make that matter clear.
The noble Baroness referred yet again to the organisation committees and the adjudicators. They constitute probably the most undemocratic proposal that has ever emerged from any government. The organisation committees are not accountable and they are not elected. They comprise placemen. The adjudicators are all powerful. They can override the wishes of any single group on the organisation committees. If an unsatisfactory proposal is submitted, an adjudicator can make a decision on it. The right reverend Prelate is not in the Chamber at the moment. However, it is conceivable that a school with a religious character could disappear from the system altogether.
The noble Baroness said that this matter is best left to local discretion before a ballot takes place. That is precisely what my amendments are concerned with. I want the information to be made available before a ballot takes place. However, it appears from what the noble Baroness has said, that that will not be the case. I partly take the point that a great deal of information is available, but I seek much more specific information. There may he information available for an entire LEA area, but as regards a group of two, three or half a dozen schools, I believe there is a need for succinct information to be made available, drawn from the enormous amount of information that is available for the entire LEA area. I believe that would be helpful.
As regards the information that is permitted to be made available to parents, the noble Baroness has said that provided the information is factual it will be permitted. As the noble Baroness is aware, under the terms of the Bill schools will not be allowed to fight their corner. If the permitted information must be entirely factual, will grammar schools be allowed to produce their school prospectuses which promote their schools and laud their achievements? Such prospectuses may well compare a school's achievements with those of other schools in the area. They may even contain information about other schools in the area. All of that information will be entirely factual and will comprise data that is published by the DfEE and/or the local education authority. Will such information be permitted under the terms of the Bill in relation to a grammar school defending its right to exist as a grammar school?
Baroness Maddock: I have listened patiently to the debate wondering when it was most appropriate for me to speak to this issue. We got into rather deep water earlier. I do not wish to speak at length but I was moved to speak by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on reorganisation. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
1038
The Government and the Opposition Benches face a difficulty in this area because they approach the matter from different angles. We have before us this afternoon a series of amendments from the Conservative Benches which seek to delay getting rid of grammar schools. They admit that they want to keep grammar schools. That is quite clear to all of us. The Government are in some difficulty because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said earlier, they have in the past always been against selection. I believe that most of them still oppose selection but they do not talk about that quite so much these days. The Government—perhaps for understandable reasons—do not wish to reorganise education further as it has undergone many reorganisations over the years. The Government have tried to listen to what people have said in that regard. However, that makes their position a little difficult.
I have no difficulty in saying that I and many of my colleagues are not in favour of selection in schools. I attended a grammar school and I taught in a secondary modern school that became a comprehensive while I was teaching there. I have two daughters who both attended what I call truly comprehensive schools. They are quite difficult to find these days because in some areas children are "creamed off' and schools are not always true comprehensive schools. One of my daughters is now at Cambridge and the other is about to go to university. Therefore I do not speak from a background of ignorance. I have been a chairman of governors at a school and I have fought school closures. However, nothing has convinced me that it is reasonable to have a great deal of selection. I have noticed that it is always the average children who receive the least resources. In this country the majority of the population are at the middle of the ability distribution curve. All my experience shows me that those in the middle range of ability—the majority of the population—who make our economy work, lose out in terms of resources. Over the years I have seen the money allocated to education cut dramatically. As we go into the 21st century we need to educate people as well as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that in many cases reorganisations had been awful. I cannot remember who was in control of the city of Southampton when reorganisation took place there as control of the city has changed from one side to the other. However, it had a good education department, whether the city was run by the Conservatives or by Labour. We had good education services. During my second year of teaching the school where I taught, which was a girls' secondary modern school with a grammar stream—a rather strange beast—became a comprehensive school. That was a good reorganisation. It went smoothly and there were no problems. Admittedly that was an urban environment and therefore travel to various schools was quite easy. However, much thought and care went into the planning of the reorganisation. That can be done.
I am not saying that I think people want massive reorganisation in schools today. What comes across to me—I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, put her finger on it—is that at the previous election two

1039
of the three parties that stood for election discussed resources for education in their manifestos. They were resoundingly rewarded at that election.
What people most care about is that there are resources in a school for their child, whatever his or her ability. That is what we have been fighting for. Over a number of years, I have seen that it is costly and expensive to provide grammar schools. In some areas less money has been available for other, less able children. I want to see enough money made available to provide good opportunities for all children. I know that I had more money spent on me in a grammar school than did children in secondary schools in the area. I know how much more they could have achieved had they had the same opportunity. That is what we are talking about. I do not intend to speak at great length on all the amendments. However, I wanted to make our position clear. We should not listen to scare stories about reorganisation. It can be done properly.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, for her remarks. They were based on her rich experience as a teacher, a mother, a pupil, a governor and a member of a local education authority. I cannot disagree with anything that she said. She is right to say that what people care about is that their children have adequate resources spent on them in a good school, whatever their ability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised various questions. First, however, I wish to respond to her point about the dissipation of capital spending as a result of parents in some areas deciding through a ballot that they favour a move towards a non-selective system, or from a grammar school to a non-selective school. We are talking about a ballot for a single school and the potential for the school to change to be non-selective.
I believe that parents will welcome some spending for that purpose. I do not think that they will disagree with it. Moreover, if reorganisation is needed, funds are available. We are spending well over £1 billion on schools capital. I believe that the figure in Kent this year is some £18 million. I do not accept the noble Baroness's point about dissipation. There are bigger and broader objectives here. If parents are committed to the idea of a non-selective system in their area, I do not think that they will object to reasonable spending to ensure that, with all the improvements that are likely to follow from it for their children.
The noble Baroness asked about three or four-form entry and whether we accept that as adequate from the point of view of a comprehensive school. Again, it is a matter for local decision and for the school organisation committees. Many small comprehensive schools are doing a good job. We should not denigrate those schools. In urban areas they are likely to be rather larger, and that, too, has some advantages.
The noble Baroness asked about timing. Draft Regulation 18 covers that question. We are allowing at least 18 months from the ballot result to the introduction
1040
of all-ability entry to a school. Reorganisation proposals can be pursued in parallel through the school organisation committee.
The noble Baroness asked also whether grammar schools can produce prospectuses and information of that kind in the course of a ballot. The answer is yes, so long as the information provided is factual, fair and objective. If the noble Baroness has further questions on the matter, perhaps we may deal with them in response to Opposition amendments under the relevant grouping.
I believe that I have answered all the noble Baroness's questions. In the light of this debate and my remarks as to why these proposals are unacceptable, I hope that she will be able to withdraw her amendments.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Will the Minister clarify her observation about the £18 million allocated by the Government this year for schools capital expenditure in Kent? Is she suggesting that there is some surplus available there, over and above what is already planned by the education authority, to meet what she described as the reasonable expenditure that will be occasioned by foreseeable reorganisation following upon the ballots? Is that the significance? I understood the Minister to say that some local authorities had a reasonable amount of money—£1.5 billion was the figure cited for all England and Wales, and £18 million for Kent.
In the case of Kent, how much of that £18 million would she regard as being reasonably available in the event of ballots resulting in a change? What estimate has been made by the Government of what "reasonable" costs might be? The noble Baroness described my reference to hundreds of millions of pounds in Kent as "hyperbole". It was perhaps fortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was not in his place. Otherwise she might have received the kind of lecture that he gave to my noble friend. Has the Minister taken on board that that £100 million or more was mentioned by the chairman of the education authority in Kent. That was made clear by my noble friend Lord Pilkington. I am sorry to have taken up the Committee's time, but perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to answer those questions.
Baroness Blackstone: I apologise if the noble and learned Lord felt that the term "hyperbole" was unacceptable. Perhaps I should have said, "a little exaggerated". I simply do not know how the chairman of the education committee arrived at that figure. I cannot see how he or she could possibly know. We have no idea what parents in Kent will decide. They may be in favour of retaining the existing system; or there may be a move to a different one. But merely observing that, year after year, substantial sums are available for schools capital is reasonable. How the money is spent will depend on the LEA's judgment as to priorities each year. If parents in Kent vote in favour of moving to a non-selective system, I should have thought that the Kent local education authority would take seriously the wishes of parents and want to allocate

1041
whatever sum of money is necessary to meet those wishes so that Kent can have a viable and sensible non-selective system.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness misses three points completely. First, should that happen, the parents will have no idea what the costs will be. If the ballot is successful and schools in Kent have to cease being grammar schools, parents are just saying that they want non-selective education. They are not asked to vote "at any price", or "on whatever it is going to cost". If the ballot goes against the schools, the change will have to take place.
The second point arising from my noble and learned friend's intervention which the noble Baroness misses completely is that the LEA will have no choice. Whatever the spending priorities of the education authority, those moneys will be pre-empted. The LEA's own priorities will have to be set aside. Schools that are presently non-selective but which are high up in the capital programme are likely to lose their place in that programme as a result of having to attend to this pernicious policy.
Thirdly, if I were the chairman of an education authority in Kent, Buckinghamshire or Trafford, I should not want to wait until a ballot goes against an LEA decision to say that there should be a major reorganisation in the authority. From the moment the ballot has taken place, on one single day, and the result is announced, a local authority will have to set about the work it will have to do. A sensible local authority will be looking now at its schools. Kent will have to look at the kind of reorganisation proposals that it would need to put in place in this eventuality.
I hope that this is one point on which the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will agree with me. Reorganisation proposals are a very long time in the making. There is a mass of consultation to take place and an enormous amount of work to do. A good local authority will do that now. That work is being done at the moment in anticipation of the Government, with its great majority, getting its way with this policy. An assumption is being made. We shall all know about it because there is to be a demonstration outside this place by the group for the advancement of state education, which is ready to begin campaigning against grammar schools. Those people will be active. The local authorities know that and are sensibly beginning to work out the outline costs of reorganisation proposals. We shall bring some of those costs to the attention of the Minister at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233ZB:
Page 75, line 31, at end insert—
("() The governing body of any school for which provision is made under subsection (2)(a) or (b) for that school to be included in a ballot under this section shall, in the event of a dispute, have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that this amendment and Amendment No. 233AB, with which it is grouped, are relatively straightforward. The noble Baroness has
1042
sent me a copy of the regulations, and I am grateful to her for that. In the schedules at the back of the regulations all the grammar schools in the country have been allocated either to whole LEA areas or to areas within local education authorities. It is possible that some of those schools, especially those which have been grouped, may disapprove of a particular grouping. I think it is unlikely that there will have been a mistake, but it seems to me that, where a school is unhappy about its grouping, it should be given an opportunity to make representations to the Secretary of State that it should be put in a more appropriate group and one which is more consistent with its wishes.
Amendment No. 233AB is a very important amendment. If this policy is to be persisted with, we would want the Secretary of State to publish, first, a list of schools (and an attempt has been made to do that); secondly, the relevant groupings (and an attempt has been made to do that); and, thirdly, the geographical areas to which the ballot relates. The latter point is very important. The geographical area will have to be very specific as to houses in streets. It is important for parents who reside in the area and who will be eligible to vote that these lists are all published well in advance of petitions being initiated. When petition signatures are being gathered, it is important to know whether or not someone is eligible. I hope that these lists are now being prepared by the DfEE, in conjunction with local education authorities, who will know the catchment areas of the various schools.
I wish to leave the noble Baroness with a question, which relates to this amendment but also to later amendments. Am I reading the regulations correctly, and is it the case that, where the ballot is an area ballot rather than a whole LEA ballot, it is only the parents of children in the feeder schools that have been announced—as long as those feeder schools conform to the threshold of children who finally transfer to a grant-maintained school—who are enfranchised and not, as with a whole LEA ballot, parents who live within the catchment area of those feeder schools, who may have children aged nought to 16? I accept the nod.
We therefore have the most absurd distinction. Where there is a whole LEA ballot, all parents of children aged nought to 16—and there is some confusion about whether it is 16 to 19, as well—will have a vote; yet in an area where there is only a group of schools—for example, the King Edward Schools in Birmingham—it is only the parents of children in the feeder schools, and therefore the parents of children aged nought to five, who will have a vote, and parents of children aged up to 16 in the areas of those schools will not have a vote. How on earth can the Government justify that distinction? I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I think I can give the noble Baroness 95 per cent. satisfaction that what she is asking for will be achieved; and I think I can explain the 5 per cent. which is the matter relating to feeder schools.
These amendments ask the Secretary of State to do what he is already doing. The information that they request, as the noble Baroness generously

1043
acknowledged, has already been made available—the noble Baroness has seen it—and the opportunities for discussion already exist.
Amendment No. 233ZB would allow governing bodies of grammar schools to appeal to the Secretary of State against their grouping with other schools for the purposes of a ballot. The draft regulations which we published last week are for consultation. They contain the proposed groupings for all grammar schools. But the key word is "consultation". With the exception of those schools in a selective area, where the ballot is about all schools in the area, ballot groupings are open to discussion. If schools present a system for grouping in the area which offers a better alternative—and this is the direct equivalent of an appeal to the Secretary of State—that will be considered by the Secretary of State in framing the final regulations. I put it to the noble Baroness that the amendment is not necessary.
I turn now to Amendment No 233AB, which asks that the Secretary of State publish the lists of schools and the relevant groupings and areas to which ballots will relate. Again, the noble Baroness has acknowledged that we have already published the lists of schools and the relevant groupings. But there is a difficulty about geographical areas. As the noble Baroness recognised, there is no difficulty in selective areas, such as Buckinghamshire, Kent, Trafford and others. The difficulty is where the geographical area will be determined by the feeder schools.
The noble Baroness is right in saying that the geographical area which will be affected—that is to say, the schools whose parents will be enfranchised by ballots based on the feeder school model—will not always be known in advance of a petition or ballot and therefore it will not be possible in advance to define the geographical area of a ballot on the feeder school model. It will be the responsibility of the ballot administration company to identify the feeder schools, but it can and should do that only when a petition is known to be in circulation. If that were not the case, work would be done in advance of a petition which might well be unnecessary. Feeder schools could change each year, and that would change the area affected. The amendment would require grammar schools to complete this exercise every year, even if there were no local interest in a petition.
We are not using school catchment areas on the feeder school model. We identify specific schools in whole area ballots and we enfranchise the parents of those schools. Whatever the catchment area of those schools may be, that is subsumed in the fact that the parents, wherever they come from, are enfranchised under the feeder school model.
With the exception of identifying in advance a geographical area when the model for the inclusivity or otherwise of the ballot is the feeder school model, everything that the noble Baroness seeks in these amendments will be achieved.
1044
The noble Baroness suggested that there was some confusion over whether parents of 16 to 19 year-olds could vote. There is no confusion. The ballots are for parents of children up to the age of 16.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord on two counts: first, for what he said in regard to my first amendment. My assumption is that, if a case can be made, groupings can change and the schools will be grateful for that. I am grateful also for the last point made by the noble Lord. But perhaps I can ask the noble Lord a question.
In an area ballot, only the parents of children who attend feeder schools are enfranchised to vote. Why, in the whole LEA ballot, is it not possible to have the same; that is, that only parents of children in all of the schools in a local authority area that feed into the grammar schools be enfranchised?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The answer is for the reasons identified by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, when he was speaking in relation to Essex. He was talking of Essex, where only 4,000 out of 100,000 children are in grammar schools. We are talking of Kent, Buckinghamshire, Trafford, the Medway towns, Torbay and other areas where the selective system is more than 25 per cent. of the intake.
If what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, says is true about Essex—that the catchment area of the grammar schools in one case covers the whole of Essex and in another the whole of the north of Essex—and it seems, a fortiori, to be the case that the catchment area of the grammar schools in the selective areas where selection is, in some cases, not just the dominant but the only form of secondary education, then the whole area of the authority should be the area of the ballot. That stands to reason, as Worzel Gummidge would have said.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord answered the wrong question. Why is it that, where there is an area ballot, only the parents of children in the primary feeder schools that qualify under the regulations are enfranchised to vote? In a whole LEA ballot, not only the parents of children in every single primary school—that is what I am suggesting—but also the parents of children aged nought to five and the parents of children up to the age of 16 in all the secondary schools, are enfranchised to vote.
Why is it that the electorate for an area ballot includes only feeder schools? Why does it not include all the primary schools in the whole of the LEA that feed into the grammar schools? Why should it include parents of children aged nought to five? And why are they not included in the area ballot?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry if I misunderstood the question of the noble Baroness. There is a real difference between area and whole LEA ballots. The difference is that the whole of the structure of the

1045
secondary school service is affected by the ballot and therefore it is appropriate that all parents should have a vote.
Baroness Blatch: That is absolutely no answer. If one takes Southend, and the schools all around the King Edward school area, all the schools, all the parents and the structure of schools in that area are affected by the presence of those schools. If it is right that parents of children aged nought to 16 in a whole LEA area are enfranchised to vote, why does not that pertain in the area ballot?
In fact, I would wish the situation to be the other way round. If only the parents of children in primary schools which are feeder schools are enfranchised to vote in an area ballot—a large part of Birmingham, Southend and large parts of Essex—why is it that only the same category of parents can vote in a whole LEA ballot?
I shall return to the amendment because the noble Lord gave no answer to the point I was making. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233ZC:
Page 75, line 32, leave Out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 233ZC, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 233AA, 233AC and 233BA.
This is no ordinary ballot. The petition that will take place in local education authority areas and whole local education authorities will give rise to considerable activity. Some of it will be entirely benign. Some people will go peaceably about their business. Some people believe philosophically that selective education should end. But on behalf of other people there will be much more aggressive campaigning. We know that CASE is already girding its loins; it is extremely active. We will see something of that on the day its members choose to demonstrate. Other active organisations are simply waiting for Royal Assent so that they can get under way with providing a network of activity in all areas where grammar schools exist.
The activity is going to be extremely disruptive. The sadness is that it will impact on the stability of the schools, on the staff of those schools, on the parents of the children in those schools and, more significantly, on the children in those schools. That activity can take place over many months. I am hoping that the noble Baroness will agree that the period should not be more than one year. At the end of that time, if the required signatures are insufficient, then the whole thing starts again.
This relentless war of attrition will continue until, in one year, the requisite number of signatures are found and they will go for a ballot. If the ballot is not successful, then the whole dreadful activity starts again. If the ballot is successful, it gives rise to the closure of the school as a grammar school and, in the case of the whole LEA ballot, the closure of the group of schools in the whole LEA area. Every single grammar school in
1046
the area will cease to exist as a grammar school and plans will have to be made to introduce comprehensive education.
I do not underestimate what the amendment will do and the divisiveness that will occur in those areas. Amendment No. 233ZC therefore says that the regulations "shall" make provision to include and they are not simply permissive. Given that the result of this one ballot in a whole LEA area may mean that all the schools will go out of existence, it is a serious ballot. I cannot think of another example of such a serious ballot. Where the result is so serious, the threshold should be considerable. That is why I suggest that 50 per cent. of the eligible parents should be required for a successful petition to trigger off an automatic ballot. However, the petition should be completed within the year.
If the requisite number of signatures are not secured within the space of a year, then there should be an interregnum. The noble Baroness, or whoever responds to the amendment, may well have some fun with what looks like an inconsistency between this amendment and the interregnum that I suggest for the ballots. The reason for the inconsistency is that, if the Bill survives in its present form, then the five-year interregnum makes sense; it is consistent with the five-year interregnum suggested in the ballot. However, if we were fortunate enough to extend the interregnum between ballots, we would want to change the figure in the amendment. I hope that that explains the inconsistency.
Five years is not even the lifetime of a child in a grammar school. A child joining a grammar school in its first year will undergo all this disruptive activity for the space of a year and perhaps some months more while the ballot takes place. The child will then go through all the organisational proposals. In the case of the ballot not succeeding, there is all this disruption in the first year and by the time the young person is hardly ready to go into the sixth form, it starts all over again. If a brother or sister joins the school two or three years later, the disruption begins again.
I make no apology for the way I describe the disruption. It will be a relentless, bitter war of attrition on the part of the disgruntled, the disaffected and the bigoted—I use that word again in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, because there are people who will be bigoted on this issue—and those who are extremely antipathetic to the existence of selection. Worse still, if they are in the minority, they can simply worry away year after year. If the noble Baroness is advocating that as a way of a school existing on into the future, each five years winning against the odds, I really wish to know where the noble Baroness and her colleagues are coming from. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I strongly support the amendments. This is almost the first occasion on the clause when one has been able to discuss the principle underlying it. There was a valiant attempt by my noble friend on Clause 99 at the opening of business to bring up the principle underlying it but the Committee

1047
decided—I do not think necessarily in its wisdom—to move on to other matters. The debates we have had on the amendments so far have been on important details.
Clause 100 ends grammar schools. There is no doubt about that. That has the support of the Liberal Democrat Party, and I shall come on to its shared guilt later. The Labour Party wants to end grammar schools. It is being a touch deceitful, if that is not an unparliamentary word. The party is being deceitful. I am not suggesting at all that any of the Ministers are full of deceit, not half! In its manifesto, as the noble Baroness said, the Labour Party committed itself not to extend selection. That was the golden phrase used in the manifesto. The noble Baroness will know, as she had responsibility for education in the run-up to the election, that several of her colleagues who are now in the Government had gone much further than that. They had said, "We will abolish grammar schools", but they were reined back by Tony Blair. They were told not to say it and so they did not say it. They said that they would not extend selection. So what they have devised in this clause is a way of using democracy to destroy grammar schools. It will be done in such a way that their fingerprints will not be on the dagger. Polonius is going to be stabbed behind the arras and no one is going to be guilty. Democracy has done it.
I believe that the system devised by the Government is an abuse of democracy. They are going to put the matter to a wide electorate. We discovered only this afternoon that the electorate will be different for an area ballot and different for a whole local education authority ballot. The arguments put by the Minister to defend that were totally implausible. Two fancy franchises will be created. What in effect will be used is the voice of the majority against a minority. That is what will happen. It is likely that in most areas and in most LEAs, as a minority of pupils go to grammar schools, only a minority of parents are likely to support them. That is what the Government want to bring about. I think that they should be much more open and explicit about it.
Tony Crosland in 1966 was quite explicit. He used a very forceful and memorable phrase. He said it. It was the actual policy of the Labour Governments of the 1960s and 1970s to end grammar schools. I was very much aware of the vindictive nature of the destruction of the best school in my constituency when I represented St. Marylebone. St. Marylebone Grammar School, which had been founded in 1791, was destroyed. It was the best school in my constituency and probably the best in inner London. It was destroyed by rigging the governing body. ILEA did it and it was approved by the then Secretary of State for Education, now the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. It killed off a school of real excellence. We fought but we lost. In many cases the grammar schools will fight after the Bill goes through but I fear that they will lose because the electorate has been rigged against them.
I am very surprised by the Liberal support. One of the founding philosophical figures of Liberalism was John Stuart Mill. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, will have read On Liberty. What does John Stuart Mill argue mostly in On Liberty? He argues
1048
against the tyranny of the majority. I do not expect the modern Liberal Party to pay much attention to John Stuart Mill because it has become a satellite of the Labour Party—the old Labour Party. That is what John Stuart Mill argued against, but this is what we are going to see exercised either in area ballots or in local authority ballots if these clauses are passed. I very much hope that the safeguards my noble friend has built in—
Baroness Maddock: Perhaps I may—
Lord Baker of Dorking: Does the noble Baroness wish to intervene? I am happy to give way.
Baroness Maddock: I do not know whether the noble Lord was present when I was speaking about these issues. He has quoted John Stuart Mill at me. Perhaps I may quote back at the noble Lord one of the tenets of Liberals and Liberal Democrats today. We want to ensure that everyone has equality of opportunity and that the opportunity of one person should not be detracted from by the opportunity of someone else. That is precisely the point I was arguing earlier. I also made it clear that I thought the Government were in some difficulty on this matter. I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord says about the slightly devious nature of what the Government are doing. I made two points in my contribution. One was about where I stood on the issue of grammar schools and selection and where my party has stood for some time. The other point I made, from experience, was about reorganisation. I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing what is really a rather long intervention.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Baroness know that some Liberal Democrats support some of their local grammar schools around the country? Does that sit easily with what she has just said?
Baroness Maddock: The noble Baroness will know that we support different things locally from what we do nationally. We believe in local democracy. I know that in other places we have had a ballot of people to see whether they want grammar schools. Where they have said yes, we, as their representatives, have allowed that to happen. But it does not alter the fact that I happen to think that it is not the right thing to do.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I am very glad to be back at the wicket. The noble Baroness said that she thought that the process was devious. That was her word, not mine. I do not agree with her is when she says that the Liberals believe in that type of equality. I do not believe that one makes poor schools better by destroying the better schools. That is not the principle. I give her another basic founding principle of Liberalism—choice. There is choice now: choice between religious schools and non-religious schools; between single sex and non-single sex schools; and at the moment between grant-maintained schools and grammar schools. That choice is to be restricted. Choice was one of the great founding principles of Liberalism. So I think that the party has abandoned fundamentally quite a lot of the things for which the old Liberal Party stood.

1049
Perhaps I may continue by supporting the amendments. I believe that the Government's proposals are very damaging. The Government are disguising their real intention, which is to end grammar schools. Why do they not say it? Will the Minister say that he wants to see the end of grammar schools, because that will be the consequence of Clause 100? Say it! Say that that is the purpose of government policy! In this era of greater frankness and modernity of the Labour Party, may we just have a flash of truth occasionally as to the motivation of the Government? I believe that my noble friend's proposals build in certain safeguards.
When the Minister comes to reply he may well chide me and the Conservative Party on our record as regards grammar schools. It may well be uppermost in his mind that in the days of Mr. Heath's Government when the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, was Secretary of State for Education, she closed grammar schools. I reminded her of that on two occasions, and I ducked! She was rather ashamed of it, not that one would expect the noble Baroness to admit such a thing. She thought that it was a rather bad passage in her career, and it was. The point I would make is that there are 167 grammar schools. They are good schools for the most part. Nearly all of them are very good schools. It would be very unwise for any government to set up a system to bring those schools to an end. I very much hope that we shall be able to build in safeguards. I assume that the Government are going to press ahead with ballots. I do not believe that they bring distinction to their party or to the Government by abusing democracy in this way. This is an abuse of democracy and we should oppose it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may deal with one small and narrow point; that is, equality of opportunity. It would be easy to conceive of the county of Essex not having a small proportion of grammar schools. In large areas the system is comprehensive and there is a small creaming effect. But equality of opportunity?—never! Some schools are good; some are very good and some are not. The remarkable thing is that those who know and who research these matters will move, if at all possible, into the catchment area of the successful comprehensive school. There is a quite remarkable premium on houses in those catchment areas. Under this wonderful, equal, flat, superb, everybody-the-same system, the fact of the matter is that those who can afford it still get what they want.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: I intervene in this important debate because I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Baker. This is the crux of the Bill. The big issue of principle is embodied in the part of the Bill which this group of amendments seek to alter. My credentials are probably different from some of those that have already been given. I was not educated at a comprehensive school or a grammar school. I was educated at a public school and so were my children and grandchildren. But my constituents in Gloucester had the opportunity of being educated at one of five grammar schools and that with a population of not much more than 100,000. I fought and strove to keep those grammar schools and four of them are still in existence.
1050
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is not in his place. I would be very happy if he were to return and call me bigoted, if it is being bigoted not to be committed, as he said, to one particular form of education, but to be committed to the best possible education, and to the best possible educational opportunity right across the board. We are not talking about the very high echelon of academic education, but those marginal children in selection who get into a selective school or a grammar school. They might be at the very margins of those selected, but they have educational vistas open to them by stimulating their imaginations. They have the competition from their peers which they would never have had if that type of education had been denied them.
In addition there are regional considerations. Throughout the whole period that I was in my constituency we had below-average unemployment. I do not know what the position is today. Companies from all over the country wanted to build their factories and bring their businesses to the constituency because of the educational opportunities offered. I apologise for intervening so forcefully, but I feel very strongly that this particular clause will wreck the education system and everything that is good in it.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she say why, if the grammar schools were so good, she sent her own children and grandchildren to private schools?
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: They would not have qualified because they did not live in the constituency. I should have been very happy for any of them to have been educated in any of those grammar schools. When I visit them and I go to their speech days my heart swells with pride at the achievements of those schools and what they have done for the benefit of the children who have been fortunate enough to be educated there.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: I wish to reinforce one of the points that my noble friend Lord Baker made on these amendments. This is the nub of the Bill. We are not going to convince the Government that grammar schools are worthwhile and they are not going to convince us otherwise. We have been round this course many times in our lives. What is so deplorable about the arrangement is that the Government have not the courage of their convictions to say that they wish to end the remaining grammar schools. They are having devious ballots which are very damaging to the schools.
One has to think of the individuals involved, such as the teachers in those schools. What are the Government thinking to themselves now? Perhaps the Members on the Government Benches believe that the teachers can move on and get a job somewhere else. Not everyone necessarily wants to do that if they have been long-established in a school and imagine that—as they probably are—they are doing an extremely good job. They will be subjected to this kind of devious, unpleasant balloting every single year until the schools are finally destroyed.

1051
When this kind of thing was applied to housing I believe it was called Rachmanism. Tenants could be got out by putting an unpleasant person next door until the neighbour was driven out. There have been various examples of that in public life. What we shall find now is a way of dealing with schools year by year so that they are got rid of. As we all know with new Labour, the reason why it does not come out and say that it is going to destroy the grammar schools is because it is hoping to hang on to the Conservative votes which it managed to collect at the last election. It has also its own supporters, like Mrs. Harman who is sending her son to a grammar school. Ironically, she was quoted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon at an earlier stage in the debate. The Prime Minister himself sends his children to a selective grant-maintained school. They have all these inconsistencies and they are very much afraid that that will upset Middle England.
This is all in the name of the wonderful new Labour words "transparency", "clearness", "co-operation", "friendship", and everything else. Just before the by-election in the Wirral and shortly before the general election, it was made quite clear by Mr. Blair that the grammar schools "are safe with us". He must have known perfectly well that these measures were in his mind. So it was a complete con on the electorate. It is rather like the hospital service saying that it is going to reduce waiting lists when they have almost doubled.
So the whole thing is a con of a very unpleasant character. When one has not the courage of one's political convictions—and that is what this is about—it is a weakness and a failure. One has not the courage to stand up for what one believes. The Government may not think we are right, but we at least have the courage to stand up for what we believe and to do that publicly. We are seeing this con on the electorate and on the local education authorities by the appointment of the adjudicator. The Government Ministers can then hide behind the difficult decisions which someone else has to make. That, too, is a con. We have a Government who fail to take a single difficult decision of any description whatsoever.
At the end of the day, by all these fiddles, about 170 schools will go. That will be their epitaph. I hope that they will be pleased with themselves. I hope they were pleased with the triumph when the direct-grant schools went. In fact, at a stroke more independent schools were created than ever before. I hope that any grammar school that can do so will become independent. That is what they should do because it is the only way to survive. In that way a school gets out of this outrageous system of fraud.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I should like to offer the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, an opportunity to avoid the wounding charge of being slightly duplicitous in being a proponent of the Government's policy, which was levelled at her by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Earlier this afternoon I invited an answer to the question of whether the remark made not very long ago by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, Mr. Blunkett, that he could not be
1052
expected within a few months to complete the work begun by Anthony Crosland represented the Government's policy. After all, most people who are anxious about the future of the grammar schools can be forgiven for supposing that those words represent the Government's policy. We know perfectly well about the policy of Mr. Crosland back in the 1960s and here we have the Secretary of State saying, "I cannot be expected to complete that within a few months." The natural inference is that he wishes to complete it, but that it will take a little longer. If that is the Government's policy, the noble Baroness will be able to avoid the charge of duplicity if she frankly says, as my noble friend Lord Baker invited her to do, "Yes, it is our policy; we should like to get rid of the grammar schools. It is true that we shall not bring an axe to bear on them, but we shall resort to what we hope will be a thousand cuts." What other explanation can there be for permitting a ballot year after year? That is what will happen if a ballot does not produce what many of us believe to be the desired result from the Government's point of view. Why should the triggering petitions be permitted year after year?
Does not the Minister, or whoever is to reply to the debate, recognise the virtue of stability in education? I understood the noble Baroness to say earlier that she did, indeed, recognise that virtue. However, does she recognise that anything but stability will be the consequence of petition after petition? Does she recognise the character of the campaign that in the past has been waged against the grammar schools and which we shall certainly see again in the future? Does the noble Baroness recognise the appeal that will be made to very emotional considerations? Does she believe that allowing that to happen year in, year out—and it will—will induce stability? Does the noble Baroness recognise my fear that the very instability that it will induce will lead some parents to say, "We don't want to send our child to this school, although it is the best in the area, because we recognise that sooner or later the thousand cuts will bring about its demise"? Many people see that as a duplicitous approach to an objective which is not explicitly declared.
I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity now afforded to answer the question of whether it is the Government's hope and purpose that the grammar schools should go. That would enable us to look in a much more realistic light at the various arrangements which are the subject of further amendments both tonight and later.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps he will answer one question. He has properly laid great stress on stability in education and I concur with that view. In those circumstances, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House how many Bills of fundamental importance to education his government introduced in the 18 years in which they were in power?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: When I first became a Member of your Lordships' House, many people told me that party points were not at the head and forefront

1053
of noble Lords' considerations. I am quite prepared to acknowledge to the noble Lord that I very much regret the fact that many grammar schools were abolished under the Conservative Government in which, as already mentioned, my noble friend Lady Thatcher was Secretary of State for Education. However, remarkably sound achievements were also made in those years and stability has been gravely damaged by the undermining of some of those achievements. We have already referred to grant-maintained schools.
It should be possible today to say whether stability is an objective, although perhaps not the sole objective. We are having a grown-up discussion in which I have ventured to ask whether it is still the Government's objective to encourage stability. I have also asked whether, if stability is an objective, providing for petitions year in, year out until the thing comes "right" actually does encourage stability.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I seem to have two tasks. One is to respond to the amendments and the other is to deal with the "Question Time" atmosphere on the Conservative Benches. I approach both with equal relish.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, should not be put forward to start such a circus. This is the man whose government wanted to get rid of local education authorities. He wanted to stop their having any say in secondary education. His government were quite clear about it. They wanted to have 19,000 grant-maintained schools. They did not say so, but that is what they wanted. To achieve that, they set up a system allowing schools to opt into grant-maintained status and out of the control of the local education authorities. The noble Lord himself established a system whereby all abstentions in a ballot were counted on his side. There were many variations on that system as it became clear that parents did not want it. Only a tiny minority wanted to opt for grant-maintained status, despite the fact that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, reminded us, it was used as a way out of the sensible reorganisation that was necessary because of the declining school rolls. Even so, the noble Lord's government wanted to distance all secondary schools from their local education authorities. They did not dare say so, but they tried to rig the ballot system accordingly.
Those are the people who have the nerve to stand up this afternoon and to say that we are being duplicitous—
Baroness Blatch: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, I am not giving way for the moment. I am referring now to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. When I am being told that I am duplicitous, I want to be told that I am duplicitous. I do not want to be told, as the noble and learned Lord said, that we are seen by "many people" as being duplicitous. I call that duplicitous. I gladly give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Lord agree that when parents voted for grant-maintained status, they voted on and for their own schools? In this case, the
1054
Government are enfranchising people who do not have an interest in grammar schools and allowing them to vote for or against the existence of those grammar schools. The Government are giving the vote to those whose children are not pupils of those schools.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The reason why we have local education authorities and a local system of education rather than a centralised system is that in the cities, towns and rural areas of this country the education system consists of more than just one school. That is why we have to have ballots of all those affected by any proposals. That is the fundamental reason why we object to the system which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and his colleagues introduced in an attempt, which they never admitted openly, to deprive local education authorities of a say in the running of secondary schools. Of course, they then tried to do the same with regard to primary schools. In the first place, however, they tried to drive local education authorities out of existence and we then had a centrally controlled system under the Funding Agency for Schools. That is why the Conservative Government did what they did in the way that they did.
Lord Baker of Dorking: On the question of the role of LEAs, about which the noble Lord has just waxed so eloquently, he cannot have read the speech made by Mr. Stephen Byers a fortnight ago. The noble Lord's Government are to reduce the role of the LEAs to one of only marginal responsibilities. They have sent out a consultation document. I know that the noble Lord is not a Minister in the department and so he cannot be expected to follow this in great detail. He is chiding me for having rigged the franchise while he is rigging two fancy franchises. The noble Lord said that I did that with regard to grant-maintained schools. If I did, I did a very bad job of it, did I not—
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Baker of Dorking:—because in many of those elections, the parents did not vote for grant-maintained status. However, we gave them the choice. As my noble friend Lady Blatch said, the electorate then was school-based and comprised the people directly involved. Under the Government's proposals, if it is a local authority ballot parents who may live 30 miles away will have a say in the future of that school. What is democratic about that? It is not democratic. Perhaps the Minister will answer one specific question. Does he personally want to see the end of all grammar schools?
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Since the Committee is engaged in a wider debate perhaps I should refer to the Labour Party manifesto, on which this Government were elected. I have no difficulty with that and the way in which it has been implemented. We said in the manifesto that there should be no return to the 11-plus, which divided children into successes and failures at far too early an age, and that any changes to the admission

1055
policies of grammar schools would be decided by local parents. That was what we said and that is what we are doing. There is no duplicity in that at all.
I turn to the amendments, which are not concerned with ballots but petitions, which are quite different. None of the amendments now being debated refers to ballots, although one might not think so from the way in which some noble Lords opposite have spoken this afternoon. The purpose of this group of amendments beginning with Amendment No. 233ZC is to place unrealistic and unnecessary obstacles in the way of parents who support an end to selective admission arrangements and to grammar school governing bodies who wish to publish proposals to remove their selective arrangements. The majority seek unfairly to tip the scales against those who support an end to selection. Amendments Nos. 233AA, 233AC and 233BA are all designed to make the task of raising a petition unrealistically difficult.
Dealing first with Amendment No. 233AA, the threshold proposed is 50 per cent. of eligible parents being required to sign a petition. For example, in Kent it would require a petition of 250,000 or more signatures. That represents a mammoth tasks. The Government fully accept it is right that the ballot procedure should not be lightly undertaken and that there should be evidence of significant local demand before one is triggered. It was with that in mind that we set the petition threshold at 20 per cent. of eligible parents.
But we must bear in mind that a petition of itself does not require change in grammar school admissions. The petition merely acts as a trigger for holding a ballot in which all eligible parents can have their say and where change will take place only if a majority of those voting say that that is what they want. The noble Lord derided democracy and said that the Government were using it to destroy the grammar schools. A majority is what democracy is about. Control of the majority by a minority is not a readily acceptable alternative. Setting the petition threshold as high as 50 per cent. of eligible parents is clearly a ruse to ensure that ballots can never in practice be triggered and is unacceptable to the Government.
I move now to Amendment No. 233AC, which provides mechanisms to limit the life of any petition to any one academic year. Those are already contained in draft regulations that the department issued for consultation last week. I draw your Lordships' attention to regulation 7(4) in the draft that we have issued for consultation which states explicitly that for a petition to be valid it must have been received within the school year. A school year is defined as the period from 1st September to 31st July. Therefore, the amendment is quite unnecessary.
Amendment No. 233BA seeks to introduce a moratorium for petitions. We shall not fall into that trap. It leaves the system open to the most obvious abuse. If this amendment were accepted supporters of grammar schools could submit a petition with five names on it toward the end of the year safe in the knowledge that
1056
it would never trigger a ballot but would trigger a moratorium and thus deny parents the right to consider the issue for five years. That cannot be right.
We have a moratorium provision where it should be—on the deciding ballot itself—to make sure that all of the fears that noble Lords opposite have expressed will not arise. I believe that there are people outside this Chamber who will be very offended by some of the descriptions of the majority of parents who, it is acknowledged, want to end selection. We will not fall into the trap of saying that very few people can easily trigger a moratorium, which means that the matter cannot be raised for five years afterwards.
We come back to the issue of stability about which noble Lords have asked me. Stability is a good thing and we are in favour of it. But we are not in favour of stability at any price. We cannot and should not freeze the school system. The Conservative Government did not do so. They looked for ways to improve standards. I acknowledge that many of their motivations—I refer to city technology colleges as an example—were admirable, although not always their achievements. At any given moment the school system is as it is. One cannot say that there will never be change. Of course, the education service must change, develop and progress. We believe that the system of ballots triggered by petitions as proposed in this part of the Bill is not only a rational and democratic way of proceeding but is precisely in accordance with our explicit manifesto.
Lord Baker of Dorking: Before the Minister sits down, can he answer the specific question that I put earlier? Does he personally want to see the end of grammar schools? He must have a personal view on this matter.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I take the view that my party takes: it is for local parents to decide whether or not they want grammar schools to continue.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister's answer is interesting. I am reminded of the question put by my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew to the noble Lord opposite and to another Minister earlier. When Mr. Blunkett referred to the statement of Anthony Crosland his answer was that he should not be expected to do in three months what Mr. Crosland had started. Implicit in that response is that he will stay with the principle behind the statement of Anthony Crosland but that it will take a little longer.
I should like to deal with some of the matters touched upon by the noble Lord. I am always encouraged when the noble Lord becomes really cross. It means that we have touched a nerve. On this subject we have certainly touched a nerve. We believe that what any government should do is build upon what is best and what works and develop and not destroy. Personally, it hurts to see a number of members of this Government, who not only enjoyed the fruits of the grammar school system and selective education but are presently enjoying those fruits by sending their children to those schools, closing

1057
the doors behind them so that no one else has that opportunity. That is not good government, and it is certainly not good politics.
The noble Lord rather generously referred to the city technology colleges. That was a brilliant policy initiated and implemented by my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking. The noble Lord was gracious about it. However, the noble Lord and his colleagues did not support city technology colleges; they fought our proposals tooth and nail, as they did many of our other policies that have since been adopted.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when responding to my noble friend Lord Baker, who had referred to the ballots on grant-maintained schools, retorted that not all of the people had been involved in those ballots. Today we have heard an absurd description of the balloting system for grammar schools. In some cases not all of the people will be involved in those ballots. I do not know how to describe it. It is incomprehensible and incredible that in one set of schools the parents of children aged 0 to five and parents of children aged 12 to 16 are disfranchised whereas in another set of schools parents of children aged 0 to 16 are enfranchised. What kind of system is that? There is no logic to it at all.
If the noble Lord believes that it is democratic and open of the Government to invite people to vote on whether they want selection to end in their authorities, what is wrong with giving people a vote on whether they would like selection to take place in their authorities?
One needs to ask some interesting and practical questions about ballots.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Can we be clear that the amendments relate to petitions, not ballots. There is plenty of opportunity for noble Lords to put down amendments on ballots.
Baroness Blatch: There are four amendments about petitioning. A petition invites people to vote for something. I am referring to the whole gamut of petitioning. I shall ask some practical questions.
On the collection of signatures—the point relates materially to some of my amendments—having been canvassed many times for my signature, my experience is that petitions can be undertaken in a highly civilised way and politely, with the purpose of the proposition explained painstakingly and a genuine effort made to persuade me to sign. Collections of signatures can also be deceptive. Perhaps I may give as an example an incident that happened to me involving some Labour activists in my area. They used to put up a couple of trestle tables in the market square each Saturday. They would collect signatures for many causes. On this occasion the cause was animal rights, and related to an animal experimental station in the area. I walked to the table for this reason. I had a son who, sadly, died when he was just short of 15. He was diabetic. His life had been saved by some of the experimentation on animals.
An elderly couple were ahead of me at the table. They were being asked to sign a petition on this basis: "Do you think that it is right to be kind to animals"? Of
1058
course the elderly couple both signed the petition; they thought it right, as would any good thinking person, to sign a petition saying that people should be kind to animals.
I asked the people whether they had read the motion on top of the petition paper; they had not. I invited them to do so. I also tried to tell those people that there needs to be a wider understanding of some of the arguments. They almost jumped over the table at me. One of them chased me up the high street and was abusive, because I had dared to try to introduce some integrity into the process of collecting signatures.
I make no apology for telling that story because I believe that the collecting of signatures can be a distasteful experience for some people. Many petition collectors can be aggressive and coercive. They can be economical with the explanations as to why people should sign a petition.
I wish to ask another practical question of whoever will respond to the debate. The verification procedures will be notoriously difficult. They always are. I have been involved in collecting signatures. Let us consider Kent, and the example that the noble Lord gave. Let us assume that the noble Lord's figures are correct. We are talking of 125,000 signatures. An authority has to decide whether the signature can be read, where the parents live, or whether they are bona fide parents of a child in a school in the area. There is a great deal of verification.
The schools do not have the resources to crawl over not one petition but many petitions. From the background papers on the debate, we know that one can have 50, 100 or 200 people collecting signatures. In the county of Kent it will not be difficult or take very long to collect 125 signatures if one can convince people. If one has several weeks and months in which to do so, one has only to have a few Saturday afternoons collecting signatures to reach that figure. Who will be in charge of the verification process? If the petition and ballot are successful, what financial help will be given to all the grammar schools which will cease to exist?
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, challenged one of my noble friends—I cannot remember whom—about the plethora of legislation over the past 18 years. Let me remind noble Lords of some of it. As regards setting up the inspectorate to inspect schools, noble Lords opposite are entirely happy with that. They were not so at the time, but they are now. The national curriculum was opposed vigorously at the time; it is now accepted that there has to be a national curriculum. Assessment and testing were opposed vigorously at the time; they are now accepted as a way of life. We have had mentioned city technology colleges. They were opposed tooth and nail but are now supported. On specialist schools, not only do noble Lords opposite support the principle, they are extending it.
On grant-maintained schools, noble Lords opposite "sort of" support the concept—it is another devious policy—but they are changing the names and the degree of autonomy. Local financial management was invented by my local authority when I was leader of that authority. Now noble Lords opposite are praising that policy to the hilt. I refer to the Teacher Training

1059
Agency, the publication of information to parents, and compulsory parents' evenings. That is legislation—there is a great deal more—which is now supported by noble Lords opposite.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: The noble Baroness's last statement is not true. While some of the legislation has been accepted, much has not. The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, was on stability. It could be argued that grant-maintained schools and CTCs could be implemented, but with longer intervals. Anyone who visits schools or talks to teachers will find that they are sick to death of the chopping and changing over such a period. There has to be a timescale in which stability can be achieved. That was my point.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to make a distinction between the stability about which the noble Lord speaks and the stability to which we refer in this debate. The noble Lord should join me in visiting schools now. They are deeply unhappy about some of the changes now in train as a result of the Labour Government coming into office. There is a great deal of unsettled feeling in the schools. One has only to consider this Bill to see how much change is coming for local authorities and schools.
If the noble Lord can point me to any piece of legislation in the past 18 years which provided for a whole category of schools to cease to exist, with the parental preferences of all the parents who support the schools dashed to the ground in one fell swoop, I shall concede the point he makes.
Some schools will lose out in three ways. Some of the 160 schools will be grammar schools. That will be the subject of this measure. Some will also be grant-maintained schools, and they lose some autonomy. Some schools will have a distinctive religious character which, because of the unsatisfactory nature of the earlier answers, will be subject to the unelected organisation committees and all-powerful adjudicators. It is those people who will be asked for their signatures on a piece of paper in the market squares up and down the land.
Many of our children are suited to fast stream academic education. The policy of sending out people to collect signatures to destroy schools represents yet another rung out of the ladder for bright young people from low income families. Those people will not be able to choose to go to private schools. It is another way of pushing at least a percentage of these schools into the private sector. There is no doubt that instability will be created by the collection of signatures and the system of petitioning. This relentless war of attrition set up by noble Lords opposite will have a most damaging effect.
Finally, with the politics of envy, a cowardly method has been chosen as the mechanism for achieving this policy. Noble Lords opposite, headed by Mr. Blair, are presiding over a dumbing down of the whole country, of which that policy of petitioning and balloting against a category of schools which is producing some of the best education in our country is one further example.
1060
We will not call a vote on the matter today. We will definitely return to it. I promise the noble Lord that I will return to it. I hope that before I sit down the noble Lord can answer the specific questions I put to him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope to answer the specific questions which the noble Baroness put to me about petitions, because that is what the amendments are about. She described what seemed to me to be utterly deplorable petitions. I do not know whether she has read Part 2 of the draft regulations which were sent. They are flagged in Clause 100(3)(c). It states that the regulations may make provision,
"prescribing the form of any such petition and other requirements (whether as to the procedure to be followed or otherwise) which are to be complied with in relation to any such petition".
It is horrible language, but it is clear enough, is it not?
We have in the draft regulations petitions for ballots. We have regulations which specify who the petition should come from; to whom it should go; what the words should be; and what the form should be. The regulations, in paragraph 8(1)(2), spell out:
"We the undersigned, being eligible parents, seek a ballot on whether those local schools which select by academic ability should continue to do so".
There are definitions in the regulations about relevant parents and relevant population. There are definitions of the notification of the result of the petition. All the aspects which the noble Baroness raised against petitions, which she and her government never raised against other petitions, are spelt out clearly in the regulations. Petitions will be controlled not by the local education authorities themselves but by the ballot administration company which will be independent of the local education authorities.
In the course of the debate, we heard some very hard words indeed. We heard "deceit", we heard "duplicity" and we heard "cowardly". They were not unparliamentary because they were not addressed to individuals. But at the end of all this we will end up with a Bill which implements exactly what we said to the people of this country in our election manifesto. None of us—personally, individually or collectively—on these Benches is in the slightest degree ashamed of what we are doing. We are proud of it. And if I sometimes get cross it is because I feel so strongly. I raise my voice not in any sense of uncertainty. I apologise for raising my voice occasionally; I do not apologise for what I am saying.
Baroness Maddock: It may be an appropriate moment for me to take a couple of seconds to set the record straight. Today, I have been accused of various things and I have been misquoted. I made it clear that I was against selection. I did say that I thought the Government were a little duplicitous and we had a problem about that. I said that and I stand by it. I was accused of not being in favour of choice. I must make it clear that I and my colleagues are in favour of choice. We are in favour of maximum best choice for all, and not in favour of best choice for a few and a mediocre choice for many, which I explained clearly. I hope that

1061
later tonight we shall be able to debate the amendments rather than have interventions such as these. But I want to put the record straight about what I said.
Baroness Blatch: I agree with the noble Baroness about the policy of choice. Thousands of people—we are probably edging up towards 1 million—chose to send their children to grant-maintained schools. Many more thousands chose to send their children who qualified to selective grammar schools. Despite all the fine words we heard the other night from the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about the Government being in favour not only of sustaining parental choice but of enhancing it, that swathe of parental choice is about to be snuffed out. Thousands of parents across the country who send their children to grant-maintained schools will be given no opportunity to vote for the option being presented by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may be proud of this day; I am certainly not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): If Amendment No. 233A is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 233AA through pre-emption.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233A:
Page 75, leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert—
("() requiring a request for a ballot under this section to be made by means of a petition signed by parents eligible to request and vote in the ballot;").
The noble Lord said: I trust that the temperature can be reduced slightly in respect of this group of amendments because we have had the principal arguments, the ideology, the philosophy, the politics and some of the mechanistic details of ballots and petitions. The group of amendments deals with whether the power should be on the face of the Bill or in regulations. The amendments do not deal with substantive issues. In doing so, they respond to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee as regards the grammar school provisions of the Bill. The group also includes small government amendments giving schools the power to charge parents for copies of parental lists.
Within the group is Amendment No. 233KA, the Opposition amendment relating to affirmative resolutions. I shall also speak to the rest of the government amendments, Amendments Nos. 233B to 233M.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee said about the grammar school provisions of the Bill:
"The House may wish to consider whether the most important issues of substance should be decided by Parliament and appear on the face of the Bill. These issues include the specifying of parents who will be eligible, the percentage of eligible parents who will have to petition against grammar schools to trigger a ballot and the nature of the majority needed in the ballot to bring about the change. The House may also consider that the first regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure".
The amendments follow the recommendations of the Committee. Your Lordships will recall that we have already discussed and agreed an amendment which will
1062
make the first regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. These amendments give effect to the remaining issues.
The approach we have taken is to spell out the details of eligible parents and petition thresholds in a new clause, which is covered by Amendment No. 233L, and say that the regulations must provide for these aspects to be handled in this manner. This means two things. First, there are a range of minor amendments removing now redundant pieces of Clause 100, and, secondly, a new clause states what the ballot regulations must contain.
The ballot result will be determined by a simple majority of those voting. Amendment No. 233M puts that into Clause 101. The details are as we explained in the note about the proposed approach to regulations made available in Committee in another place and sent to the Leaders of the two parties opposite before Second Reading.
Amendment No. 233C enables regulations to give power to the governing bodies of maintained schools or the proprietors of independent schools to make a charge for providing copies of parental lists in connection with petitions. That charge cannot, however, exceed the cost of supply. Amendment No. 233G spells out that expenses for providing information required under the regulations can be paid not only to school governing bodies, but also to proprietors of independent schools and to LEAs where they have incurred the expense.
It may help if I briefly explain the nature of the information requirements envisaged. Regulations made under Clause 100(3)(e) will require governing bodies to compile two lists of parents. The first, the electoral list, will include the names of all parents eligible to vote. This will be sent by the governors to the ballot administration company. However, while parents may wish to vote in the ballot, they may not wish to be approached by those campaigning for either side. For that reason, the governing body will also be required to produce a second list, called the parental list. This list will be similar to the electoral list but will not include the names and addresses of any parents who have requested that their details should not be made public.
The Bill already provides in Clause 100(11) that the Secretary of State can arrange for payments to be made to governing bodies in respect of expenses incurred in relation to obligations to provide information. We anticipate that this would cover the expense of writing to parents asking whether they are content for their names and addresses to be made public so that the parental list can be prepared. Amendment No. 233G recognises that LEAs and proprietors of independent schools may also have such expenses. These payments would be made through the ballot administration company.
Amendment No. 233C goes one small step further in ensuring that schools are not faced with new financial burdens as a result of their obligation to make parental lists available to parents who ask for them. The Government also intend that the charge to parents would cover only the costs incurred by the governing body, for example, the photocopying of a number of sheets.

1063
I should also emphasise that parents will be able to inspect the list free at the school. The charge applies only when they want to take a copy away. This approach of allowing schools to charge parents for copies is exactly the same approach as that adopted by the previous government in relation to GM ballots. Therefore, I do not think there should be any controversy here.
I should like to make a few comments on Amendment No. 233KA, tabled by the Opposition Front Bench. I am slightly surprised to see this proposal, which goes well beyond the recommendations of the scrutiny committee. The Government have already tabled an amendment in line with the delegated powers committee's recommendations to secure that a first set of regulations on grammar schools will be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Here, as elsewhere in the Bill, we have followed very clearly the recommendations of the committee.
This amendment would go much further than that. It would require not just the first but any subsequent recommendations in this area to be subject to affirmative resolutions. We do not see the justification for that. The regulations which we are bringing to the House for approval in due course will set out the detailed framework. That will take account of all comments received during the consultation process. That first set of regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution, as the committee recommended.
However, once the framework has been agreed, we cannot see that there will be wholesale changes to the mechanism. Any revisions to the regulations are likely to be fine tuning. Indeed, the government amendments we are discussing in this group which create the new clause on the face of the Bill will ensure that there cannot be drastic changes to the regulations thereafter. Therefore, we cannot see that later regulations, if there are any, need to be subject to affirmative resolution. I do not see that to take the unusual step which this amendment would suggest of going beyond the recommendations of the scrutiny committee would be justified in this case.
I ask the noble Baroness not to pursue her amendments. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. Is there is a power to vary these provisions once they have been through the affirmative resolution procedure, and will they thereafter be subject to negative resolution? I give two examples which I believe may be covered: the threshold for petitions and the interregnum between ballots.
Lord Whitty: I think the noble Baroness is right that they could be varied, but that would still be subject to the negative resolution procedure. That hardly affects the principles and the framework that we are agreeing here.
Baroness Blatch: I hardly call that fine tuning. There is nothing to stop the Government in a year's time, if
1064
they find that 20 per cent. is too high, making it 10 per cent. So, if that is the case, I shall continue to press for the affirmative resolution. I shall not do it now but I shall certainly continue to press. That is not fine tuning. That is very substantial.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Speaking as a member of the scrutiny committee, I appreciate the way in which the recommendations of the Committee have been implemented. We thought that they were important. It is commendable that those recommendations have been implemented in the way the Minister has just identified.
Lord Whitty: I apologise to the Committee and to the noble Baroness in particular. My reaction on my feet was that she was correct. However, although she is correct in relation to the interval, she is not correct in relation to petitions. The threshold for petitions could not be altered by subsequent changes in regulations.
I understood that the noble Baroness was not pressing this point. Has the noble Baroness decided not to pursue the amendment?
Lady Blatch: On the basis of the answer, I am not comforted. I shall continue to press but I shall not be pressing it today.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 233AA to 233AC not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233AD:
Page 75, line 45, after ("section,") insert—
("() compile and publish, before a petition is initiated and at least six months before any ballot takes place, a list of all eligible parents:").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is by way of seeking more information from the Government. I have simply put this down because I believe that the sooner one sees the register of eligible parents, the better.
It will be impossible to know when anybody starts a petition. We understand that there is some pre-petition collecting activity taking place at the moment. If the noble Lord does not know about that, I can tell him that that is the case. The moment this Bill has Royal Assent, there will be people preparing to canvass for signatures and to collect them. To be a registered person, anyone signing the petition must comply with the requirements of the regulations. Consistent with my amendment, I should like a list printed well in advance of the ballot taking place. I should also like to know from the Government when, in the course of this process, they intend to ensure that a list of eligible parents is made available. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: This amendment would require that a list of all eligible parents should be published in advance of any petition, and at least six months in advance of any ballot.
This proposal in unacceptable for several reasons. The proposal to require publication of the names of all eligible parents is rather odd. That is not what happened in grant maintained ballots. In grant maintained ballots,

1065
the previous government provided specifically that parents must be given the opportunity to have their names removed from any list of names before it was published. That, 1 think, was the right approach.
There are confidentiality issues here. Parents may not want their names published. Of course, the ballot administration company must have the full list of parents so that all eligible parents will be able to vote. But that list is not published. It is only used by the ballot administration company for the purposes of checking petitions and sending out ballot papers.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, by contrast, requires publication. It would be quite wrong to be publishing full lists of names against the wishes of all the parents concerned. There are also practical objections to what the amendment would require. In a whole LEA ballot, some parents will be able to register for a vote where they are not already on the lists of relevant schools. But many parents probably will not seek to register until the petition is started, or a ballot is declared. So their names will not be known as early as the amendment requires. Then there is the further point that children join schools every term in many primary schools. Many primary schools have an entry in September, January and April. So it is quite likely that the electoral list published so far in advance would be substantially out of date by the time the ballot happened.
Finally, that would represent a quite unnecessary additional burden for the schools involved, because it would require them to collect up information before it is needed. There might never be a petition is some areas. So all this information would have been published unnecessarily.
I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I think that the answers given by the noble Baroness are rather unsatisfactory. As I understand it, the ballot company will maintain a list of those who are eligible to vote, and that, therefore, will exist. Normally in an election, particularly in an election which affects the fate of a considerable number of people—parents sending their children to a grammar school or parents who are not sending their children to a grammar school—should be able to see who is entitled to vote.
We are used to this principle in our country. We have electoral lists. Where there are other elections throughout our society, in trade unions, for example, there are electoral lists. People know exactly who is entitled to vote. As people will be campaigning for one side or another, they should at least know who they should be campaigning towards and to whom they should be addressing their letters and pamphlets. I really do not believe that the answers which the Minister has given are very convincing. I would ask her to look again at that matter before Report stage.
It is possible to bring the lists up to date. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that the names of parents of children coming from primary schools would have to be added to the list but it is possible to do that. It is
1066
known who the parents are because the children are attending primary schools. It is possible to add those names to the list. If there are to be those fancy franchises, which the Government seem set upon, the very least that can be done is to publish the names of the people who are entitled to vote in those fancy franchises.
Lord Northbourne: Perhaps I may ask for some clarification from the noble Baroness. Subsection (1)(c) of Amendment No. 233L provides that the Government can prescribe the parents of children of any description. Am I wrong? If I am right, if they wanted to force through a vote in a ballot, the Government could prescribe all the parents of children who do not go to grammar schools or they could prescribe all the parents who voted for the Labour Party in the last election. Is there any restriction?
The other point is that Amendment No. 233M refers at the end to the grammar school "ceasing". In an earlier discussion on an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, we gained the impression that schools would continue as religious schools and that they would not actually cease. Perhaps that point could be clarified.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may respond first to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. As I said earlier, there are confidentiality issues in this regard. Not all parents want to have their names published in the way that the noble Lord suggests. I remind the noble Lord that under the grant-maintained ballot system, parents, rightly in my view, were given the opportunity to have their names removed from the list before it was published.
This suggestion is impractical for the reasons that I have given. Parents may seek not to register until the petition is started or a ballot is declared. It is perfectly reasonable that they should delay registering until that happens. There is the further point that children join schools every term. That would make that proposal quite impractical.
I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that the amendment that has just been agreed to makes it clear who can vote. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: What did the noble Baroness mean by delaying registration until a ballot has happened?
Baroness Blackstone: As I understand it, under the regulations, parents will not have to register until either a petition is started or a ballot is declared. That is the point that I am making.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness used the word "happened". When a ballot has happened, it has happened. There is not a lot of point in registering afterwards.
My noble friend Lord Baker raised some important points. Of course there must be a facility for removing the names of those parents who do not wish their names to be published. In fact, that facility was made available

1067
in relation to the GM ballots. It is interesting that very few people took advantage of that provision. Nevertheless, it exists and it protects confidentiality. But then the ballot lists were published and parents could have copies of the lists. In fact, the schools were obliged to give sight of the lists to those who wished to see them.
A very important point is that the grammar schools will have their hands tied behind their backs. They cannot campaign. They cannot fight their corner for the survival of their school. Now they cannot even see the list of people who will be voting against them in order to communicate with them. We have heard that they will be allowed to communicate fundamental, basic information so long as it is information and it is factual. How on earth can that be done if the schools do not know who is on the lists? It seems to me extraordinary.
The petition must represent at least 20 per cent. of the eligible electorate. Therefore, the electorate needs to be known and specific numbers need to be known. Somebody will need to know when the 20 per cent. is reached. When you are collecting signatures, you need to know if somebody is on the registered list. People will ask whether they are on the list. Just as there is an electoral list for main elections, there needs to be a list against which checks can be made. It seems to me that an extraordinary policy of secrecy is being established under those rules.
The answers that we have had from the noble Baroness to the points that have been made in this short debate are extremely unsatisfactory. That means that we must return to this matter. It may well be that some of the formalities and procedural points are covered in regulations, but the practical aspects are not covered. We see enormous practical difficulties in delivering these petitions in a way that is open and informative. It seems to me that all the key people in this process—in particular the grammar schools, staff, parents and those who are anxious to retain the existence of grammar schools—are placed at a serious disadvantage if they cannot have sight of the registered lists.
Baroness Blackstone: The ballot company will assemble the list of eligible parents only after there is reason to believe that a petition is being organised. Of course there will be full lists and parents will be able to obtain the parental lists, excluding those who wish their names to be removed. All that information will be available but at the right time, not six weeks before the ballot takes place, which is what this amendment seeks to achieve.
Lord Baker of Dorking: Perhaps the Minister will reflect on this matter before Report stage. I assume that when the lists are published the names of parents who die between registration and the ballot will be removed.
1068
What about parents who split up and the custody of the child is transferred to one of the parents? Will the names of those parents be struck off?
Baroness Blackstone: Both parents are entitled to vote. If parents separate, that will not affect their position.
Baroness Blatch: From my reading of the papers, I should tell my noble friend that I believe some children will have up to six parental votes. That may be their original parents, divorced parents and also guardians in situ at the time of registration. Therefore there is scope for a large number of signatures on the paper.
The noble Baroness is now being inconsistent. She has said that the register will be drawn up by the balloting company and that parents will be able to see it. They can see it only if it is published. My understanding is that there must be a registered list. Those who seek confidentiality can have their names removed. The list should then be made public.
I said at the outset that I tabled this amendment quite specifically so that we could have a debate and find out from the Government at what point they believe this list should be available. If it is not available until the ballot is about to take place—in other words, the petitioning has taken place—then it is too late for the schools concerned to communicate with those on the list in order to provide factual information about those schools.
Baroness Blackstone: Parents can register for up to four weeks after the balloting company gives notification that the petition is declared valid. But the register will close six weeks before the ballot date. I hope that is helpful because I am trying to be helpful in explaining the system. This amendment asks that there should be a list of all eligible parents published in advance of any petition and at least six months in advance of any ballot. I am merely saying that that is quite impractical.
Baroness Blatch: I thought I had made it clear that my amendment is a mechanism for having a debate. I said that right at the outset. I am trying to find out the position. The noble Baroness now seems to be saying that the register will not be available for the grammar schools which are the subject of the ballot to peruse and to check so that they can communicate with the people on it during the time of the petition. We just want to know from the Minister at what time the balloting company will publish this list for public information. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but, in doing so, I must express the hope that the Minister will do as my noble friend said; namely, reflect on some of the answers that have been given to this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 233AE not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233C:
Page 76, line 11, at end insert—

1069
("() authorising any such bodies or persons to charge a fee (not exceeding the cost of supply) for documents supplied by them in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of paragraph (e)(i);").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233CA:
Page 76, line 14, at end insert—
("() prescribing that a ballot shall only be successful if a majority of eligible parents support the abolition of selective admissions arrangements in the school or schools concerned;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 233EA, 233N and 233P. The Minister will be pleased to know that I shall not repeat all the arguments that have been expressed. Indeed, they are on the record; they are heartfelt; and we shall return to them at the next stage. The particular point that I should like to make about these amendments is that a ballot should be successful only if a majority of the eligible electorate is reached, and that the moratorium should be 15 years and not the five years set out in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 233N and 233P would simply rearrange Clause 101(1) to reflect the wording set out within them.
I said earlier that the life of a child in a grammar school can be about eight years. It means that this very disruptive process could happen twice in the single passage of one child through a school. I believe that that is unacceptable. We should at least allow for two generations of children to go through between ballots. The argument in that respect is overwhelming. If the Minister does not accept that, I shall return to the phrase that I have used before; namely, that what we have here represents a relentless war of attrition on these schools. It would be seriously bad. It would certainly be educationally and socially bad and highly disruptive, especially in an area where there are many grammar schools, if the ballot time after time were not successful. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose that we should be grateful for small mercies. At least the noble Baroness does not go as far in these amendments as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, did with his procedures for ballots on grant-maintained schools. The noble Lord counted all abstentions as being votes for GM status and required that a majority of those eligible to vote had to vote for the status quo, so as to have no change. Clearly neither of those suggestions is acceptable. The noble Baroness knows perfectly well that all of our political traditions are based on a majority of those present voting. That is what is proposed here and that is what we shall stick to.
I was interested to hear what the Baroness said about the moratorium. There is nothing magical about five years or, indeed, 15 years. I am not claiming that there is. However, has the noble Baroness really thought about the period of 15 years? A moratorium of 15 years would mean that some parents who would otherwise be enfranchised would never get the opportunity to express an opinion. Indeed, that effectively removes the notion that parents will decide the future of grammar schools for long periods of time.
1070
The Government believe that the five-year moratorium proposed in the draft regulations—and, of course, they are draft regulations—strikes the best balance between offering a period of stability for the grammar school while, at the same time, still allowing local parents the opportunity to express an opinion. The noble Baroness has already indicated her intention to withdraw these amendments. I am grateful to her for that.
Baroness Blatch: I do not remember saying that I would withdraw my amendments. I do not know what the noble Lord was listening to, but I do not actually remember saying that. The noble Lord has trotted out yet again the red herring of grant-maintained schools. However, I make a very fundamental distinction in that respect. The people of those schools were voting for the future of those schools. They were not voting for their closure in any sense. The nature of the school would continue. They were just voting for more autonomy to take control of their own affairs. That is a very different matter from a ballot which takes place to remove a whole swathe of schools from an area, and one which does not even confine the vote to the parents of children in those schools. We have a bizarre balloting system now being spelt out to us by the noble Lord, which I find wholly indefensible. I am not impressed with the response to the main premise of my amendment; namely, that there should be a moratorium which is longer than five years.
I shall conclude with one question to the Minister. Does the noble Lord really believe that it is a good thing to have a year-long frenzied activity of petitioning against the existence of a large number of schools in an LEA, running a ballot and possibly losing it? Indeed, one would perhaps catch 124,000 signatures instead of 125,000 and then, a few months later, the whole process would start all over again—getting 124,000 signatures, and so on. Then, a year later, there would be another frenzied year of such activity which would go on and on until the ballot was triggered. Of course, if it were not successful, the whole rigmarole would start all over again. Is the Minister really saying that that is an acceptable system to advocate in legislation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In a debate on an earlier amendment, the noble Baroness and a number of her noble friends described these people as being bigoted. I accept that it is quite possible that they would not only be bigoted but that they would also be so zealous that they would go on not accepting the failure of a petition or the rejection of a ballot. I think that this is fantasy. Indeed, the reality will be quite different. We will very readily see at one time whether there is a significant minority of parents—that is 20 per cent. of eligible parents—who want the question to be raised.
If there is a significant minority of parents —and it is a very significant minority and a very high threshold to achieve—there will be a ballot, followed by a five-year moratorium if the ballot fails, as to whether or not selection should be ended. That is democracy. I do not know whether the noble Baroness or anyone else wants to say more about deceit, duplicity and cowardice, but the real point behind the arguments that have been advanced is that they want grammar schools to continue

1071
at all costs and they are opposed to any moves to end selection. If that is so, why do they not table amendments to that effect?
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I thought that we had got rid of all this and that we were not going to have any more heat. The Minister has just said that our concerns are simply fantasy; that what we fear will not happen; and that we will readily see whether or not there is a 20 per cent. minority of parents who want the question to be raised. If there is such a minority, then we will proceed to the ballot and the moratorium will take place. In other words, if there is no such minority, everyone will say, "That's it", and go home. I do not know what the noble Lord bases all that on. The scenario put forward by my noble friend is entirely foreseeable. Indeed, it is something which worries many of us. Upon what basis does the noble Lord say that that will not happen and that it is all fantasy?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord does not respond. We are witnessing the contempt that the noble Lord has not for so many things but the contempt that he has for the parents who are deeply anxious about this policy. They are looking for fairness in these proposals. The fact that the Minister does not rise to respond to my noble and learned friend only illustrates the contempt that he has for our suggestions.
In responding to me, the noble Lord kept referring to the 20 per cent. minority. We are talking about the situation which may arise when that fails. It is not a five-year moratorium for the parents; it is a five-year moratorium before the ballot can take place. However, the frenzied activity that goes with it and which precedes the ballot, where the signatures are collected, the campaigning starts and the vitriol flies, will happen well inside that five years. The noble Lord is in effect saying, "I don't care. Let's get rid of these schools at all costs." I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233B:
Page 76, leave out line 15.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233BA not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233D:
Page 76, leave out lines 23 to 27.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233E:
Page 76, line 28, leave out ("to be required").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233EA not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233EB:
Page 77, line 10, leave out from ("authority.") to end of line 17.
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns campaigning. I can almost predict what the noble Lord is going to say to this amendment. The all mighty, powerful LEA has resources at its disposal and certainly used them at the time grant-maintained schools were proposed and governing bodies and parents initiated their establishment. As my noble friend Lady Young said much earlier today, the experience was distressing for many because of the activities of local education authorities. Eventually, they and grant-maintained schools were barred in legislation from campaigning in a certain way. They were restricted to supplying information in their campaigning.
I have made the following distinction a number of times. When we discussed the establishment of grant-maintained schools we were talking of schools simply gaining more autonomy for running their own affairs. It was not a matter of schools voting for their demise or parents voting for the demise of some other schools, as we are discussing at present. If, as a result of petitioning and balloting, a whole category of schools ceases to exist, those schools must be permitted to fight their corner. I have tabled this amendment as it seeks to remove the restriction on a school at least to put its case before the public. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Nicol): I must inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 233F.
Baroness Blackstone: As the noble Baroness said, this amendment seeks to remove schools from the coverage of the subsection which is designed to prevent lobbying and campaigning by the main parties during the ballot process. However, it is interesting that the amendment does not seek to remove LEAs. Although I am prepared to accept that there is a case for looking again at subsections (9) and (10) of Clause 100, this amendment would go too far. I shall therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment with an assurance that the Government are considering the wider issues further. We shall come back at Report stage with further amendments.
The core purpose of Clause 100(9) is to ensure that public money is not misused to support lobbying and campaigning by the main parties in a ballot. I am sure that the noble Baroness would support that purpose. Whatever view individual Members of the Committee may have about grammar schools and ballots, I suspect that this is something on which we can all agree. During any petition and ballot process we want to ensure first of all that information is balanced, fair and objective; secondly, that parents are not subjected to campaigning or information which is misleading, biased or in any way distorted; and, thirdly, that neither the LEA nor the governing body of a school—this must apply to the governing body of a school as well as the LEA—should use taxpayers' money, allocated for the purpose of providing education, to fund expensive lobbying campaigns. That was our starting point.
I stress that we believe the measure should apply to both LEAs and governing bodies. That is why we cannot accept the amendment as drafted because it would give

1073
governing bodies carte blanche to spend whatever they chose from their school budgets on campaigning. Arguments have been put that the provisions of Clause 100 go too far. Some have even alleged that they breach the European Convention on Human Rights. As I said at the outset, we are prepared to look again at the matter. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Baroness sits down, a number of funds exist within schools which have nothing to do with the local authority and do not comprise public money either. I refer to parent association funds and money of that kind. If a governing body does not use public funds, can it then campaign on behalf of its school? I ask for information. It is not terribly clear who can do what. Will political parties who also fund their own campaigns be allowed to campaign in this area, as I am sure they will in a county such as Kent where the whole of the education system is in dispute and there is talk of a ballot with 250,000 potential voters? Can the noble Baroness give an assurance on that point?
Baroness Blackstone: I think it would be quite wrong for money that has been collected by a parents' association in order to fund certain kinds of activities to be spent on expensive campaigning. I should have thought parents would not want that.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: With all due respect, that money is at the disposal of the parents' association. Do not get me wrong. I am not in favour of grammar schools, but it is their money and they may dispose of it as they wish.
Baroness Blatch: I add to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. If parents collect money for a governing body to use specifically for this purpose, will that be permitted?
Baroness Blackstone: I suppose that if parents collect money specifically to be used for this purpose, that is up to them. We need to give more thought to the issue. That is why, as I said, we shall return at Report stage with further amendments. It is a tricky and difficult area. I accept it could be argued that if parents wish to collect money for this purpose, it can be used for that purpose. On the other hand, I also think it would be wrong for huge amounts of money to be spent on a campaign of this kind.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I see that help came from the Box just at the right time. I hope that in the noble Baroness's further reflections she will appreciate that there is a difference between the role of the local education authority and that of a school which could be a victim of a ballot. A local education authority should be impartial in these matters. It should not have a view as to whether selection is a good or bad thing. That is a matter for the electorate. However, if a grammar school is obviously under threat, surely its hands should
1074
not be tied in its campaigning. Surely it should be allowed to campaign. Why is the Minister worried about this? She is worried about public money being spent on campaigning. However, a limit could be placed on the amount of public money to be spent in this way. If the very existence of a school is under threat, surely one of the duties of the governing body is to put the case to the electorate, provided that a list of the electorate is published. Schools must be allowed to act in that way. I do not see why they should not be allocated a modest amount of money to do so.
After all, in our country we do not have a tradition of spending lavish sums on campaigning. All Members of the House of Commons have restricted budgets for campaigning. I do not see why the schools that are under threat should not be given modest budgets to enable them to put their case before the electorate. What is wrong with that? That is surely part of the democracy of new Labour.
Baroness Blackstone: I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has said. This is exactly the kind of issue that we are considering. We shall note his remarks. On Report, we shall return with amendments to deal with these issues.
Baroness Blatch: I am partly encouraged that thinking is still going on in the department. The words of the Bill are:
"otherwise incur any expenditure, or give assistance, for the purpose of influencing the outcome".
In response to my question as to whether parents could quite specifically raise money, quite specifically for this purpose, and give it to the governing body to spend on their behalf to save the very existence of a school, the noble Baroness said that she supposed they could do that. She then went on to offer the criticism that they might be wasting their money.
The truth is that, under the Bill as it presently stands, that would not be allowed. I hope that that point will be taken on board by the noble Baroness in any further thinking. I also hope that the noble Baroness will give us sight of the amendment ahead of Report stage. If an amendment is not forthcoming, that will be rather late for us to table one ourselves. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 233F to 233K:
Page 77, line 11, leave out ("maintained school within the meaning of section 99") and insert ("school maintained by a local education authority").
Page 77, line 19, leave out ("the governing body of a school") and insert—

("(a) the governing body of a school maintained by a local education authority,

(b) the proprietor of an independent school, or

(c) a local education authority,").

Page 77, line 20, leave out ("upon it").
Page 77, line 23, at end insert—

1075
("() For the purposes of this section and section (Ballot regulations: eligibility of parents to request and vote in ballot), in their application in relation to any time falling before the appointed day, a grant-maintained school or a grant-maintained special school within the meaning of the Education Act 1996 shall be taken—

(a) to be a school maintained by a local education authority, and

(b) to be maintained by the authority in whose area it is situated.").

Page 77, line 24, after ("section") insert ("and section (Ballot regulations: eligibility of parents to request and vote in ballot)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 233KA not moved.]
Clause 100, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233L:
After Clause 100, insert the following new clause——

BALLOT REGULATIONS: ELIGIBILITY OF PARENTS TO REQUEST AND VOTE IN BALLOT
(".—(1) In relation to a ballot under section 100(2)(a), ballot regulations shall provide that, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, the parents eligible to request and vote in the ballot are—

(a) registered parents of registered pupils at the following schools, namely—

(i) where the ballot relates to all grammar schools within the area of a prescribed local education authority, all schools maintained by that authority; or

(ii) where the ballot relates to all grammar schools within a prescribed area, all schools maintained by a local education authority which are situated in such area as may be prescribed, together with (if the regulations so provide) all schools maintained by such local education authority as may be prescribed;

(b) registered parents of registered pupils at independent schools where—

(i) such parents are resident, and

(ii) the schools are situated,

within the area of the prescribed local education authority or (as the case may be) the prescribed area; and

(c) parents of children of a prescribed description where such parents—

(i) are resident within the area of the prescribed local education authority or (as the case may be) the prescribed area, and

(ii) have registered with the designated body in accordance with section 100(4)(b).

(2) In relation to a ballot under section 100(2)(b) or (c), ballot regulations shall provide that, subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed, the parents eligible to request and vote in the ballot are parents of registered pupils at any school from which a prescribed number of pupils have transferred to the grammar school or schools in question—

(a) at such age or ages, and

(b) during such period,

as may be determined in accordance with the regulations; and such regulations may provide that where, within that period, any such grammar school has been established in substitution for another school, the schools are to be treated as a single school for the purposes of determining eligibility.
(3) Ballot regulations shall provide—

(a) in relation to a ballot under section 100(2)(a), that a request for such a ballot must be made by a number of eligible parents equal to at least 20 per cent. of all parents falling within subsection (1)(a) or (b) above; and

(b) in relation to a ballot under section 100(2)(b) or (c), that a request for such a ballot must be made by at least 20 per cent. of all parents falling within subsection (2) above.

(4) Ballot regulations may provide for a parent's eligibility for the purposes of—

(a) making a request for a ballot,

(b) voting in a ballot, or

(c) determining the number of parents required to make a request by virtue of subsection (3),

to be determined by reference to such different times as may be determined in accordance with the regulations.
(5) Ballot regulations may make provision for determining whether parents are resident in an area for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) or (b).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 101 [Implementation of decision that school should cease to have selective admission arrangements]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 233M:
Page 77, line 27, leave out ("was to the effect that one or more grammar schools should cease") and insert ("shows a simple majority of votes cast (by persons eligible to vote in the ballot) in favour of the grammar school or schools to which the ballot related ceasing").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 233N and 233P not moved.]
Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 102 [Proposals by governing body of grammar school to end selective admission arrangements]:
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 233Q:
Page 78, line 3, at end insert—
("() Any revision of the admission arrangements of a school under this section shall be subject to a ballot of parents.").
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief and direct. This clause sets forward proposals to allow a governing body to end selection. Our amendment proposes that members of a governing body should not have that power on their own, but that parents of children at the school should also have an influence on the decision. They should be balloted. The reason for that has already emerged in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, spoke about a situation in Marylebone, about which I remember reading, where the governing body changed quickly.
Given the nature of a governing body—with people from the LEA, parent governors and co-opted governors—there is always a possibility that a small clique on the governing body can have an influence over the policy of a school. Anyone who has been concerned with education will know that the balances that are meant to exist in a governing body do not always work.
So this is a belt and braces amendment. In a case where a governing body did not continue to have the trust of parents to make a drastic change in the arrangements for the school, it would not be allowed to do so; the parents would have a say. I suggest that it is a reasonable amendment, well within the spirit of the

1077
democracy espoused by noble Lords opposite. There is nothing duplicitous or deceitful about it. It is a nice amendment. I commend to the Committee.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: The suggestion is that this is a nice amendment. The noble Lord will not be surprised when I say that I do not agree. It is about the alternative route to change for grammar schools. If a governing body wishes the admissions arrangements to be non-selective, then this clause makes it possible for that to be so. The noble Lord said that small cliques on governing bodies can alter the course of what might happen. I have been a governor in the past for a number of years in various kinds of schools, and that has not been my experience.
Amendment No. 233Q puts an inappropriate obstacle in the path of the governing body which wants to publish proposals to end selection. It would required a grammar school to ballot parents before publishing proposals under Clause 102 to remove selection. However, under the statutory proposal system—both now and in the future—those who publish proposals have a duty to consult interested parties before doing so. Grammar schools would therefore be expected to include parents in their consultation before publishing proposals to remove selection. So the substance of what the amendment seeks will already be built into the procedures. If parents do not like what the governing body is proposing, they will be able to object—as I am sure they will—and those objections will be considered by the school organisation committee.
The purpose of Clause 102 is to allow a grammar school to publish non-selective proposals if the school wishes. That is as it should be. Most grammar schools already have this power under the current statutory proposals procedure. Clause 102 simple extends it to those grammar schools where currently only the LEA could publish proposals to remove selection. Regulations will make it clear that, if parents have triggered a ballot, that would take precedence over non-selective proposals which had not yet been decided. I hope that is helpful.
To reiterate, under the statutory proposal procedure, parents will be able to make their views clearly heard—through consultation. They can also, if necessary, lodge objections to proposals. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: This Bill introduces all the fevered atmosphere of ballots. Any arrangements by governing bodies would be made in that atmosphere. I am afraid that the weaker method represented by consultation is not very appealing to us. There should be on the face of the Bill a right for parents to be balloted. I am therefore afraid that I must ask the opinion of the Committee.
7.17 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 233Q) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 82.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Annaly, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Attlee, E.

Marlesford, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Belstead, L.

Milverton, L.

Blatch, B.

Norrie, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Northbourne, L.

Burnham, L.

Northesk, E.

Byford, B. [Teller.]

Norton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Palmer, L.

Cranborne, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rawlings, B.

Fookes, B.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Haslam, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Sharples, B.

Inglewood, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Jopling, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Kimball, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kintore, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Leigh, L.

Ullswater, V.

Liverpool, E.

Wharton, B.

McConnell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Berkeley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blease, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Burlison, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Levy, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Dean of Beswick, L.

Desai, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dixon, L.

McNair, L.

Donoughue, L.

Maddock, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Molloy, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Newby, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Gilbert, L.

Nicol, B.

Glenamara, L.

Orme, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hardie, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Haskel, L.

Rea, L.

Hayman, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Hoyle, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Simon, V.

1079

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Whaddon, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Whitty, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Winston, L.

Tope, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.25 p.m.
Clause 102 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 234 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford Lord Pilkington of Oxenford moved Amendment No. 234A:
After Clause 102, insert the following new clause—

PROPOSALS BY GOVERNING BODY OF MAINTAINED SCHOOL TO INTRODUCE SELECTIVE ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS
(" . Section 102 applies, with such amendments as may be necessary, for enabling the admission arrangements of a maintained school which is not a grammar school to be revised so that it has selective admission arrangements, either wholly or in part.").
The noble Lord said: The Bill introduces the concept of open plebiscite-type democracy over the future of selective schools. If we are changing a system of education which, at least in some parts of the country, has existed with the support of the democratically elected council for the best part of 50 years, and in some cases for the best part of 96 years, it seems only fitting that, where schools want it, they should have the opportunity to move to a selective system if they so wish. If that is not to be allowed, it looks as though this Bill is ideologically motivated. Schools are allowed to change one way but not to change the other way. The amendment provides that the governing body could apply for selective admission. In view of what I said with regard to the previous amendment and the doubts that I expressed about the governing body, I would be happy that parents should be consulted in whatever way possible. What is allowed for one should be allowed for another, otherwise it is not always—dare I use the word—fair. I hope that, to escape the accusation of being ideologically motivated, the Government will accept this amendment. As I say, if the Government accept it, I am prepared to include parents in the decision-making. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have already read out what our manifesto said. We are absolutely clear on this point: we are opposed to any extension of selection which makes a distinction between those who are successful and those who are not successful at far too early an age, the age of 11. Amendment No. 234A would allow further selection. It would allow new grammar schools to be created. It is at complete odds with the Government's firmly stated policy on the future of grammar schools and partial selection.
We made clear in our manifesto that there would be no return to the 11-plus. We also made clear that we would rule out new partial selection, apart from the permitted forms of partial selection provided for under
1080
Clauses 95 to 97 of the Bill. Yet this amendment would allow schools to introduce admission arrangements which are partially selective. The new clause proposed under Amendment No. 234A drives a coach and horses through our policies on selection and partial selection. It is clearly a wrecking amendment. It would completely overturn the effect of our earlier provisions on partial selection and grammar schools.
The noble Lord claims that the grammar school provisions are one-way. We made it absolutely clear in our manifesto, as I read it out, that there would be no return to the 11-plus. It was on that basis that the people of this country returned a Labour Government.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am delighted that the noble Lord has additions to his party. I hope that the noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches remember what happened to them when they last entered into a close alliance with the Labour Party: they were swallowed, and barely the bones survived.
On the one side, the Government want a monochrome system and, on the other side, they say they want to give choice. There is an element of ambiguity in the Government's plans in that they will allow selection where pupils show special ability in certain subjects. I do not want to repeat all the arguments with regard to aptitude or ability. If there is to be a special case for those with special aptitude or ability in certain subjects, there will be a form of selection, since some pupils do not have that aptitude or ability. We cannot avoid that fact. In the end, when we want to raise standards in education, we will have to have some form of selection, and the noble Lord's colleague, Mr. Byers, realised that. It will be selection by stealth. But as I said to the noble Baroness earlier, even 2 per cent. movement is better than none.
I believe that in essence the Government are pragmatic. Whichever way we view them—the wolf or the sheep—they are wearing the animal's clothing and some of it is not too bad. I expected the answer I received. I shall delight when I see the Government introducing selection in a veiled form. Be assured that I shall congratulate noble Lords opposite on that occasion. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 235 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.
House resumed.

Lomé Convention and the Caribbean
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Young Baroness Young rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy towards the European Commission's negotiating directive for a post-Lomé agreement, with particular regard to the Caribbean.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this short debate concerns technical issues. But, should anything go wrong, the consequence would be political and quite possibly extremely dangerous. The issues are urgent for the small states of the Caribbean. Negotiations are proceeding rapidly and I fear that the implications of the outcome have not always been thought through. The collapse of even one small island would threaten the stability of the whole region.
I have said before and make no apology for repeating that small islands can and have created a disproportionate amount of difficulty and concern. We need only to think of the Falklands, Grenada and, last year, Montserrat. We have been warned. I believe this debate to be of great importance to the Caribbean region generally.
In September negotiations will begin between the European Union and the African Caribbean Pacific states on a successor arrangement to Lome IV. The European Commission produced a draft negotiating directive for the European Union which was considered in its final form by the Development Council of the European Union two days ago. The ACP has been working on its position, which is expected shortly. I shall return to that point.
This evening I want to bring to the attention of the House during the remaining days of our presidency of the EU some of the serious reservations that the ACP has in relation to the EU proposals and to press the Government to ensure that those concerns are reflected in an appropriate amendment to the EU's draft negotiating directive. I do so with specific reference to the Caribbean. I continue to be actively involved as president of the West India Committee.
There are three aspects of ACP concern. The first is the Commission's desire to create political and economic conditionalities in a new arrangement; the second is the way in which the Commission's proposals might result in the break-up of the ACP as a unique group of developing nations; and the third is the proposals being put forward for new trade arrangements after the years 2000 and 2005. It is the third concern on which I wish to concentrate; it is both complex and divisive.
In outline, the EU is proposing for the latter part of this year to the year 2000 discussion on general, political and economic principles, the roll-over of the existing Lomé trade position to the year 2005 and negotiation between 2000 and 2005 of new post-2005 trade arrangements either within the context of the Europe region-specific free trade areas or within the context of some yet to be defined new version of the generalised scheme of preferences.
To explain further, the EU is suggesting that a new post-2000 arrangement will promote partnership. But the trade proposals, if implemented as presently drafted, are likely to create divisions in organisations such as Caricom, as Caricom is seeking to complete the difficult process of economic integration in the Caribbean. So much so that if the EU's draft mandate is not modified, it will require each state to select by level of development an option for a relationship with Europe that suits best its economic circumstances rather than the regional grouping in which they find themselves at the present time.
In the Caribbean every economy is different. Haiti's per capita GDP in 1995 was 229 US dollars; Trinidad's was 4,369 US dollars, and the tiny Cayman Islands a staggering 28,300 US dollars. National economic objectives therefore are likely to be at great variance leading to negotiations about negotiations as each nation has to determine its own priorities. To complicate matters, other negotiations such as those for entry into the free trade area of the Americas will also have to be taken into account.
The proposals do not recognise the specific problems that will arise in the context of the existing protocols—the protocols on sugar, bananas, rum and rice. While the sugar industry is a protocol of unlimited duration, the banana industry's access is still subject to discussion in the context of the Commission's new compromise proposals. We are well aware of the difficulties that the loss of bananas would create for the Caribbean. It is to be profoundly hoped that the new protocols will be agreed and continue well past the date of 2010.
The Caribbean rum industry finds that it has had most of its post-Lomé arrangements negotiated away by the EU and the US in an agreement on white spirits signed early in 1997. That is to say nothing of the problems facing the Caribbean rice industry, which seeks a new and transparent arrangement to be put in place from the year 2000 which will give that industry significant quotas for exporting rice to Europe directly rather than by using artificial trade mechanisms aimed, I suppose, at supporting Dutch overseas territories.
The General Affairs Council met on 8th June to consider the EU's draft negotiating directive. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who is to reply, whether he can outline the decisions reached and, in particular, whether member states were able to agree a more flexible approach towards free trade arrangements, taking into account the particular vulnerability of small states and the need for the longest possible transition period after 2005.
It would also be helpful to know what discussions took place on the future of the commodity protocols contained in Lomé IV and whether member states sought a terminal date for those vital commodity arrangements. The sugar, banana and rum protocols are all vital to the economic survival of the Caribbean. While the sugar protocol is of definite duration and can stand alone as a commercial arrangement, there will be a need for a sugar protocol and any new banana protocol to be able to withstand any WTO challenge if they do not have the protection of a long life within a successor arrangement.
I was pleased to see the recommendation of the report of the International Development Committee of the House of Commons published on 2nd June that proper consideration be given by Government and the EU to the vulnerability of the least developed ACP states and its suggestion that the final version of the negotiation mandate should contain specific assurances on that matter.
Time does not allow for all the points I should like to make. Britain enjoys a special relationship with almost all the countries of the ACP. Many are linked intimately to the United Kingdom through history, and are members of the Commonwealth and important trading partners. The implications of the present approach being taken by the European Union are that over time those nations will cease to be special. They will be just small economies, cast adrift and subject to, and even possibly drowned by, the strong tides of international trade. It sometimes seems that the EU and the US are both involved in a neck and neck race in almost every part of the world to achieve a trade advantage at any cost. While this may be a logical approach when faced with economic globalisation, it is unlikely to do anything to support the interests of small and vulnerable states such as those in the Caribbean. Policy driven by the need to obtain trade advantage is a process in which there is little equity for small vulnerable states which need time to establish more viable and diverse economies.
Britain has much experience of diversification and setting out to help small countries. The ACP is presently deeply unhappy, and with some justification, about the negotiating directive that the European Commission has put forward. While the ACP will be making its own counter-proposals, it is desirable that the EU itself recognises that unless its proposed negotiating strategy is flexible, offering in September this year—in only two months' time—an opportunity to discuss all aspects of the EU/ACP relationship on an ACP-wide basis and allowing for the longest possible period of adjustment in trade, Britain will have presided over the demise of its own special relationship with much of the developing world.
Speaking in Barbados, Prime Minister Arthur made it clear that the ACP cannot negotiate unless it agrees with the EU what they are to negotiate about. I should add that he was deeply concerned at the conditionalities which had been attached to some of the protocols. As he pointed out, Caribbean small states have been democracies for very many years; indeed, far longer than some countries in the EU. Britain has the unique opportunity, as President of the EU, to guide our EU partners to make the negotiating directive flexible, pragmatic and less prescriptive. Let me urge the Government to encourage the amendments necessary to achieve this. It is not only in the interests of the ACP; it is in the particular interests of the small states of the Caribbean where we have great obligations and strong ties of history. Those states look to us for help and support. I hope that the Government will view all this in a positive light.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for introducing, with her characteristic vigour and incisiveness, this important debate. She was quite right to emphasise the enduring and important relationship between us and many ACP countries, and in particular some of those of the Caribbean.
In the time available I want simply to reinforce some of the points which she made. I hope I will be forgiven if I do so by posing what I see as five mutually reinforcing questions. First, has the European Union fully considered the inevitable impact on the Caribbean if the banana regime collapses? Mass unemployment, rising deprivation and poverty, social unrest and an increase in drug production are all predictable. How exactly would the European Union respond to a crisis of this magnitude in the region?
Secondly, in view of all these dangers, will the European Union therefore seize the opportunity of the renegotiation of the Lomé agreement to make a bold defence of the banana regime, which has, as the noble Baroness argued, safeguarded the interests of smallholder banana farmers in the Caribbean in particular by giving guarantees of traditional market access?
Thirdly, how else does the European Union propose to aid and protect the weakest ACP producers, like those of the Windward Islands?
Fourthly, in this context, precisely what foolproof mechanisms does the European Union propose to prevent the weakest ACP producers from anyway being squeezed out of the market? Will it advocate country-specific export ceilings within any global ACP quota?
Fifthly, does the European Union recognise that the revenue for banana sales is more essential than ever if desperately needed economic diversification in the vulnerable single-commodity-dependent island economies of the Caribbean is to be achieved?
Turning more widely to the Lomé agreement renegotiations as a whole, I hope I can be forgiven for saying that, for many of us, the Commission's proposed negotiating mandate in January 1998 was profoundly disappointing. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that, in effect, it gave but one option to all ACP countries; namely, free trade agreements beginning in the year 2005. This led many of us to believe that the proposals lack any poverty reduction rationale and were almost designed to damage still further the economic prospects of poor people in ACP countries.
However, I am glad to say that the statement from the General Affairs Council at the end of March was much more encouraging, reflecting to their credit the work of the British Government. It proposed that the arrangements should at least maintain the current market access for ACP countries while at the same time being World Trade Organisation compatible. It seems that the objective was to improve the preferences under the GSP for ACP exports to the European Union which currently have a significant tariff differential. This would bring the GSP offer up to or above the current level of the Lomé Convention. Can my noble friend confirm that

1085
any such preferences will be bound at the WTO so that they provide an effective incentive for investors by being predictable? Can my noble friend also confirm that such preferences will be generous enough to compensate for the loss of the differential tariff which was previously only available to ACP countries but which will now be available to competitors from Latin America and Asia?
We must appreciate that in order to take advantage of trade opportunities in Europe ACP countries will, of course, have to develop their trade capacity. Will, therefore, my noble friend confirm that the EU's mandate will include the commitment of resources for poverty-focused trade development with the aim of increasing supply side capacity? Will it also include support for basic health and education as well as for asset redistribution—by, for example, land reform—and support for training, micro-credit and technology transfers?
The Lomé Convention has the potential, as the noble Baroness argued, to play a vital part in the Government's poverty eradication strategy, but the Government's approach will have to be rigorous and imaginative if that potential is not to be thrown away.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in his thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating this important and excellent debate. In her capacity as president of the West Indies Committee, I know that she has a most laudable record and that the committee's work in developing the West Indies in trade and aid relationships has been remarkable. I am so delighted to have the opportunity to speak in her Unstarred Question debate.
The attitude of the Leader of the Official Opposition does not reflect that interest. I put down for the record that, as far as I can tell, the 7,000 words of the Fontainebleau speech, entitled "Potential for Europe", by the Leader of the Opposition contains not one comment nor gives support of any nature on links with the developing world, on the Lomé Convention or on the goal of co-partnership with the developing world of all the European Union members when we signed the first Lomé Convention in 1975. This was a vital agreement. The explanatory memorandum from the European Commission on the current post Lomé debate comments on the need to look clearly at major international events which confer,
"on a player of the Union's stature new political and economic responsibilities, especially in its dealings with the regions of the South most vulnerable to poverty and marginalisation".
That is well in line with both the ethical foreign policy declared by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and with the Secretary of State for International Development's challenge in her department's White Paper to all of us to conquer world poverty within a reasonable timescale. Within the EU we have always recognised through Lomé our obligation, as a large world power, to support the poorer countries.
1086
However, I suggest that in the search for a revised Lomé the virtuous circle the private sector offers in development has been insufficiently regarded. The remarkable and excellent Fourth Report of 21st May 1998 of the International Development Committee, although it takes up considerable acreage of paper on trade, does not give trade as great a weight as aid. The peculiarity and fascination of Lomé is that it has these two key elements of development bound together; namely trade and aid. I do not think that there is any other major development policy instrument like it in the remainder of the developed world. Indeed, the European Union, particularly through Lomé, now seems to be the world's largest aid donor and developer globally. In fact, the International Development Committee report comments,
"Trade was a vital source of wealth creation and growth for a growing economy".
I suggest to the Minister that trade is the vital source of wealth creation. The Lomé negotiations' involvement with the private sector now needs to be addressed most strenuously. The British African Business Association, chaired by Peter Pooley, formerly Director General of DGVIII of the European Commission, states that,
"The private sector has been largely ignored in previous Lomé. Treaties".
Therefore it is of great importance now, in our presidency, that the British support the indigenous ACP private sector and address its needs most clearly. Most of the ACP governments pay more than lip service to privatisation and the private sector, but even today, with Lomé 4 now coming to an end, private sector European investment flows do not get the attention that they deserve.
I turn now to the sugar industry. Much is made of the need to diversify, and yet where are the new industries without investment into the indigenous private sector? Much of the argument and debate on trade in Lomé seems somewhat old fashioned to my ears. We are not discussing the new electronic trading global capabilities as we should be. We are not looking at the provision for the developing world of the sort of equipment and technology that enables that magical level playing field of trade competitiveness to be electronically created. Surely those are the ways in which the developing world can be true equal partners. Perhaps there is the rub. Do we want them to be equal competitors? Lomé does. It is a genuine partnership and I suggest that we look more closely at it.
Finally, I ask the Government to think about education. We need to educate the consumers and the young and elderly, because in two decades of anti-Europeanism I honestly believe that the Lomé convention benefits worldwide to the developing countries have been vastly underrated.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I, too, once again want to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for introducing this important subject. I really do not believe that anyone quite realises how serious the situation has become and indeed how increasingly complex it is.

1087
Bearing in mind the comments of the Lord Privy Seal on Monday, across the road, I feel that I must point out that over half the speakers in tonight's debate are hereditary Peers, all of whom have special knowledge of the ACP countries. I care passionately for the Caribbean Islands and, more importantly, for their inhabitants.
I personally would not mind giving up my right to vote in a reformed House of Lords, but I would be deeply saddened at not being allowed to take part in a debate such as this.
I must declare an interest as I am a residual beneficiary of a large banana planation in St. Lucia. Most of it, sadly, is totally unproductive. The few tenants who have bought their plots are unable even to pay the deposit. It is not altogether surprising when one thinks that four years ago, for example, a St. Lucian farmer received six pence per pound for his bananas and those same bananas were selling on Oxford Street at 80p per pound.
For most of the ACP countries, 65 per cent. of their income is derived from bananas, which only goes to prove how vital this crop is for the whole infrastructure of so many Caribbean islands. These islands are literally now in a life and death situation. Without a profitable banana trade there would be economic and social disaster throughout the Caribbean.
What on this occasion seem to be the bully-boy and unprincipled tactics currently deployed by the United States of America are completely unacceptable. I urge Her Majesty's Government most strongly to ensure that these tactics do not destroy the Caribbean banana industry. In particular it is vital that the amendments to the current regime do not deprive the Caribbean states of the guaranteed access and economic return which they have enjoyed under the existing Lomé Convention.
I earnestly hope that Her Majesty's Government will crown their achievement in the European Union presidency by securing a satisfactory deal for the ACP countries. If so, this must not be destroyed by yet another maverick attack by the USA in the WTO. Her Majesty's Government must exert their influence to secure recognition in the WTO of the need for special provision to protect these small and extremely fragile economies.
The ACP countries realise that they must try to diversify, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, mentioned, that diversification is somewhat limited. At the end of the day it must be on the back of banana production. There is very limited extent for that diversification. For example, how many new hotels can one build? One of my greatest worries about the Caribbean is the unemployment situation. I speak from experience. Sadly, it is a difficult, if not impossible, job to train a banana worker to take a job in a hotel. There is simply nothing else for them to do except to grow bananas.
I pray that the Caribbean farmers do not turn to the only alternative crop, and here, of course, I refer to the illicit production of drugs. Her Majesty's Government have so rightly declared war against drugs, their
1088
producers and their distributors. I just hope and pray that Her Majesty's Government will not let the Caribbean go to pot!
7.58 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, with whom I served nearly a decade ago on the Save the Children Africa Review Group. She is a formidable ally of developing countries. It is easy to forget, amid all the technical arguments, that poverty alleviation is a major objective of Lomé and is therefore of great importance to the non-governmental organisations. The lead NGOs are led by the UK Presidency Project and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will join with me in paying tribute to the work that they have done alongside the DfID officials who are preparing the UK position.
In fact, the UK and NGO positions coincide very nicely on many points. The importance of the DAC poverty eradication targets—especially halving poverty by the year 2015—is one area of agreement. The necessity for reversing the decline in sub-Saharan African economies is as much a condition of meeting these international targets as it will be an objective of the new aid provisions of the convention. It is encouraging to see these targets mentioned in the preamble.
Lomé provides a unique opportunity for the EU to review its relations with all developing countries, not just the 71 covered by the convention. The Maastricht Treaty recognised that there must be smooth and gradual integration, but it is, as others have said, the icy Atlantic wind blowing from the WTO into Lomé which concerns those countries. It cannot be good for the world economy for the EU to accept the WTO at face value, without proper safeguards for the poorest and most vulnerable states, including the Caribbean.
The NGOs have three particular concerns in this context which they hope that the UK will continue to press in the hope of persuading our Southern European partners in particular. On this issue, the north-south divide within the EU must be taken very seriously, especially in a German election year. I hope that the noble Lord will comment on that danger.
First, the EU proposals for free trade agreements are too prescriptive. Reciprocity is not the right approach for Lomé countries, and the unequal terms offered to South Africa make them especially wary. Although ACP countries undoubtedly need to be encouraged towards greater competitiveness and freer trade, Article XXIV of the WTO needs to be reformed to take account of the vastly different levels of development in the Lomé countries.
Secondly, ACP countries need more time to adjust to the new economic climate. A five-year waiver for current preferences is simply not long enough for that adjustment. Commissioner Pinheiro himself, after meeting UNCTAD on 26th May, seemed doubtful about the timeframe. Can the noble Lord confirm that the Government will continue to press for the 10-year waiver?

1089
Thirdly, as the Government proposed and the Select Committee pointed out, the alternative option of an enhanced generalised system of preferences (GSP) is a realistic one and should not be dismissed out of hand. The enhanced GSP route has the advantage of being WTO-friendly and it would extend the existing GSP to Lomé, even at some risk to the concept of partnership. Can the noble Lord confirm that he has been encouraged by the strong support for that given by the Select Committee?
On the Caribbean, some have advanced the argument that Lome has benefited middle-income countries through the protocols and that they do not need more protection. Oxfam and others, however, have argued that vulnerable and small island economies do deserve longer-term preference and the Select Committee is recommending that the WTO accepts them into a new category. Will the noble Lord confirm that the Government will support that proposal?
Much has been said about aid and diversification, not least by the Secretary of State, but diversification could be a death trap for many farmers, men and women, in the Caribbean states, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, so vividly pointed out. It is not a realistic option. It seems that bananas and sugar cane may be more resistant to strong winds than they are to the WTO. The Caribbean has been buffeted by pressure from the dollar banana states, most recently via the disgraceful WTO attacks on the banana protocol, abetted by the US. Surely it is better to avoid such confrontation and to preserve the protocol within the WTO framework through a waiver. Does the noble Lord believe, as others do, that that is still politically possible? If not, what are the genuine chances of meeting ACP individual country guarantees within the global quota?
Finally, I should like to have some reassurance that policy coherence will be kept firmly in mind and that our concerns about CAP reform and eastern Europe in particular, which are bound to have very serious consequences, are not allowed to interfere with our commitments to the developing world.
8.3 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Palmer hit on the nub of the problem. Farmers simply do not receive a fair return from either Western intermediaries or cavalier supermarkets. This needs somehow to be addressed seriously.
These negotiations allow the United Kingdom to respond to global changes and fulfil its commitment to development. The alternatives are too awful to contemplate. Increased migration, with a sharp increase of asylum-seekers; a region that will turn itself to drug production together with an increased level of poverty—indeed, undoing all previous good work.
The joint ACP-EU framework for political dialogue should be used as a unique forum to define new strategies, all of which the UK is committed to under the Maastricht Treaty: campaigning for poverty eradication; fostering sustainable economic and social development; promoting the gradual integration of the developing countries into the world economy; and the promotion of democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights.
1090
The recent judicial review of the banana regime has highlighted the vulnerable status of Caribbean economies in the global economy.
This Government must now pursue a coherent development strategy supported by the allocation of adequate resources and the creation of mechanisms for its implementation. In fact, the new EU/ACP contract should include joint partnership in international fora, such as the WTO, the UN and international financial bodies.
That said, difficulties have already manifested themselves. Professor Pinheiro, in his presentation of the EU mandate, recently went to Barbados and has succeeded in creating fault-lines.
There is now ACP consensus against the breakup of the negotiations into a political agreement between 1998 and 2000 and regional FTAs between 2000 and 2004. The ACP is now resolute that there should only be a single negotiation, which would cover all issues of concern, including political dialogue. The concept of regionalisation must not be allowed to cause fragmentation.
The Caribbean countries, in confronting the challenges of a liberalised global economy, need the security provided by preferential markets and the related commodity protocols, as it allows them to intensify their efforts at economic diversification.
In addition, we must maintain the provisions for stabilising commodity export earnings, which are an important part of the preferential arrangements. Indeed, financial instruments such as STABEX and SYSMIN should be strengthened, particularly in the light of the competitive pressures which the Caribbean and other ACP countries face in their major export markets as liberalisation becomes a greater feature in those markets.
We can all agree that development is about people, so I am delighted to note that there is an overwhelming emphasis on human resource development and poverty alleviation as the hallmarks of a new development co-operation. However, global poverty eradication objectives must not lead to poverty creation in the small and vulnerable Caribbean economies.
The Lomé Convention has brought the ACP impressive benefits without which the ACP states would have been worse off. We cannot hide the fact, however, that some of these benefits have been minimised by circumstances.
The failure of the European Union to translate access into entry; the continuous worsening of the terms of trade; the overall decline in the real value of development assistance; the excessive debt burden; the continuing instability in the industrial countries' interest and exchange rates and in their stock markets; the difficulties in honouring commitments as regards bananas, rice and rum, resulting from the adoption of narrow and insensitive interpretations of their obligations by EU partners—all occur under the guise of international discipline.

1091
The ACP states intend to secure a new bargain, a new quality of partnership with the European Union, and the translation into practice of the very principles to which the international community now holds itself to be dedicated.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for initiating this debate. Her timing is impeccable. I am not sure whether she intended to seek the debate so soon after publication of the Select Committee's fourth report on Lomé renegotiation, but it is gratifying to be able to refer to Lomé yet again. I know that the noble Baroness has referred to Lomé many times in the past and there have been a number of debates on it in your Lordships' House. I am glad, however, that we have been given this opportunity to consider the report. I know that there is a major problem in the other place in that although the White Paper was published some months ago it still has not been debated there. That is disappointing.
I know that we have only a short time in which to debate Lomé this evening, but I should like to press the Government on the question of meeting some of the commitments they made on entering office. International development, they said, was one of the areas they would push most strongly.
I should like to put to the Minister one or two questions although he is probably unable to provide answers this evening since they fall outside the immediate area of interest. First, when is the Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Landmines to be ratified? That has a bearing on ACP countries. Secondly and more importantly, when will the Government consider increasing the DfID's aid budget? I link that with the Lomé negotiations because I had not realised until I looked carefully at the report just how large a percentage of the DfID budget goes into Lomé. In 1998–99 10 per cent. of the whole of the DfID budget will be spent on the Lomé Agreement. When one considers the European Union, that equates to 30 per cent. of the budget. Because of its very large impact I hope that the Government will look closely at the process of renegotiation so that it closely matches the principles set out in the White Paper; namely, that Lome has the purpose of reducing poverty among the poorest in the world.
Further, Lomé has the very real responsibility of meeting DAC targets. The report brought out some of the problems associated with the DAC targets set by the OECD. When one is seeking to reduce poverty it is not simply a matter of setting a target and trying to meet it in each country. There are many variable factors. The report touches upon some very interesting areas that should perhaps be considered during the renegotiation. For example, when discussing Lomé in the past one of the big problems has been the lack of flexibility in the distribution of Lomé aid.
One suggestion—I hope that the Government will push for it—is that there should be greater decentralisation away from the central bureaucracy to
1092
people working under the agreement in the individual countries. Another factor that will have a great effect is the possibility of aid being distributed in tranches by Lomé so that if, for example, a project is seen to be unsuccessful no further aid will be spent on it. That has worked well on many projects throughout the world and can be used effectively under the Lomé Agreement.
One of my difficulties with the method by which the Lomé Agreement is being renegotiated is widespread use of the word "conditionality". There has been a fundamental shift in the method of dealing with Lomé. The matter has been handled insensitively by the WTO. Many Caribbean countries face disaster through the destruction of their main industries, in particular bananas. One should not forget that there is a possibility of diversification, but perhaps not the kind of diversification one would wish to see, for example, drug production in the Caribbean. There is the very real problem that diversification in many sub-Saharan African countries will mean social unrest and upheaval.
The free trade agreements may prove to be one of the most disastrous measures to be implemented. As has been shown in the canned tomato industry in South Africa, many third world and developing countries will suffer severely. Chapter 88 of the report makes clear that the committee does not accept that the negotiations towards FTAs between the EU and ACP proposed by the Commission are at present either realistic or desirable since they are not in the interests of the ACP countries. I very much hope that the Government adopt the principles set out in the White Paper when renegotiating Lomé.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young for tabling this Motion for debate. She made a most authoritative presentation which has been followed by a number of speeches that betray noble Lords' depth of knowledge that I cannot hope to equal and to which I have enormously enjoyed listening. Together they make a disturbing history. Our interests and friends appear to be in the process of being abandoned, although of course not by this Government.
The Government have argued strongly against the inadequacies and errors of the approach of the European Union. It is just that they have not been very successful in their arguments. There has been no shortage of political will and commitment on the part of the Government, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will agree. There has been no lack of attention to detail. Ministers of this Government are always attentive to detail. No key documents have been left out of red boxes—nor are there any unread boxes. But the result is as if that had been the case: a regrettable, unsurprising betrayal of our friends and interests.
Of course change is needed, particularly in the Caribbean and other areas of the ACP. There have been years of subsidies and controls. We must help those countries find a way forward to competitiveness and economic vigour but that takes time and a great deal of support and encouragement. There will always be a need for protection. When a farmer receives sixpence for a

1093
pound of bananas that sells for 80 pence, the price at which that farmer sells his bananas is not the problem. His efficiency is not the problem. The problem lies in the distribution system. If one is dealing with an area like the Caribbean that is probably a matter that cannot he remedied. We will always have to look after our friends and our old connections in the area. It is much the same with neighbourhood shops in this country. If one does not go out of one's way to shop at those establishments sometimes, even though they charge more, one loses them. The consequences for Caribbean countries will be rather more dramatic if we do not continue to support them.
Clare Short is quoted in the report of the committee of another place as saying that it is not a matter of protection but diversification. I do not believe that she is right. That betrays a deep misunderstanding of the potential for diversification and the need for continuing and permanent protection. But I suspect that we could do it better than we do at the moment.
Our interests are deeply tied up with those particular countries. Not least, we have a substantial and growing area of dependent territories in the Caribbean. If living standards drop there then trades that flourish in small, isolated places will move in. Should that happen it is likely to be to our great disadvantage and that of America.
The European Union's plans are of great concern to us as they were to the International Development Committee of another place. There appears to be no recognition of, let alone plans to deal with, their own shortcomings: inefficient and opaque aid allocation; shortcomings in the staff who are concerned with Lomé, particularly those on the ground; and facing up to the consequences of CAP reform for Lomé and the EU's relationship with developing countries. There appears to be an underlying direction of international aggrandisement, an effort to compete with the United States on equal terms, bureaucracy against democracy, and an imposition of FTAs through blackmail and bureaucracy which is entirely inappropriate and just will not work.
This debate takes place at a crucial moment. We have the presidency of the European Union for a little while yet and the Government may have a chance to succeed in changing the direction of the European Union. I shall be delighted if the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, can confirm that he is confident of success. I would have been even more delighted had the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, been able to be here. I believe that for a debate like this and at a time like this her presence would have made a difference. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will as usual fill her place with great charm and skill. He is a great reader of a brief and a real pleasure to listen to.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suppose I should thank the noble Lord for that remark. It has been a well informed debate. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for raising the matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, indicated there is great expertise, hereditary
1094
and otherwise, in this House relating to issues of development and in particular the issues of the Caribbean.
The Government are well aware of the importance of the next phase of the Lomé Convention. That convention has been the basis of relations between the EU and the ACP for 20 years. It is a vitally important tool of both development and diplomacy and is valued both by EU countries and the ACP countries, 38 of which are also Commonwealth countries. The UK therefore has a strong interest in seeing Lomé renewed, modernised and strengthened. We have been consulting in particular our closer partners in the ACP for some time, for example at CHOGM in Edinburgh last year; and subsequently when we paid particular attention to the needs of the Caribbean, for example, in convening the UK/Caribbean forum in the Bahamas in February. We are aware how sensitive Lomé is for the Caribbean and will continue to press for access for the Caribbean and seek a deal which protects its commodity interests as far as possible.
In relation to the mandate, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, the Commission has produced a draft memorandum for discussion. At this stage it remains an internal EU document until it is finalised. Therefore we can only comment in general terms. However, it reflects the wide ranging consultation process that the Commission has carried out over the past 18 months, starting with the Green Paper in December 1996 and followed up by seminars in EU and ACP countries.
The UK position paper last October set out Her Majesty's Government's approach and much of it was subsequently reflected in the Commission Paper. We therefore believe that it is a good basis for obtaining agreement. That agreement will be based on partnership, sustainable development and a modernised system of trade preferences.
The current Lomé preferences are among the most generous the EC offers to any group of third countries. But not all ACP countries have profited from them. The ACP market share in the EU has fallen over the past 20 years from 6.7 per cent. to 3.4 per cent. Although some ACP countries have been successful in using the background of those trade measures—for instance, Mauritius and Fiji—most of the ACP countries, including, regrettably, most of the Caribbean countries, have not managed to strengthen their competitiveness or diversified their exports sufficiently away from basic commodities to a wider range of higher value products.
We recognise the difficulties but we need to use this process to help the ACP integrate into the world trading system. Globalisation means that they and we have to adapt. The ACP will need time to do that. The UK has proposed that the current level of preferences be extended for at least five years from the year 2000 to allow a proper transition period. The Commission has taken that on board.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, inquired about the future beyond the year 2005. It is not obviously clear at this point how the international trading environment will look. A further WTO round and, we hope, substantial

1095
CAP reforms may bring about many changes. It is too early to say exactly how the future regime for the ACP will look. But we believe that the least developed countries should receive the most generous level of access possible in accordance with commitments given by the EU last year. We are on course to achieve that. Noble Lords referred to the General Affairs Council in March, which committed the EU at least to maintaining current levels of access and made explicit reference to an enhanced general system of preferences as a valid alternative to the FTA approach, which is still favoured by many member states.
Another option would be for free trade agreements for those who felt ready and able to negotiate WTO-compatible reciprocity. For others, we think that an enhanced general system of preferences is probably the most secure and predictable route in the medium term.
The relationship with the ACP also has to take into account political dialogue. That has been most useful in developing contacts among the ACPs. That dialogue process needs reinvigorating to make it more focused and relevant.
That is the background. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the meeting of the Development Council this week. It is true that at one point it was hoped that the EU mandate would have been concluded for the EU side of the negotiations at that meeting. However, although there was good discussion on Monday on the trade aspects of Lomé, this discussion failed to resolve differences which still exist between member states. The matter is due to be discussed, as we always half expected, at the subsequent GAC on 29th June. We hope to reach agreement there.
In addition to the general trade preferences issue, much reference has been made to the position on commodities, in particular bananas. It is a complex issue. As noble Lords will know, the banana regime which has operated to substantial benefit of the Caribbean banana producers was challenged by a group of countries led by the United States and including Latin American countries. It was found by the WTO body that it was not WTO compatible. It is important to recognise that it was aspects of the regime which were found non-compatible, not preferential access for banana producers.
This Government and many other EU countries regarded the banana regime as important. It represented a serious attempt to meet our obligations to developing countries in the Caribbean and elsewhere. However, in the EU, EC and United Kingdom we are also firm adherents of the WTO process. We accept its procedural arrangements. We accept that Community arrangements will need to be brought into conformity with WTO rules. This means that the Commission's efforts to draw up an alternative regime will have to be WTO compatible. That is the basis on which the EU proposition now exists.
A number of noble Lords attacked the EU in relation to that. As I think the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, indicated, it is true that there different opinions within
1096
the EU on this issue. Nevertheless, a firm majority is behind trying to get a new banana regime which is WTO compatible. We believe that the draft now produced by the Commission will be WTO compatible. As many noble Lords will know, that is challenged by the Americans.
I also recognise that a number of banana producers, in particular in the West Indies, are concerned that the Commission proposals are inadequate. They are particularly concerned about the fact that the quotas—part of the Commission proposals—are not allocated by country. It is clear that that part of the agreement could not be allocated country by country because that would make the whole proposition clearly and unequivocally WTO incompatible. They fear pressure from West African producers. Nevertheless, we believe that it is overall in the interests of the banana producers to gain a WTO compatible agreement. We believe that the Commission proposal represents the best way of achieving that.
It is important therefore that we support the Commission in these efforts. It is vulnerable, both because of pressures within the EC, but more particularly because of the attitude of the United States Government. On a number of occasions, we have drawn to the attention of the United States the seriousness of the regime collapsing and its effect on the vulnerable island economies of the Caribbean. Many of the scenarios referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and in particular, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, are real. Although we have raised the matter at all levels of the United States Administration, it has remained resolutely on an uncompromising agenda on the WTO banana dispute. It regards the Commission proposal as not compatible and insists that it will challenge that at the earliest opportunity. We believe that we are on strong legal ground in resisting that, but we still feel that politically the United States needs to be persuaded that theirs is not a sensible course.
As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, emphasised, the alternative for many of those regimes would be not simply a descent into poverty but possibly the development of alternative products in the drugs trade, either as producers or as entrepôts, which would seriously endanger the United States. Therefore, there are important points of United States self interest which must be taken into account. We are vigorously pursuing that with the United States Government.
The best prospects for the future of the banana regime rest in us pursuing Commission proposals in a united way from the EU end and trying at the same time politically to persuade our American friends not to go further down the road on which they have apparently embarked.
Part of the future of these economies will be a greater aim to improve the competitiveness of the banana trade and of diversification. Although diversification will be limited, there is scope for it. We believe that the aid programme and private investments such as those suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson—for instance, the flow of private investment and a change in technology—could help those economies. The flow of

1097
aid from the UK and the European Union will also help. I accept that aspects of the EU aid regime need serious attention. Nevertheless, substantial EU and British aid is going to the Caribbean and we are committed to continuing that.
The renegotiation of the Lomé Convention gives us an opportunity to address many of the problems which have been outlined in the debate. The agreement of the EU mandate on Lomé is one of the principal presidency objectives. I assure noble Lords whose concerns are well registered with this Government that the work over the next few weeks to 29th June will be intensive. We wish to produce the mandate and we wish also to produce a solution to the banana regime in particular which will help our Caribbean friends into the 21st century and put them on a better economic basis than currently looks likely.

School Standards and Framework Bill
8.31 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 103 [Home-school agreements]:
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 235A:
Page 78, line 34, leave out from ("home-school") to ("to") in line 35 and insert ("policy").
The noble Baroness said: I see that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has had to do what I did last week; that is, not only be on the Bench throughout the day but speak also during the dinner break. I hope that his noble friends will allow him some respite.
I apologise for this group of amendments because it is slightly confusing. I am not sure how it happened, but at some stage someone should have advised us that something was wrong. If Amendment No. 235A were agreed to Amendments Nos. 235B to 235E would not make much sense. We want to incorporate Amendments Nos. 235B to 235E, which would change the Bill to read:
"The governing body of a school … shall adopt a home-school policy"—
"policy" being the key word—
"for the school … For the purposes of this section and section 104 a `home-school policy' is a statement designed to promote partnership between home and school".
Amendment No. 237 leaves out reference to a signed parental declaration. Amendments Nos. 237A and 237B change the Bill to read:
"Before preparing the home-school policy, or revising that policy, the governing body shall consult".
This raft of amendments supports the proposition that legalistic signed agreements—
Baroness David: Will the noble Baroness tell me which amendments she is speaking to in the group? I have some amendments in the group and I am not clear to which amendments she is speaking.
Baroness Maddock: Although I am moving Amendment No. 235A, I shall not press it to a vote. It
1098
is an amendment I must move because it is the first in the group. However, if it is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 235B to 235E will not make sense. I am talking to Amendments Nos. 236A, 237A, 237B, 238A and 239A. I am not talking to the amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady David. I hope that that clarifies the issue.
This raft of amendments follows our support for the proposition that legalistic signed agreements between school and home are not the correct way of fostering the most positive relationship between the two. We have received a great deal of support from groups and individuals outside the House. I shall leave it to my noble friend Lord Tope to explore those later.
We believe that the format proposed in the Bill is likely to set up an antagonistic and litigious atmosphere from the moment a child sets foot in the school. If both the home and the school cling to this text as though they have rights under it we can see many problems ahead. Our alternative proposal is a process of continuous instructed dialogue between governors, staff, parents and pupils to develop a home-school policy rather than an agreement. We want to see that on paper, but not cast in tablets of stone. It will be a process in which all four interested parties work together. We believe that the process and the activities surrounding it will be useful in building constructive relationships between the four elements in the school community; that is, the governors, the staff, the parents and the pupils.
We see policy documents being produced on a regular basis in order to summarise where the dialogue has reached. We believe that a home-school policy as opposed to an agreement is much more likely to command the respect and support of all sides if it is developed in a spirit of mutuality. Many bodies and groups agree with us and my noble friend Lord Tope will explore that further.
I believe that the Government's intention is good but in their desire to change things for the good they have a tendency to want to control everything a little too much. The difference between us is that we want to give more opportunity for groups to reach a consensual agreement and not be told, "You must have this policy and every person must sign it. If you don't sign it there will be a problem." We see that creating unnecessary tensions. Our suggestion is in the spirit of the Government's intentions, but we believe that it will work better.
The Government talk about partnership. My experience of working in a variety of partnerships is that having dialogue and working things out together is most successful, receives most support and is most likely to work. That is the spirit in which I speak to the amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): As the noble Baroness said, if Amendment No. 235A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 235B.
Baroness David: I have my name to Amendments Nos. 237, 238 and 244 in the group. I am very much in

1099
sympathy with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. Although I do not strike out "agreement" and put in "policy", I am sympathetic to the suggestion and would be happy with the word "policy". In fact, I think I prefer it.
I am very glad that the Government have decided not to use the signing of home-school agreements as a criterion for admission. I really did not like that. The increased emphasis given to the role of parents in the education of their children is very welcome, However, the potential of home-school documents to build constructive relationships is, in my view, undermined by this section of the Bill, which places the onus only on the parents, failing to establish a principle of mutuality which focuses the attention and efforts of all concerned—teacher, staff, pupils, parents and the governing body—on the educational experience of the child.
Home-school documents can be a means of engaging parents' commitment and involvement. Documents are best seen as part of a continuum of establishing a relationship between parents—some of whom have had negative school experiences themselves—and schools. Written documentation can be effective when used to facilitate discussion among staff, parents and pupils about shared expectations.
For example, a Children's Society project called Shine, working in two primary schools in Lambeth and Wandsworth, uses home-school agreements in order to gain parental consent to work with individual children and to invite them to participate in the work of the project. In fact, the All-Party Group on Children had the project leader in Shine speak to them about a week or so ago. It was very interesting how successful they had been in working with parents and children. I very much recommend the pamphlet which they produced describing their work.
I move on to Amendment No. 238. This amendment tries to ensure that the views of staff, pupils and parents are sought in the development and review of home-school agreements. It omits certain lines and substitutes all qualifying parents,
"the staff of the school, and … the pupils of the school".
As I said on our last day in Committee, I very much want to get the word "pupil" on the face of the Bill. "Pupil" is not mentioned in the whole course of this enormous Bill. That does seem to me rather a mistake, so here is another chance.
We are concerned that the consumers of education are too often thought to be parents rather than parents and children. The consequence of this is that pupils are given little opportunity to exercise responsibility or to contribute to the organisation of school life.
This amendment is consistent with the principle of participation which I believe the Bill could establish in concrete and constructive ways. It is also consistent with Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that every child capable of expressing a view has the right to do so on all matters of concern to him or her. I have mentioned that before, too. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, the international
1100
monitoring body, when examining the record of the UK Government in implementing the convention, expressed particular concern over the fact that children's participation in schools was at the discretion of the head teacher or governing body. It considered that the principle of participation should be respected as a matter of principle for all children. This amendment provides the opportunity to do this.
The amendment has a practical value too. Participation in the development of a mutually agreed set of expectations can motivate pupils to engage more fully in the life of the school and in learning by providing the opportunity for them to exercise responsibility and to contribute their views and to feel valued.
The process of establishing home-school agreements can lay the foundation for participation in other aspects of school life, such as behaviour policies.
The next amendment that I have in this group is Amendment No. 244, which in fact I do not think engages very closely with the other two amendments. But as it probably prevents me having to deal with the last amendment tonight I would prefer to have it in this grouping than by itself, which would be more sensible.
This amendment, which is a new clause following Clause 119, places schools and LEAs under a duty to listen to the voices and views of pupils on matters affecting them and, where reasonable, to ascertain their views.
During the passage of the Education Act 1993 a QC's opinion was obtained which advised that education legislation was currently in breach of Article 12 of the UN convention. This new clause is a modest and reasonable measure to bring education into line with the convention as well as with domestic law governing other sectors such as social services, health and civil court procedures. It does not prescribe how schools and LEAs will fulfil this duty, although formal structures such as schools councils and complaints procedures spring to mind.
It does not require schools or LEAs to follow the views of pupils, just to listen to them. This is simply a matter of good practice, which occurs in many schools and authorities but unfortunately not all. Listening to pupils of all ages pays big dividends in terms of reducing pupil disaffection and increasing their commitment to their education and the school.
I believe that these are important amendments in establishing the proper relationship between families, parents and children. Once again I repeat that I think that the views of pupils should really be taken into more consideration and that should be written on to the face of the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: These are complex amendments. We are moving from party politics almost totally to the running of schools.
The first point that I should like to make is that, of course, children in schools are of different ages. We cannot just talk about every pupil because we are talking

1101
of children between the ages of five and 18. I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. It is very hard to lay down on the face of a Bill exact details concerning discipline.
Home-pupil agreements are, in essence, a good thing. But there are two elements to these agreements. Each of them has equal importance. We must not give more importance to one or the other. First, there are the parents with their expectations of the school for their son or daughter. Then there is the school, which has created a certain style of community. People sometimes have a choice of schools—in the independent sector, for example. The noble Baroness knows quite a lot about that sector, since she sent her own children to one of those schools. Some may choose Bedales and some may choose a more structural school such as Winchester. In the state sector there are often difficulties. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, with whom I do not often agree, hit the nail on the head. We enter into enormously difficult areas.
We all agree that there should be a home-school agreement, but what form should it take? The agreement is between the school and the parents, and demands great sensitivity. I have great doubts whether it can be laid on the face of a Bill. Each side has equal rights. I do not think that you can write on the face of a Bill that the school must always consult the pupils, though most schools with any sense would. But how do you consult a five year-old? This Clause refers to "all maintained schools". What should be done about five, six and seven year-olds?
Baroness David: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord just so that he might read the amendment and so that he knows what it really says. Amendment No. 244 says:
"due consideration is given to the views of pupils on any matter which affects them, having regard to the pupils' age and understanding".
Probably a child of three or four would not be consulted.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I accept the noble Baroness's correction. But it is on the face of a Bill. Who would decide "understanding" and so on? The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that she wants flexibility and understanding on each side. I am worried about entering into detail on this. I agree in principle. We are now in a deep educational discussion. Fortunately we are free of the arguments of earlier in the afternoon. But it is a more complicated issue than can be developed in the clauses of a Bill. I would agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, on one hand, but I am torn. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, that of course children need rights. I do not want courts to make decisions in relation to parents of, for example, a child of eight, who objected to a school. On the other hand, I want headmasters to be able to work out good agreements with parents. Home agreements are a great development. But the understanding of a child and such matters may raise legal complications and I am quite worried about the whole issue. Contrary to my confidence earlier this afternoon, I am now in a state of angst over this matter. I believe that it may create a
1102
number of educational problems. Stipulating the age of the child will not solve the problem. Once a provision is placed on the face of the Bill, it becomes a matter for lawyers. All you need is a litigious parent and you are in trouble. Therefore, for once, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has my heart.
Lord Northbourne: Accepting as I do some of the criticisms of the amendment made by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, nevertheless it is important that the Government should indicate—if not on the face of the Bill, as least in guidelines—their support for pupil involvement in these decisions. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, chaired a commission on discipline in schools about 10 years ago. I remember him telling me—and indeed, I remember reading in the report—that one factor as regards which there was a consistent relationship with good behaviour was the schools where pupils were in some way consulted and involved in the behaviour policy. The involvement of pupils enables them not only to hear some of their concerns being considered but it enables them also to take ownership of the policy. I hope the Government will take that on board.
Lord Tope: I am distressed to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has been caused angst by all of this but he is right to say that we have at last moved out of the party political arena into the education arena. I thought that that was an interesting admission from the Conservative Front Bench, and it is a very accurate one.
I am certain that we are all in favour of partnership. The issue that we are discussing is how best to achieve it. I am quite certain that the noble Baroness, Lady David, desires the same outcome as does my noble friend and I. There may be slight differences as to how we wish to get there, although I was grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she preferred our word "policy" to the word "agreement". I suggest that the difference between those words is rather more than just a difference between words. The whole point is that a policy is something which is discussed and developed through mutual agreement and is ongoing. The word "agreement" at least implies and usually means something rather legalistic and fixed. I know that that is not what the noble Baroness was talking about.
My noble friend Lady Maddock gave a trailer of what I was going to do at this stage. I have received quite a number of letters in support of our amendments and in support of the developing partnership in the way that my noble friend explained it. Rather than repeat what other members of the Committee have said, I wish to quote from some of the letters that I have received. I have received letters, perhaps not surprisingly, but very valuably, from CASE—the Campaign for State Education—and the Alliance of Parents and Schools. I have received a letter from the UK Education Forum which said among other things, that,
"we have been vigorously opposed to the notion of a signed home-school agreement, believing this is not the way to encourage the cooperation of parents".

1103
I have received a letter from Family Education and Playwork making similar points. I have received another letter from NASUWT which stated:
"There is little doubt that if the latter requirement",
that is, the requirement for the agreement,
"is allowed to stand it will impose an additional administrative burden on already hard-pressed schools and could create division rather than partnership between school and parent".
I have received a three-page letter from the Parent Teacher Association of Wales. I wish to quote from that at greater length because it develops the argument contained in all the letters. I begin with an extract from the letter which will encourage the Government to listen. The letter states:
"We fully endorse the priority afforded by the Government to education, and were heartened by the priority afforded immediately to education standards, and to the positive recognition in the White Papers that partnership between all those involved in schools would be an essential condition to achieving progress".
I am sure that I now have the attention of the Front Bench with an opening like that. The letter goes on to state:
"However, we strongly disagree with the proposal that schools need to be required by law to have home-school agreements, in conjunction with a 'parental declaration' to be signed by every parent".
The letter continues:
"The imposition of agreements will not improve relationships, will confuse existing arrangements, and will alienate the vast majority of supportive parents".
It goes on to state:
"We therefore would like to see these clauses amended to reflect the true meaning of partnership … We believe that it would be far more open and effective for representative Home-School Associations … to agree jointly a home-school policy, after open discussion and consultation".
The letter continues in that vein.
I quoted that at some length because I thought it encapsulated very well the sense and meaning not only of what we have been saying this evening but what all the other letters that I have received meant to say.
I do not believe that the Government will accept our amendments this evening. But I hope they will consider this matter seriously. As I said, we are all in favour of partnership and the question is how best to achieve it. For the first time today we have here a consensus on all sides of the Committee. We have had strong representations from responsible organisations concerned with schools, with parents and pupils. I should like to think that by the time we reach Report stage, we should all—and if the Government cannot, the rest of us perhaps can—get together to achieve a better way of arriving at the outcome which we all want but which most of us believe will not be achieved if we follow the proposals contained in the Bill.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Perhaps I should enter into this very complex area. My position and the position of my colleagues is that we believe in home-school agreements. The problem is the relationship between the parent and the school. There is a difficulty with what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said,
1104
and this is where I may part company from him. If a school, with its parents and governors, agrees a home-school agreement, then the next clause which we shall be discussing provides that it cannot be valid. My view is that if a corporate community agrees it and the existing community of parents, governors, teachers and head teachers agree it, they should be entitled, like independent schools, to ask the children to accept it, particularly as there is diversity of choice. As I read the following clause, that would not be allowed.
We are agreeing that a home-school agreement is a good thing. The noble Baroness, Lady David, wishes to improve upon it but there is a mutual agreement that it is a very good thing. Is it enforceable? In other words, if a school which has set a certain ethos reached an agreement with its governors and everybody else concerned, is it entitled to demand acceptance by its future pupils? Historically, that has been the essence of good schooling. We are entering into a very complex area.
My view would be that it should be possible to do that. A school may demand particular patterns of behaviour but there is a choice of other schools. The school would then be entitled to say, "No, this has been agreed by the totality of the community". Therefore, this clause slightly contradicts the next clause. Therefore, we are becoming involved in a dilemma in relation to home-school agreements. We all agree that they are good but what if it is said that they are no good and parents reject them? I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to this complex issue.
9 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. Our vision is that this is a process which is continuous and the dialogue goes on. It is a policy rather than an agreement. I believe that that will answer one of the noble Lord's points. It is clear that we have agreement in the Committee. However, if we are to incorporate it in a proper way in the Bill, it will probably not be by way of the amendments we are now discussing. Indeed, if we all agree, we will have to work on it between now and the next stage. We see it as an evolving policy rather than an agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was worried about everyone having to stick to it forever. That is the whole point and why we think that that is rather better than an agreement.
Lord Dormand of Easington: I should first make an apology for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I was held up by an unexpected visitor. I should like to say how much I agree with the principle under discussion. However—and I suspect that this may have been stated before I entered the Chamber—what does one do about parents who are not in the slightest bit interested in school? I believe that most of us have been involved in such a situation in one way or another. After all, they are the people who ought to benefit most from such an agreement.
The question really is: how are we to deal with it? What is to be done about the situation? I have not heard anything from my own Front Bench about this nor,

1105
indeed, from the other two Benches, but that is probably because of my late arrival. If the problem is not solved, it will not defeat the whole purpose behind the principle. However, if something is not done or if it is not properly thought about, I suspect that it will not be as successful as it ought to be.
Baroness David: My noble friend may not have been present in the Chamber when I spoke. If he cares to study the SHINE project, which is working with two schools in Lambeth and Wandsworth, he will see that it has been most successful in involving the parents of children who are perhaps causing trouble at school. Indeed, it has gone in and talked with them and encouraged them to be involved with the school. It is indeed possible. I believe that I have made it clear that I do not like the word "agreement". I said that I believe the Government have decided that they do not want the parents to sign an agreement about admissions, or whatever. That would have been a great mistake. It is possible to get parents involved if the process is worked upon carefully.
Lord Tope: In a sense the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, has given another reason for our concern about the concept of the agreement. As I and my noble friend have said, one of our concerns is that the whole intention of agreement is legalistic. As the noble Lord nearly pointed out, one of the problems with that is that it is unenforceable. For example, what do you do with a parent who will not sign such a declaration for whatever reason, whether it is disinterest or something stronger? I hope that we will not be refusing admission to the child. I assume that that is so; indeed, I know that that is not the intention. In such a case, the declaration then becomes devalued and other parents will wonder why they should sign such a declaration when someone living down the road will not.
I suggested to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that the difference between our amendments and hers was more than a difference of words. I know she has accepted that fact. It is not just a matter of "policy" being a kinder word than "agreement". It is actually a wholly different concept. I see that the noble Baroness is nodding her head in agreement. Our idea of a home-school link, a home-school policy, is that it is something which is developing and something which is worked upon. All of us readily acknowledge that it will be much easier to work with some parents and some pupils than with others. Indeed, for some it may well be a very long process and, sadly, it may never be successful with a few.
However, because it is a policy rather than an agreement and because it is ongoing and developing, we believe that it has much more chance of success and much more chance of being binding. In any event it is a much more positive approach in an atmosphere of mutuality between all the partners in the process rather than something which, in essence, is imposed. That is
1106
one of the things to which we object and which we believe will simply not be successful. It is not the best way of achieving the outcome that we all seek.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall begin by saying how much I respect the provenance of these amendments. I have not read all of the briefing which noble Lords from the Liberal Democrat Benches have quoted, but I have read that from the "Campaign for State Education". In particular, I have read the letter which appeared in the Independent on llth March this year from all the people who have been quoted in this debate, and more. They include the general secretaries of all of the teaching unions. Clearly, there is a wide consensus on the objections to individual agreements and there is a wide consensus that home-school policies should be in place—and that includes the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. I am grateful for that.
However, I still have to say that I believe noble Lords are mistaken because I believe they have misinterpreted what is actually said in Clause 103. The whole of the argument from the Liberal Democrat Benches seemed to suggest that there was some alternative between a home-school agreement and a home-school policy. That is not our intention. We all agree that home-school partnerships are vital. We all recognise that parents are a child's first and enduring teacher. They play a crucial role in helping their children to learn. Children achieve more when school and parents work together. Clearly, all schools should have a home-school policy. Reviewing the home-school policy will be an important starting point when drawing up and then consulting on home-school agreements with parents.
Let us look at Clause 103 in more detail. I believe that it makes our position clear. First, there is no intention on the face of the Bill—and, indeed, it does not happen—that the content of a home-school agreement should be statutory. Subsection (2) says that the agreement is a statement specifying,

"(a) the school's aims and values;

(b) the school's responsibilities",

that is, the responsibilities which,
"the school intends to discharge in connection with the education of pupils at the school who are of compulsory school age;

(c) the parental responsibilities, namely the responsibilities which the parents of such pupils are expected to discharge",

and

"(d) the school's expectations of its pupils, namely the expectations of the school as regards the conduct of such pupils while they are registered pupils there".

That does not specify on the face of the Bill the wording of the agreement: it says, in very minimal terms, who the participants are in this home-school agreement—namely the school, the parents and the children. What could be fairer than that? The amendments of the Liberal Democrats would not remove that aspect. We are not trying to be dirigiste about this at all. We are outlining the scope of the home-school agreement. We are not saying that this is a one-off thing to substitute for a developing home-school policy. Clause 103(7) states,
"The governing body shall from time to time review the home-school agreement".

1107
Subsection (8) states,
"Where the home-school agreement is revised by the governing body following such a review, subsections (3) to (6) shall … apply in relation to the revised agreement".
Subsection (9) states,
"Before adopting the home-school agreement or parental declaration, or revising that agreement, the governing body shall consult—

(a) all qualifying parents, and

(b) such other persons as may be prescribed".

Therefore there is provision for ongoing consultation. I do not know whether that conflicts with other people's ideas of stability, but it accords with my ideas of the way in which schools and parents should be thinking all the time about the nature of their mutual responsibilities.
I do not think that any of those who have supported these amendments have recognised that what they want from a home-school policy is achieved in Clause 103 of the Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will forgive me, I shall not comment on the points he made about admissions as that matter is covered in Clause 104, which is not the subject of these amendments. There are amendments to Clause 104 which we shall discuss later.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I discussed Clause 104. That shows an active mind.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What is different about what we are proposing? It is not that we are not doing all the things that other Members of the Committee want; we are going a little further. It was a manifesto commitment to introduce agreements between all schools and parents defining the responsibilities of each. Home-school agreements will play a major role in encouraging schools and parents to work together to ensure that children make the most of their schooling. The agreement will clarify each side's expectations. As I have said, it will explain the school's aims and values, the respective responsibilities of the school and of parents, and what the school expects of its pupils. All agreements should include expectations on the standard of education, the ethos of the school, regular and punctual attendance, discipline, homework and the information that schools and parents will give to each other. But that is not on the face of the Bill, nor should it be.
However, it is important that parents should be clear about their rights and responsibilities and what they can do to support and help their children. I suggest to the Committee that the way to ensure that the policy is not simply put on a shelf, behind the clock, in a file or somewhere else, is to ensure that this agreement is taken home and is signed. That is the difference between us and those Members of the Committee who have tabled these amendments. I venture to suggest that, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, the difference between us concerns how we achieve what we want rather than what we want, because we are in agreement about that.
I turn to Amendment No. 237 in the name of my noble friend Lady David. It would negate many of the points that I have made. I refer to all of the provisions
1108
for the parental declarations associated with home-school agreements. For the reasons I have given, I think it is essential that schools should invite parents to sign a declaration. We want them to demonstrate the importance of education by declaring their commitment to work in partnership. Agreements will be important in helping to engage parents in raising pupils' achievements, and in action to combat truancy, bullying and unacceptable behaviour. However, we are not being rigid about this. Clause 103(4) states,
"Subsection (3) does not, however, require the governing body to seek the signature of a qualifying parent if, having regard to any special circumstances relating to the parent or the pupil in question, they consider that it would be inappropriate to do so".
I do not need to spell out what kind of parents and what kind of pupils we are talking about in these cases. There clearly will be occasions when it will be absolutely impossible, unreasonable and legalistic to try to secure an agreement. There will clearly be cases where parents do not care or are absent. There is the matter of children in children's homes. However, as I said, we are not being rigid about this. My noble friend seeks to remove from the Bill the subsections which allow flexibility on this matter. I do not think that is wise.
Amendment No. 238 in the name of my noble friend Lady David would remove the provision which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations providing who, in addition to parents, governing bodies should consult. While we share her conviction as to the importance of full consultation, we believe that the Bill's existing provisions already ensure that. We do not want to place a requirement to consult staff and pupils on the face of the Bill. We believe that that should be dealt with in guidance. We intend to issue guidance which will encourage a school to consult with staff and pupils.
Lest my noble friend should think that I am antagonistic towards her on this point, as a chair of governors in a comprehensive school I had pupil governors elected to the governing body. That went on for several years until we were told that it had always been illegal. We therefore had them come into the meetings informally. We had an A and B agenda, which is perfectly possible. It worked very well. Indeed, my younger son became a pupil governor, and then a governor, of his college of technology. In that way, pupils learn citizenship. I am strongly in favour of involving pupils. There is no disagreement between us as to the objective; it is simply a matter of what appears on the face of the Bill and what does not.
My noble friend then spoke to Amendment No. 244. The proposal in that amendment represents good practice and is to be encouraged. It happens in good schools. There is nothing to prevent pupils being consulted anyway on home-school agreements. It would merely seem too dirigiste to have that provision on the face of the Bill.
My noble friend said, puzzlingly, that the word "pupil" does not appear on the face of the Bill. A quick count indicates that Clauses 1, 4, 6, 15, 38, 40, 61 to 65, 67, 68, 81 to 83, 87, 88, 91, 96 and 103 contain that reference. Our objection is not that we are in any way

1109
against referring to pupils or consulting pupils. I hope that on that basis all noble Lords involved will not feel it appropriate to press their amendments.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: Before the noble Lord sits down, in the context of his remarks regarding three partners—the school, the parents and the pupils—would it not be appropriate for pupils also to be asked to sign this agreement on school policy, subject to age and understanding. That would have two favourable results. It would encourage pupils to take responsibility for their own behaviour and it might encourage parents to be helpful in that respect.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is no reason why home-school agreements should not be drafted on that basis. It is merely that we do not want to impose it. Also, we do not want to become involved in definitions such as what is appropriate for the age and understanding of pupils.
Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for his long dissertation on the amendments and for pointing out our similarities of view. I was not entirely convinced at the end of his remarks. My feeling is that one reason some of us are slightly concerned about these agreements has to do with the words of a Minister in the other place, Mr. Jack Straw. His comments made me slightly worried. Given the remarks made tonight by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I feel rather happier. However, there are still problems.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and our own amendments in a sense have the same effect and the same aim. It is a matter of involving teaching and non-teaching staff in a school, and pupils and parents, in trying to achieve agreement on school policy. Our amendments go further in emphasising the continuous and developing nature of the policy. Most noble Lords who spoke agreed that that was a good idea.
I, too, was slightly concerned that if people did not sign the agreements, it could be used in order not to have certain children in a school. I am glad that that point has been clarified. It is important to be clear that this is not a basis for refusing children admission to school.
However, I still have a problem with the idea of signing. If we are saying that there will still be those who will not sign the agreement, why do we set ourselves up to do something that we shall not be able to achieve? That was what worried many of us and others outside this place who have supported us in these amendments. We are all concerned about the true meaning of partnership; namely, that agreement is reached together. It is not imposed. I think that we are all agreed on that.
We shall have to read carefully what has been said in the debate and consult carefully with those who have in a sense been working with us on trying to clarify exactly what will happen in relation to this proposal. We may
1110
return to the matter at a later stage. Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady David, wishes to speak.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may make one comment. I certainly admit to being guilty of exaggeration in relation to the word "pupil" not being on the face of the Bill. Of course, it is. The point is that it is not provided on the face of the Bill that pupils should be consulted in deciding the policy. For instance, Clause 103(5) states:
"Where the governing body consider that a registered pupil at the school has a sufficient understanding of the home-school agreement as it relates to him, they may invite the pupil to sign the parental declaration".
I do not think that that is quite enough. We want pupils to be consulted about the best method of deciding the school discipline code, the way of behaviour, and so on. That is not on the face of the Bill at any point. I should like to see pupils being brought into the discussion early on. I hope that the Government could sometimes be a little flexible in responding to real anxieties with regard to this area. I think we shall have to come back to this issue at the next stage of the Bill. I hope that in the meantime the Government will give consideration to the matter.
Baroness Maddock: I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady David. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 235B to 235E, 236, 236A, 237, 237A, 237B, 238, 238A and 239 not moved.]
Clause 103 agreed to.
Clause 104 [Supplementary provisions about home-school agreements]:
[Amendment No. 239A not moved.]
Baroness Blotch Baroness Blotch moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 80, line 9, at beginning insert ("Unless any such arrangements were in force on 1st January 1998.").
The noble Baroness said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Lucas, I shall move the amendment on his behalf. The amendment refers to subsection (4) of Clause 104. A good deal has been said about home-school agreements. It is interesting that the right honourable Lady, Miss Harman, and the right honourable gentleman, the Prime Minister, no less, are signatories to home-school contracts, it being a condition that, if they do not sign a contract, their child cannot attend the school. It is a binding contract. That is outlawed by subsection (4). At Second Reading, or certainly very early on in our deliberations, I asked the noble Baroness whether the home-school contract which was in operation at one school, at least, the Oratory in London, and maybe at a number of other schools too—because the Oratory cannot be the only school in the country to have a home-school contract—would be outlawed by the Bill. We now know the answer. I have

1111
read the Bill more carefully since I first asked the question. Subsection (4) states:
"Neither the governing body of a school to which section 103(1) applies nor the local education authority … shall—
(a) invite any person to sign the parental declaration at a time when the child in question has not been admitted to the school".
In other words, they may not make it a condition of admittance to the school. Paragraph (c) provides that neither the governing body nor the local education authority can,
"make any decision as to whether or not to admit a child to the school by reference to whether",
they have signed the declaration. Fine words were spoken to the previous amendments, but it seems to me mean spirited, where these measures work, and have worked very successfully, to prevent them. My noble friend's amendment, which I would have supported had he been here, simply says that,
"Unless any such arrangements were in force on 1st January 1998",
subsection (4) applies. In other words, the position that applies at present shall be allowed to continue and from here on schools are bound by the measures contained in the Bill.
It will be interesting if the Government persist in invalidating the contract system that works in at least one school of which the Prime Minister has first-hand information. In that school it works exceptionally well. My understanding—I may be wrong—is that the Prime Minister is not aware that the measures in the Bill will have this effect. I believe that he will be quite surprised. The debate tonight may bring the matter to his notice.
I hope that the amendment will be accepted by the Government. It is a modest amendment. It simply freezes those arrangements that were in place up to 1st January 1998 and allows the Government's measures to take effect thereafter. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I refused to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, when he anticipated amendments of this sort and I am therefore duty bound to respond properly. The noble Baroness is quite right. The provisions in Clause 104 prevent the use of home-school agreements in the admissions process. They do so uncompromisingly and, unless this amendment were to be accepted, they would apply also to existing agreements.
We do not believe it is right—this is a fundamental statement of principle—to allow admissions authorities to base their decisions on whether a parent has signed or is willing to sign an agreement. We uphold the principle that an admissions authority should not be able to attach conditions when making the offer of a place. It cannot be right to deny a child a place because his or her parents are unwilling to sign the home-school agreement. The interests of the child must come first, not the willingness or otherwise of the parent to sign a home-school agreement.
Once a child has been admitted to a school it is right to expect parents to sign a declaration that they acknowledge and accept both their responsibilities and
1112
the school's expectations of their child. Of course, we anticipated that either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would refer to the case of the London Oratory. I do not deny that that is of both political and educational importance. I have looked at the missions statement of the London Oratory from its prospectus. I have it in front of me now. It contains a whole range of requirements setting out the priorities which will be given to those accepted into the school.
As all Members of the Committee will be aware, it is a good school; it is a successful school; and it is significantly over-subscribed. Priority will be given first, to practising members of the Roman Catholic Church. It goes on to say,
"The places available will be offered to the most suitable candidates and the decision will be made in the light of the following factors: whether the boy comes from a family in which the Catholic parent or parents are practising members of the Roman Catholic Church; acceptance by the parents and boy of the conditions under which the boys are admitted to and allowed to remain in the school; acceptance of firm discipline and the school regulations: commitment by the parents and by the boy to 11–18 schooling and an undertaking to remain at the school for sixth form".
Other factors include the child's record at the previous school, interest in extra curricular activities and whether there is a brother or sister at the school. There is a whole series of criteria which a successful, over-subscribed school has been able, perfectly legally under DfEE Circular 696, to apply to its admissions policy. In this clause and in resisting this amendment we say that the willingness or otherwise of parents to sign a home-school agreement should not be one of those criteria. We do not believe that the opportunity for a child to attend that or any school should be affected by the willingness of the parents to sign a home-school agreement. For that reason, we resist the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Is the noble Lord saying in more simple terms that the situation that pertains at the Oratory will be banned by this Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am saying that those parts of the agreement I read out, which involve the signature on a home-school agreement, will no longer be possible when the Bill becomes law.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: It is difficult to talk about those parts because any home-school agreement will have a variety of parts within it. It is no accident that this school is a very good school. What the noble Lord is saying is that from now on someone who refuses to accept those conditions cannot be discriminated against.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say anything about the other conditions. I referred to a refusal to sign a home-school agreement. We spent 50 minutes debating the contents and context of a home-school agreement. The willingness or otherwise of a parent to sign a home-school agreement will no longer be one of the criteria for admission to any school.
Baroness Blatch: That was my question. I asked about parents who come along to that school and refuse

1113
to sign the home-school agreement, which includes many of those conditions. They are part of being accepted into the school. They are conditions in terms of the commitment of parents and in terms of a commitment to supporting the regime of the school, the ethos of the school and the discipline within the school. If parents come along and refuse to sign the agreement it will not be possible for the school to discriminate against them in terms of entry. Is that right?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It cannot be a criterion for admission. I listened carefully to the preceding discussion and I took it that the movers of the amendments—both from the Liberal Democrat Benches and my noble friend Lady David—were very keen on a home-school policy which was arrived at by consensus between parents, the school and the pupils. They were keen on it being negotiated between the school and the parents and on the pupils being consulted. They were keen on it being a continuing process. How that is compatible with making it a criterion for admission is beyond me.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is a past master at diversionary tactics. Nothing in my amendment invalidates Clause 103. Clause 103 is a very fine idea. If a school wants a voluntary agreement, if a school wants to set out conditions within its contract and invite parents to sign it and to accept as part of that that if a parent does not sign it that is all right, I have no objection. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that where one can get a voluntary agreement and a fruitful partnership, that is a good thing.
All I am saying is that one or two schools, perhaps more—notably one school to which the Prime Minister sends his children, another Cabinet Minister sends her children and a third government Minister sends his children—already have agreements which have worked for a very long time. It is no accident and no coincidence that those are fine schools. Because of the system, because of the signatures that they have on those agreements, they have the highest possible degree of conformity to the way in which the school is run and to the way in which the school operates.
The Bill proposes that that can no longer continue. In the future that will be challenged under Clause 103, because the prohibition is in Clause 104 and not Clause 103. Nothing in my noble friend's amendment invalidates what is in Clause 103. That can continue, I have no argument with that and I did not rise to object to it. I am simply saying that something which is satisfactory to the leader of the noble Lord's party and to Cabinet Ministers within his party should be allowed to continue for parents who follow behind them.
I find it mean spirited and politics for its own sake. The world will not fall apart if the school can continue with that system. The only thing that can arise as a result of the dogged determination of the Government to set their face against this policy is that parents will come along, will want entry to that school, will refuse to sign a home-school agreement but, under the law, the school will not be allowed to discriminate against them. A new ground for discrimination will be set up. It seems to me
1114
that it must be possible for schools to say, "This is how we are run", and, in conjunction with the agreement of the parents, to have the fullest possible conformity. I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment. However, my information is that the Prime Minister does not understand what is being abolished here.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment perhaps I may say to her that I have set out the Government's position on this matter and I do not propose to repeat it. The position is entirely clear. She speaks as though the implication of Clause 104 is that there would be discrimination against a child whose parents refused to sign a home-school agreement as a condition of admission. That is not the case. That is not allowed to be a criterion for admission. Our view is that the importance of home-school agreements and creating a real relationship between the school, parents and pupils are the overriding considerations. It is on that basis that we resist the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I shall return to the issue once more. The noble Lord has again missed the point completely. If parents refuse to sign a home-school agreement one assumption is that they do not agree with everything in it. They may not agree with the disciplinary regime or all kinds of things that may be in the agreement, yet they desperately want to get their child into that particular school because it has a very high reputation in London. They believe that their child might receive a better education. Unless they have a commitment to the way in which the school is run and the disciplinary regime within it, besides the other conditions that are part of the agreement, then the noble Lord is saying that the school would not be in a position to refuse to accept the pupil on the grounds that the parents do not agree with some of the conditions in the home-school agreement. That would be wholly wrong for that particular school.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness has not said what the noble Lord said. What I have said, I have said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 agreed to.
Clause 106 [Provision of secondary education for Key Stage 4 pupils by FE institutions]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 240A:
Page 81, line 23, leave out ("further education is provided") and insert ("education is provided to a person who has attained the age of nineteen years").
The noble Lord said: Clause 106, as currently drafted, stipulates that pupils aged between 14 and 16 who will be receiving secondary education provided by a further education college cannot be educated in the same room as 16 to 18 year-old students except in circumstances prescribed by regulation. The purpose of this amendment is to set the dividing line at the age

1115
of 19 instead. Key stage 4 pupils being educated in a school may be taught in the same room as older sixth form pupils.
The effect of the clause as it currently stands would be to restrict the education of the same age groups if the provision were to apply in a further education college. It was not our intention to restrict in this way the teaching of 14 to 16 year-olds in the same room as 16 to 19 year-olds. Instead there should be a single dividing line between persons aged 19 and over and younger persons. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 241 not moved.]
Clause 107 [Nutritional standards for school lunches]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 233ZH:
Page 81, line 27, leave out ("Regulations may prescribe") and insert ("The Secretary of State may issue guidance in relation to").
The noble Baroness said: This part of the Bill does represent the nanny state. The Secretary of State is now going to tell all our children precisely what they must eat in school. There are all kinds of practical problems with that. My memory goes back to the days when there were nutritional standards. Meat and two veg were cooked at the school by the dinner ladies. The pigs did rather well in those days because of the amount of food that was sent out. Children would not eat liver, cabbage, carrots or spinach. An incredible amount of waste left the school almost on a daily basis.
There have been a great many heartening developments over the years. Certainly, in the schools of which I was a governor, in a number of schools with which I was familiar in my own local authority and in the schools I visited across the country in my time at the Department for Education, and since, what I have seen has led me to believe that an enormous amount is going on in schools to promote healthy eating. That includes curriculum work.
However, it now appears that the Secretary of State is to reintroduce the notion of nutritional standards, which I suspect will come either from the Food Agency, as an adviser, or from the Government's Chief Scientist and his staff. Fashion about what does and does not comprise "healthy eating" changes so frequently that the notion that every single school child will receive a missive from on high, saying what he or she should eat on a daily basis, is almost incredible.
It is an inflexible policy. It appears that children will have to eat what is set out by the Secretary of State under the regulations to be made by him under the powers of Clause 107. I am certainly not against guidance, which would be helpful to some schools. However, there is the bizarre practical question of the growing number of children who take their own lunch to school. There will be no control whatever over what they eat. Schools are doing sterling service in trying to persuade parents to ensure that there is fruit in their child's lunch-box and that the child does not eat too much chocolate or too many sweets or crisps. Schools
1116
are doing what they can, but, ultimately, when a child opens his or her lunch-box, he or she will eat whatever the parent has put there. In many schools, the majority of children will bring in a lunch-box and there will be no nutritional control over them, while sitting alongside them will be children who should be eating their school liver and cabbage but who will probably be wasting most of it.
I am disheartened to see a return to such detail. Oh, that there were more detail in the clauses on action zones! The amount of detail on matters such as this is extraordinary. Guidance is more appropriate and we are given absolutely no detail on the very big political and educational issues.
I hope the Minister will appreciate the fact that schools would welcome guidance. The Government are setting all sorts of serious practical problems for many schools which may have disposed of their kitchens. Other schools may have a majority of pupils who eat their lunch from lunch-boxes provided externally. I hope that the Minister will see the merits of providing guidance, but not a diktat from above. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: I shall resist the temptation of arguing with the noble Baroness about the value of spinach or carrots. Her contribution failed to recognise the difference between nutritional standards and the provision of uniform meals. It is true that considerable progress has been made in a number of schools in ensuring that food is of a better nutritional standard and more enjoyable. However, that is not the case in other schools. Technically, as the amendment stands, it would remove the provision of compulsory nutritional standards from the Bill. In fact, the Secretary of State is already capable of issuing voluntary guidance—and has done so. Therefore, these provisions are, in effect, opting for the status quo.
In conjunction with other measures to improve food safety and standards, the Government believe that voluntary guidance was an important step but that compulsory nutritional standards are needed to ensure at least a common minimum in terms of nutrition in all school lunches. It is important that all children attending a maintained school should have the opportunity of a healthy school meal in whatever form it comes. That is commensurate with our drive to avoid an increase in diet-based diseases among schoolchildren and beyond, leading to diseases and premature death. The opportunity of a healthy school meal should not depend on the particular school attended and on whether its regime recognises nutritional standards. The short and long-term health of all children is vital.
I should have thought that Members of the Committee would agree that it is particularly important that children who are entitled to free school meals are guaranteed the opportunity of a nutritional, healthy meal in the middle of the day. Clause 107 guarantees just that. This can be mocked as the noble Baroness attempted to do so in her opening remarks. However, for many children it is vital that we accept the responsibility for ensuring that they have at least one decent meal per day. That is the intention of this clause. I ask the noble Baroness on reflection to withdraw her amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I am very much in favour of this measure. Over the years there has been a dreadful deterioration in the diet of children in this country. My generation, born at the end of the war, and those who lived through the war—we did not like the lack of choice—were the most healthy and we had healthy eating habits. Those of us who have visited schools recently will have been appalled to see children eating packets of crisps for breakfast. We are storing up tremendous problems for the future. Anything that we can do to encourage children and ensure that they eat healthily is to be applauded. I suffered as a teenager from my parents' belief that because of rationing they would be kind to me and let me eat various things. It was a tremendous mistake and made me rather strict with my own children. But now they are older they appreciate that there is a point in caring about what they eat. For that reason it is important to have minimum nutritional standards at least in early years. We know from all the surveys carried out that eating habits are developed in early years, and those are habits of a lifetime. If we do not get at children when they are young, we will store up all kinds of problems for the future.
Although on the whole I am not in favour of lots of regulation, I have a great deal of sympathy for this measure. If one looks at France, Germany and Scandinavia, those countries are very strict on these matters. Many of their schools provide free food to pupils, which ensures that they get a proper diet. I give this measure my warm support.
Baroness Blatch: I shall not press these amendments. However, my understanding is that the lifespan of men and women has increased quite dramatically. All the figures that I have seen indicate that life expectancy is higher than it was—certainly much higher than when I was a girl. My argument is about promotion. We must continue to promote healthy eating vigorously. I am concerned about rigidity: once it is written in, that is the law.
A very large percentage of children—I suspect, in primary schools, the majority of children—eat lunches outside the jurisdiction of the school. They eat within the school boundaries but lunches are provided by parents. This clause does not touch on that matter. Therefore, one will have a very large proportion of children who will not be caught by this. Before I withdraw my amendment, perhaps the noble Lord can tell me what evidence he has to suggest that there has been a rise in diet-related diseases among children and a rise in premature deaths due to diet. What is the source of that evidence?
Lord Whitty: Perhaps I may have elided two different matters. I do not have at my fingertips the evidence for increased child diseases. I have in mind obesity and breathing difficulties, which can be related to diet. In extreme circumstances in some communities malnutrition has increased. As to premature deaths, I was referring to the knock-on effects into adult life. I do not believe that there is a significant increase, if any, in
1118
premature deaths among children. I am sorry if what I said was misleading. However, I am fairly sure that I can produce statistics to show an increase in diet-related diseases in school children.
Baroness Maddock: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. I am aware that yesterday the Diabetic Association had an exhibition in the House. I am also aware that this morning it launched a report that demonstrated an increase in diabetes particularly connected with today's eating habits.
Baroness Blatch: As the mother of a diabetic child, I can say that it is not eating habits that cause diabetes. It is a breakdown in a particular part of the pancreas. In children it is not diet that causes diabetes. In older people it is diet, but in children it is a breakdown in the function of the pancreas. In my son's case, it was an attack of German measles that was both internal and external.
Baroness Maddock: I realise that what the noble Baroness says is true. Nevertheless, I report what I heard on the radio today: that there are two types of diabetes, as the noble Baroness said. There is concern that there is an increase of diabetes among younger people, but not of the type that the noble Baroness's son had.
Baroness Blatch: I had a lot to do with child diabetics. I know that I am talking about child diabetics and not adult diabetics. If the noble Lord will write to me with the specific evidence to which he referred on the rise in diet-related diseases and premature deaths, I should be grateful. I find the evidence and piece of research interesting. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 233ZJ to 233ZM not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 241H:
Page 82, line 1, leave out ("has the meaning given by regulations under this section.") and insert (", in relation to a pupil, means food made available for consumption by the pupil as his midday meal on a school day, whether involving a set meal or the selection of items by him or otherwise.").
The noble Lord said: This is another amendment to put into effect the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee proposals. The committee invited the House to consider whether Clause 107 should be amended either to remove the power to define "school lunch" in Clause 107(5) or to put a definition in the Bill.
The Government agree that there is merit in that view. These amendments are therefore designed to define a school lunch on the face of the Bill. A school lunch can be but is not always a set meal. In the majority of secondary schools and in some primary schools a cafeteria style system exists where people are free to select whatever combination of items they wish. Those are part of the arrangements to which the noble Baroness referred earlier.
These amendments cover both arrangements. They are also designed to ensure that nutritional standards and the duty to provide paid meals only cover food which is

1119
part of the midday meal, therefore excluding sales of confectionary and crisps at whatever time of the day they are acquired.
There are occasions when LEAs or schools provide food in advance at midday to pupils for consumption at their midday meal. For example, a packed lunch may be supplied for pupils going on a school trip. It is intended that this should be covered by the nutritional standards provisions.
The amendments to Clause 108 apply the same definition of a school lunch to the new obligation to provide a paid lunch. Consequently, an LEA may meet its obligation by providing food either as a set meal or a cash cafeteria but not just by tuckshop sales. The last amendment is consequential on those two. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 [Extension of LEA functions concerning school lunches, etc.]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 241J and 241K:
Page 82, line 11, leave out ("meals") and insert ("school lunches").
Page 82, line 27, leave out ("has such meaning as may be prescribed."") and insert (", in relation to a pupil, means food made available for consumption by the pupil as his midday meal on a school day, whether involving a set meal or the selection of items by him or otherwise."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 [Transfer of LEA functions concerning school lunches, etc. to governing bodies]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 241L:
Page 83, line 16, leave out ("meals") and insert ("school lunches").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [Definition of nursery education]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 241LA:
Page 84, line 5, leave out ("suitable for") and insert ("appropriate to the developmental stage or).
The noble Baroness said: We move on to some important aspects of the Bill relating to nursery education. I believe that nursery education means full-time or part-time education not that is "suitable for" but is "appropriate to the developmental stage of children who have not attained compulsory school age. I have tabled the amendment largely to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that at all stages of education, particularly at pre-school age, the stage of development will differ. There are many examples of children being inappropriately placed either in a large infant class or in a reception class. It is important that, if a major part of the Bill is to be dedicated to nursery education, the words "appropriate to the developmental stage of a child are included. Some children are more advanced and some will lag behind and need a great deal more attention. The most traditional forms of child
1120
education cater for that either through the personal care of mothers, through specialised nursery education where, under guidance, children are able to select their learning tools and learn by imitation and action, or in small groups with the support of mothers and volunteers.
All those approaches allow for flexibility and, where possible, a personal response to each individual child. It is not sensible or satisfactory for local authorities, still less the Government, to second guess the opinions and knowledge of parents and nursery teachers. Setting out rigid programmes of work or syllabuses of curricula for children of this age is not right because the needs of each child differ radically. Therefore, prescribing methods in such a rigid fashion would be difficult.
I am worried about the word "suitable". The provision can be suitable for the LEA and it can be suitable for the wrong reasons. A paramount consideration should be the developmental, educational and social needs of the child at that age. The words that I wish to put on to the face of the Bill will allow the Government to show their determination not to allow unsuitable provision in large local authority reception classes. I can point to many examples of that. No one who has the interests of individual children at heart could object to the wording. In that vein, I hope that the noble Baroness is able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness has said. I entirely agree that the nursery education which each child receives must be appropriate to his or her needs. Those needs will vary between children and there should be no question of forcing teaching and learning beyond that which is appropriate for the individual child. Equally, the most able children should not be held back.
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is to review what is known in the jargon as desirable learning outcomes which children in nursery education work towards. In doing so, it will cover specifically the concerns which the noble Baroness is expressing—they have recently been expressed by a number of others—about over-formalising early education. During my early career, I spent some time working on nursery education and I strongly believe that it should not be over-formalised.
When planning the provision of nursery eduction for four year-olds in an area, early years development partnerships must ensure that there is sufficient diversity of provision to meet the differing needs of the children in their area. Parents are best placed to choose the provision that is right for their child. Once a child is attending a particular provider, parents and staff ought to work together to ensure that the child's needs are met. Part of the role of the inspectors is to check that that is happening. Through our consultation on the regulation of early education and day care, and through the review which is being carried out by the QCA as well as through a review of qualifications and training, we will make sure that the education provided for four year-olds in all settings is of good quality and appropriate to the needs of the children concerned. That must include provision in reception classes. I should remind the noble

1121
Baroness, however, that it was the nursery education voucher scheme which led to an unfortunate and uncontrolled increase in the number of children admitted to reception classes as both schools and LEAs tried to maximise their income from vouchers. But we are trying to stop this.
We have already made it clear to LEAs in our guidance on drawing up early years development plans that we did not expect plans to provide a free place for all four year-olds simply by expanding reception classes. We have asked all partnerships to set out in their plans a strategy for raising quality and, in particular, to monitor how well provision in reception classes meets the needs of the youngest four year-olds. However, it would, I think, be wrong to assume that it is always bad for a child to be in a reception class. Ofsted's evidence, including the latest report, which will be published on Friday—but which I think the noble Baroness may have seen because at my request a pre-publication copy was sent by Ofsted to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Tope—suggests that most reception classes provide satisfactory or better education for four year-olds. I think that in the best reception classes teachers are often ably assisted by additional staff. Some pupils benefit from the flexibility that is offered to move beyond the desirable learning outcomes when they are ready.
Our firm intention is to ensure that every child receives good quality nursery education that meets his or her individual needs in whatever setting the parent may choose. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the way to do this is not through amendments such as these, which seek to change a definition of nursery education which we believe is already quite broad enough for the purpose they envisage, but by actually influencing what happens on the ground. We have already made good progress on this and we shall go on pursuing it vigorously. So I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw these amendments.
10 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I simply find it impossible to understand how I am changing the definition of education. If the noble Baroness is saying that to provide "appropriate to the developmental stage" of a child is changing the definition of education and is not consistent with what the Government want, I am really at a loss. I should have thought that the Government would at least sign up to the notion that any provision should be appropriate to their developmental stage, certainly for children who are in the most formative years of their lives. The accusation that my amendments change the definition of nursery education is perplexing. But I shall withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 241A:
Page 84, line 6, at end insert ("whether or not such education is provided in classes which include older children").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 241 and I shall speak also to Amendment No. 241F.
These two amendments are about definitions. It is not clear in the definition of "nursery education" in the Bill whether that would include education of children under compulsory school age in mixed classes with children of compulsory school age. My Amendment 241A would clarify that issue.
Amendment No. 241F addresses a rather different problem. I am advised that the phrase "nursery classes" is nowhere defined in statute. Nursery schools and reception classes are defined in the Education Act 1996. Nursery education and infant classes are defined in this Bill, but nursery classes are not defined. I suggest that it is important they should be. They are referred to not only in the Children Act but also in the recent consultation paper published by the department concerning Early Education and Day Care. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in both of his amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: The noble Lord is quite right to say that there is no statutory definition of a nursery class. Equally, there is no statutory definition of the difference between pre-school, a private nursery school and a day nursery. But what is important is not what a certain classroom or institution is called or how it is defined but what children experience when they are in that setting.
In fact, by defining any setting too closely, we should run the risk of removing the flexibility of provision to evolve alongside children's needs. As I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on the previous amendment, I agree that it is important that nursery provision meets the child's social, physical, emotional and educational needs.
Although we welcome the diversity of provision which comes from a mix of types of provider, I sympathise entirely with the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, about such matters as staffing ratios, a concern which he has expressed previously, and the regulatory differences between the different types of early-years providers. The noble Lord will know also that I share his view that the current arrangements do not make very much sense. I have sympathy with those who call for a rather more level playing field. That is why we are consulting on the regulation of early education and day care, including the issue of adult-child ratios, which is mentioned specifically in one of the noble Lord's amendments.
Through that consultation and through the review of the desirable learning outcomes—
Lord Northbourne: I was speaking only to Amendments Nos. 241A and 241F. I had intended to make a few remarks about the other amendments, although I shall try to be brief. Perhaps the noble Baroness is answering all my amendments.
Baroness Blackstone: I was not moving on to the later amendments. I am aware that the noble Lord has tabled other amendments but if he thinks that I am anticipating them in some way, I shall not continue.

1123
I hope that I have given the noble Lord some reassurance. I do not believe that there is a need for these amendments because the Government are absolutely committed to the provision of nursery education that meets the needs of all children. The statutory definition which the noble Lord suggests does not seem to us to be necessary.
Lord Northbourne: I accept what the noble Baroness says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 241F not moved.]
Clause 110 agreed to.
Clause 111 [Duty of local education authority as respects availability of nursery education]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 241B:
Page 84, line 17, after ("education;") insert—
("() shall have regard to any facilities for providing education not supplied by the local education authority but which are or may become available within their area;
() shall ensure that in the provision of such education the ratio of children to adults does not exceed the maximum ratio set out in guidance to the Children Act 1989 or any subsequent guidance issued by the Secretary of State, and shall ensure that any requirements as to qualifications which are required by that guidance are complied with;
() shall have regard to the social and emotional needs of children in respect of class or group size and learning environment;
() shall have regard to the role of parent participation and involvement in such education;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 241C to 241E. These amendments express my concern on three issues. The first is that there seems to be too little provision in the Bill for what the Children Act describes as children in need. I am not talking about children with special educational needs, although some children in need may well have special educational needs. Children in need often come from families which have not been able to give them the parental support they need in the pre-school years. Very often, they have poorly developed emotional maturity and social skills. They need special care. They need a high ratio of caring adults to children. They need small classes with freedom from bullying by other children. I do not find anything in the Bill which provides for that category of children.
My second concern is about partnership. The Government have expressed their desire to have a partnership with the independent and voluntary sector. It is not possible to have a partnership if the partnership is too unequal. There is already some evidence to suggest that local authorities are what I can only describe as "bullying" the independent and voluntary sector by not keeping them fully informed.
There are three risks involved. The first is that the rules and regulations which the Government provide for the private and independent sector as opposed to the state sector will produce a level playing field. There is a particular problem in that respect as regards
1124
inspection. In many areas today—for example, in old people's homes—the local authority is both the judge and the plaintiff in its own cause. Such authorities inspect their own homes, but they do not do so with the same rigour as applies when they inspect homes which are run by the voluntary and independent sector.
Secondly, there is what is called in business the "waste paper basket principle"; that is to say, you fill your own accommodation first and then, if you have any left over, you make it available to your clients. In some cases, I believe that local authorities are doing precisely that in regard to old people's homes. They keep their own homes full and they let the voluntary and independent sector take up the overflow. Those are areas where the Government need to be concerned.
Finally, there is the question of the involvement of parents. We all agree that the most important single factor in a child's success at school is the involvement and support of parents. That is particularly important in the pre-school years. Without that kind of support from parents, the Government's new and admirable strategies will fail some children. I argue that teachers should not operate in an ivory tower; indeed, they should be concerned to build on the love and trust of children for their parents and to secure the kind of educational outcomes which we all want to see. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: I rise to express my support for the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. We have reached an important part of the Bill which deals with the very formative years of children. Having three grandchildren aged five, three and nearly three, I well appreciate that needs vary between children. Therefore, I should like to go through some of what the noble Lord said.
There is one matter which worries me about the Bill at present. In her previous reply, the Minister indicated that the Government are giving thought to pupil-teacher relationships. If my understanding of the provision is correct—and the noble Baroness will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—if children go to a starter class in a mainstream school the ratio is not the same as that required for nursery education provided elsewhere. I believe that the ratio in respect of private nursery education or playgroups is one to eight, whereas it is one to 15 in state schools. Therefore, straight away one does not have a level playing field.
One of the concerns that has been expressed to me is that there is a much greater squeeze on the voluntary and smaller groups and, indeed, on private nursery education which is already being provided because more of the maintained schools now accept children at the age of four. Surely that is not right. When the matter was debated in the other place the Minister, Miss Morris, stated again that she really wished to see wide provision. I am sure that that is a view which is shared by all Members of the Committee. Indeed, we want to see a variety of provision because the needs of one four year-old are not the same as those of another four year-old. Yet, by the very nature of the current situation, I understand that a ratio of one to eight compared with one to 15 does not enable those concerned to provide the same kind of education provision.

1125
When the Minister replies, I should be most obliged if either he or she—I do not know which one it will be—could tell us a little more about the thinking behind this provision. It is most important that such provision should be diverse. The present provision should not be squeezed; and, indeed, we should be able to have playgroups and private nursery schools as well as entrance at the age of four to the maintained primary schools.
The noble Lord mentioned an interesting point. When I worked with WRVS we worked with old people and I had dealings with old people's homes. Perhaps it is not fair to the Minister to mention this matter as she is not briefed on it, but she may be able to comment on it. I was acutely aware of the strictures that were laid down with regard to the way in which private old people's homes were run and were inspected. I understand that in many cases local authority old people's homes were inspected by the local authority's own councillors. I am anxious to establish a level playing field in this regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned parental involvement. As a grandparent I believe that is extremely important. Involvement in a playgroup can comprise one of the child's parents not simply taking the child to the playgroup but becoming involved in its organisation. That makes a great contribution to the group. I fear that that kind of provision will be squeezed. I shall not lose that fear unless I receive some good reassurances from the Minister. I believe that in many cases the variety of provision that currently exists will be squeezed out of existence. I shall stop at this point but I reiterate my support for the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance on the issues that the noble Lord and I feel strongly about.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in his efforts to persuade the Government to sort out the muddle of early years provision. I do not wish to be contentious at this time of night but I do not believe that the introduction of vouchers helped the situation. That was followed by a change of government. I support the Government as regards early years provision. They have said that they will make early years provision available for all four year-olds, and eventually for three year-olds. The Minister indicated that the Government are still undertaking consultation on that. For that reason it will probably be difficult to pursue this in any great depth tonight. However, we as a party support the provision of early years education for all three and four year-olds whose parents want them to take part in it.
I hope that the Minister can give us an inkling of the Government's proposals on this matter. However, I envisage problems for local education authorities in this regard. We have a large Bill before us and sometimes I wonder whether what we shall get out of it will correlate to the amount of discussion we have had on it. Schools and local education authorities want to know what will happen in this sector. When are the
1126
Government thinking of including three year-olds in this provision? Local education authorities and schools need to know that to be able to plan for the future.
Ministers in another place have clearly stated that they do not consider education for four year-olds to comprise merely accepting them into reception classes. However, that has happened. That may not be entirely this Government's fault, but it has happened. In the past year, that has resulted in some 800 community based pre-schools closing. People believe that another 1,500 may close in the future. Recently the pre-school alliance conducted a survey which showed a huge drop in the number of four year-olds attending pre-school groups. I hope that the Government will take those matters into account because I feel there is a real problem here. I believe that all of us have the same intention.
I hope that if nothing else comes out of the Bill we can try to sort this matter out. At an earlier stage I expressed sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on the ratio of children to teachers in different early years education establishments. It is an awful muddle. When we consider that a child can one week attend what is termed a playgroup with a small ratio of children to staff and the very next week can attend an establishment where there is a much higher number of children per members of staff, it is crazy, and something ought to be done about it.
I appreciate that it is not easy. I shall be interested to know how the Minister sees the future, and whether we are likely to receive any indication before the next stage of the Bill. I can see the noble Baroness looking rather disappointed. This matter is important. The Minister may be able to give us some indication tonight. When I think of all the bits of schooling that we have at present, this is a mess. Everyone has now come to agree the importance of education in a child's early years, and the importance, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, of involving parents. That is where we set up the sort of relationships between schools, parents and children that can be fruitful in the future. It is not so easy with older children; this is where it starts. If we can engage parents at this stage, we shall do more for the future of our children than by any other provision.
Baroness Blatch: I also support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. The sector of under-fives provision where parents are most involved and inextricably linked is the playgroup sector. Playgroup provision has traditionally worked with the family. I have seen nothing in the early years documents from the DfEE which defines playgroup provision as appropriate for a four year-old. The promise for four year-olds does not appear to include, as a formal part of the provision, a place in a playgroup. The blame for the difficulty playgroups have had has been laid at the door of the voucher system. I am afraid that playgroup provision still appears to be on the decline under the Government's proposals.
There is a difficulty with the idea of a level playing field. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said it is all a bit of a mess, the sadness is that the generous ratios in terms of money—those that are most cost-effective—are in LEA provision. Those that are, by

1127
the strictures of law, more expensive but very often of a high quality are, of course, private. That works against private provision.
Much has been said about how destructive the voucher scheme was. Interestingly, I was talking the other day to a nursery teacher in the LEA-controlled public sector who said that the new system is not very different. As the money follows the child, then the school that has the child gets the money, whether it is in the private or public sector. Therefore the only difference between the voucher system and the system advocated by the Government is that, instead of the parent positively making the choice, the LEA is contracting on behalf of the parent. So there is not a great deal of difference—the money is going where the child is. LEAs will inevitably want to keep the money and keep the children. That presents all sorts of tensions for those who provide education outside the LEA.
The Government have done quite a lot to try to persuade local authorities to work in co-operation and partnership with local authorities. I want to reinforce the points made on partnership by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Some of my amendments seek to establish a formal partnership committee bringing together all the providers, the LEA and other nursery providers, to make sure that changes are made with the agreement of the partnership. It will be interesting to hear the noble Baroness's comments when we debate those amendments.
This is a very interesting area. Choice and diversity must be as appropriate for under five year-olds as it is for all other children. There is a tapestry of provision, much of it very good, some of it different. The needs of these children differ, and I therefore go back to my first amendment. We want a system that is flexible enough to provide for the different needs of different children, making the best of, and exploiting, what the private sector and the public sector have to offer in partnership.
Baroness Blackstone: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for reminding us once again of the primary importance of the needs of the child. Indeed, I think everyone who has spoken in this debate has made that point. It is one that the Government entirely accept and agree with. It is so important with children of this age group.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made some important points about involving non-maintained providers in planning nursery education, as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Maddock. This is an area where we are all genuinely in agreement.
The Bill makes clear that the duty on an LEA is to "secure- places. That does not mean that the LEA provides all the places itself, nor should it. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, we expect LEAs to have regard to the available non-maintained places in the area, and we have been working hard to persuade them of the importance of this.
Different children and different parents have different needs, and we want to ensure that those needs can all be met. Some children will be fine in a nursery or
1128
reception class; others will need something slightly different, maybe something a little more homely. Parents should be able to choose the type of provision that they think is most suitable for their child at his or her particular stage of development.
Several speakers, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned parents—the noble Lord always does so when we debate these matters. To help parents become more involved in making these choices, we want them to have access to a range of information about the types of provision available. LEAs and early years development partnerships must produce this information without bias to any sector. We also want to involve parents in planning local provision. Our guidance requires a parental representative to be included on the early years development partnership and requires the partnership to consult parents with young children on the content of the plan.
The noble Lord specifically mentioned children in need. Although the main focus of plans is to set out how a free, good quality place will be provided for all four year-olds, we have also asked partnerships to consider provision for three year-olds. They have been asked to set out in their plans what provision is available for three year-olds at present and their policies for increasing and improving this provision in future. The announcement of the national childcare strategy and the incorporation of elements of this into early years development plans will further help with the planning of integrated and appropriate provision for children of all ages, including children in need.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the issue of partnerships. In drawing up early years development plans, partnerships are asked to take into account children's services plans and reviews carried out under the Children Act and also to consider how best they could identify and address the particular requirements of children in need.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Byford and Lady Maddock, mentioned the issue of a more level playing field between different kinds of provision, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that it was a bit of a mess at the moment. I entirely sympathise with the concerns of both noble Baronesses. There is a problem in relation to the staffing ratios and other regulatory differences between the different types of early years providers.
Members of the Committee will be aware that the Government share the view that the current arrangements do not make much sense, and we must do something about them. We are looking at these issues closely through our consultation on the regulation of early education and daycare. But it is a complex issue and it would be unwise to rush into it. We must not forget that in 18 years the previous government did nothing to address inequalities in the different regimes. We want to be sure that the changes we make are right, and right at the first time of asking. We do not want a second consultation on the same issues a few years down the line because we make hasty decisions now. We have therefore deliberately allowed a lengthy

1129
consultation period—over four months—to allow all those who want to respond to make detailed and well-considered contributions. We will then look in detail at what the changes will require in terms of cost and legislation, and any other practical difficulties that may arise.
I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on the importance of including private and voluntary sector providers on early years development partnerships. Again, that is something raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
I am sure that all those who have taken part in this debate will be pleased to hear that this amendment on representation and partnerships is unnecessary. The current guidance on early years development partnerships and plans makes it clear that non-maintained providers should be represented on early years development partnerships, along with all the other interested parties. Officials paid close attention to partnership membership when scrutinising this year's plans, and the guidance will be given statutory force by this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, asked how soon we would be able to include three year-olds. I cannot give her the answer today. Again, this is one of those issues on which we await the results of the comprehensive spending review. The noble Baroness also asked whether I would be able to give any indication before the next stage as to how we would respond to some of these issues, including this issue of the level playing field. Because we have a long consultation on these complex matters—it does not close until 31st July—it would be premature to try to answer these questions before that time.
Both the noble Baronesses, Lady Blatch and Lady Byford, asked about playgroups. We do not want to squeeze out playgroups; that is the last thing we want to do. Indeed, we provided £500,000 to help support good quality playgroups, some of which have been partly threatened by what happened under the voucher scheme.
Baroness Blatch: On that point, can the Minister say whether a place in a playgroup is an acceptable way of meeting the pledge for a nursery place for all four year-olds?
Baroness Blackstone: The answer to that question must be no. We have given a pledge that all four year-olds can have a nursery place in a variety of different kinds of provision. Perhaps I should correct myself. I believe I am right in saying that, if it is a playgroup that has been accepted as of high quality, it will be acceptable. If it is part of an early years development plan that is put forward by a local education authority where playgroups are going to be included, the answer is that it will be possible.
The noble Baroness suggested that playgroups are not mentioned in the guidance. That is not quite correct. There is a reference to them on page 13. They are listed as an example of an acceptable form of provision.
1130
I have tried to cover all the questions that have been raised. I think that I have. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will accept that we are already taking action on the points that he raised and that, in the light of that, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Byford: Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may come back on a couple of points. I am grateful to her for her response and I do not intend to get into a political debate. She implied that the previous government had done nothing over the past 18 years. However, the new intake of the reception classes is a very recent development and has implications for the other varieties of provision. This did not happen 18 years ago; it evolved only recently. The ratio equation is of immense importance because it affects those who provide private nursery places. They are in competition with maintained primary schools.
While I am not making a political point. 1 wish to stress that this problem is accentuated now because more parents realise that there is a place for children in reception classes at primary schools which was not there before. This is having a direct effect, and a very immediate direct effect, on the other providers. That is why I wished to come back before the Minister sat down.
Baroness Blackstone: I did not imply that nothing was done over the past 18 years; I said that nothing was done. That, in fact, is the case. I also do not entirely accept that, because of the Government's decision to make a pledge that all four-year olds should have a place in adequate nursery provision, somehow or other these differences have become magnified. They have always been there. They have been there for many years. They were there when I first started to study this subject nearly 30 years ago.
I have already said that we will be looking at this issue. We are going to take it on board. We are consulting about it and we shall come up with a solution.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for all she has been able to say. When I spoke previously I omitted to thank her for arranging for a preview of the draft Ofsted report on the quality of education to be sent to me, which, unfortunately, I received only this morning and which caused me slightly to change what I was planning to say this evening in respect of these amendments. It is encouraging that the report will be published on 12th June and that this will perhaps inform the next stages of the Bill, or will be useful in discussion of the next stages of the Bill.
I should like to thank the noble Baroness for giving the assurance that representatives of the non-maintained providers will be included in the consultations about local provision. The consultation will not be completed until 31st July, so we shall not know the answers until the autumn. That makes it much more difficult to frame amendments in this context. However, I have done my best. I shall look at what the noble Baroness has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 241BA:
Page 84, line 17, after ("education;") insert—
("() shall have due regard to the importance of diversity of provision and philosophy of education and, in particular, to the right of the parents or guardians of children who have not attained compulsory school age to make private arrangements with non-maintained providers of nursery education for the education of their children in such manner as may seem satisfactory to them, whether or not such providers conform in every respect to any guidance on nursery education which may be given by the Secretary of State or by local education authorities;").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 241DA, 241DB and 241EJ. I agree most strongly with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has just made. This part of the Bill ought to have been in the next Education Bill. It is bizarre to try to discuss amendments and to get all evening from the noble Baroness only the answer, understandably, that everything is in the melting pot and that the Government are consulting. By the time the consultation is over the opportunity to do something about it in terms of what does or does not appear on the face of the Bill will have passed by. That is very unfortunate indeed.
My first amendment is an important one. It goes directly to the core of two issues which are at the forefront of the worries among nursery providers about current government policies. First, there is the importance of diversity and conformist regulation and bureaucracy. There is a plethora of that. Secondly, there is the importance of parental choice.
The worry is that the state will squeeze the private sector and voluntary sector by stealth out of pre-school education. Although there is a great deal of exhortation, the truth is that the LEAs will want the money and be close to the provision. The Committee may or may not appreciate the immense burden of regulation, inspection and form-filling that nursery schools now face. On top of that there is the new bureaucracy and the arm twisting with LEA development plans. I believe that most of this bureaucracy is unnecessary. It is something of an imposition on experienced and dedicated nursery teachers. Many of them have said to me that it is removing much of the pleasure that they once took in teaching.
There are self-appraisal documents; forms with box after box to be filled in; un-numbered pages of regulations and the vexatious and frequently duplicated inspections. All that is very hard to bear for these schools. There is more than a suspicion among private and voluntary educators that it is about crushing diversity. I know that is not the Government's intention, but they will need to keep an eagle eye on what is going on to see that those kinds of things do not happen.
There is another fear that the Government are using their regulatory powers and taking more powers in this Bill in order to do what Parliament has never willed—and, I believe, never would will—the creeping nationalisation of nursery education.
The amendment does two important things. It safeguards freedoms which I hope this House and Parliament should hold high. It also enjoins the state
1132
sector, which has the whip hand now that the Government have abolished the parental choice of the voucher, to preserve maximum diversity. It enshrines the principle, with which surely everyone must agree, that the regulations and guidelines of the Government and local authorities do not interfere with private contracts between parents and private and voluntary providers.
I believe that the principle should be on the face of the Bill so that those in local authorities and inspectors' offices throughout the land are in no doubt that the Government and the courts will not allow private arrangements to be overriden by such rules. Are the Ministers and her colleagues prepared to give clear directions to those involved in inspecting and registering private and voluntary bodies that they may not use those responsibilities to enforce change which parents have not sought and do not need?
The first amendment is mainly about diversity. Amendment No. 241DA covers a very important point. There are some local authorities who are now asking almost gratuitously private nurseries to open up their accounts. If they have good reason for checking whether the money that has been given by a local authority has been properly used, there are proper procedures for that. But the worry is that they may require, or seek to require, the production of copies of extracts from unpublished accounts or from confidential tax documents prepared by, or on behalf of, a non-maintained provider. That is a worry. There should be some very real parameters within which the local authorities have to work.
Amendment No. 241DB says that where one has, for example, Montessori schools, Steiner schools and the like, providing good quality education which does not always conform absolutely to the edicts that come from local education authorities, if they are to be part of the tapestry of the provision for under-fives they will not have a style of education imposed on them.
Finally, there is the effect of paperwork. That is now reaching almost impossible levels for these schools. My Amendment No. 241 EJ asks that the effects of national education policy and the regulations or guidance on the non-maintained private or voluntary providers, the burden and volume of paperwork and the costs to them in time and money of compliance are taken properly into account. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I hope that I have already made it clear how greatly we value diversity of provision, and the contribution that providers outside the maintained sector can make to good quality nursery education. I absolutely refute what the noble Baroness has just said about the likelihood of the Government crushing diversity in this area. I also refute the suggestion that the Government are involved in an arm-twisting exercise here. That is entirely untrue.
While we acknowledge the need for provision to differ in the same way as children's needs differ, there is a clear distinction between diversity and quality. Diversity does not mean that anything goes. Good

1133
quality provision can be found in all sectors, but so can bad provision, I am afraid. Nothing is more important than the support we provide to young children. If something goes wrong at this age, children can be damaged fundamentally and for the rest of their lives.
We do not want to stifle individuality or blur the distinctions between different types of provision, but we do want to be sure that parents taking up an early education place for their child which is funded by public money (although it may be private provision), can be assured of a certain minimum standard of quality. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree on the importance of that.
We want to be sure that all those involved in early years are consistently working together to raise that minimum standard while ensuring that it remains inclusive rather than exclusive. All providers receiving government funding under the early years development plans must agree to work towards the desirable learning outcomes and to be inspected by inspectors recruited, trained and registered by Ofsted. From September 1999, all providers will have to have the involvement of a qualified teacher.
I do not think that any of those requirements are unduly prescriptive. They are what any child in that age group deserves. The desirable learning outcomes do not define what a child should be doing each day. They are a set of goals for children to reach at the end of his or her pre-compulsory education. It is not "undue paperwork" to make sure that those goals are clearly set out and available to the providers. Individual providers can, of course, design their own programmes as long as they promote the agreed outcomes.
We have said that all settings have to have the involvement of a qualified teacher but we have left it up to individual partnerships and settings to decide exactly how that system should work. We are thus allowing initiative, flexibility and imagination. It is true that we are prepared to allow partnerships to set quality requirements over and above those set by the department and to make delegated conditions of grant in areas such as provision of information to parents. That goes back to what we were saying on the previous group of amendments. It is part of our strategy for raising standards across the board in a way which meets the needs and starting point of each local area. But LEAs will not be able to impose additional requirements willy-nilly. Any additional requirements must be a decision for the partnership and the partnership must consult on them as part of the early years development plan.
I turn now to the issue of the opening up of accounts, to which the noble Baroness referred. If there are cases where there are improper requests for accounts to be opened up, I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could write to me about them. It is not something of which the department has been aware. We have not heard of any such examples, but it would be helpful to know of any. In general, let me begin by making it clear that no money flows between the provider and the parent in respect of a free place. Nursery education grant is claimed by the provider from the LEA, which in turn
1134
claims it from the department. This is public money. We expect LEAs to take whatever steps are necessary to satisfy themselves and their district auditors that the grant is being spent on the purpose for which it is paid—that is, on nursery education. I am sure that the noble Baroness accepts that that is a proper way of regulating the use of public money.
We also expect LEAs to ensure that parents and children rather than providers benefit from nursery education grant. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that an audit process does not need to be some kind of Spanish inquisition. Although we expect LEAs to be rigorous in this area we also expect them to act reasonably. We do not want to place any artificial restraints on what LEAs can and cannot do.
In the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness has given a rather long and complicated answer, for which I am grateful. I shall reflect upon it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 241BB:
After Clause 111, insert the following new clause—
MAINTAINED AND VOLUNTARY AIDED SCHOOLS: ADMISSIONS POLICY
(" . A local education authority shall—

(a) ensure that no maintained school or voluntary aided school within its area requires children to enter school under compulsory school age as a condition, or implied condition, of admission to the said school at the age of five; and

(b) ensure that, with respect to the admissions policy of any maintained school or voluntary aided school in its area, entry into the said school's reception class or classes in the term following a child's fourth birthday shall not confer any preference or advantage over other children in the same or neighbouring local authority area who may seek entry into that school at the age of five.").

The noble Baroness said: This particular amendment is designed to deal with a very real concern on the part of providers; namely, a school may make it a condition of admission that unless parents send their child to the nursery school that child will not get a place in the junior or upper part of the school. Parents who want to do what is best for their child and exercise their preference, in most cases to leave their children in the settled, secure environment of a specialist nursery class, are being told that if they do not send their children to a reception class in their preferred primary school they may not get a place at five; or, alternatively, that if they move their four year-old they will be guaranteed a place in the primary school.
Such undertakings are rarely, if ever, committed to paper. Sadly, it is all done by a nudge or wink, but to secure the resources or the child many local authority-maintained schools up and down the land are doing this. In a way, it is grossly anti-competitive and educationally damaging for many children. Their education is interrupted at this crucial development stage and they are sometimes put into a less satisfactory

1135
environment. If the choice is a good quality nursery class with a good pupil:teacher ratio and the alternative is a crowded reception class, the parent finds it difficult to exercise a preference.
I am aware that the Minister has professed concern about this in the past and I understand that the matter is being looked into. However, currently parents have no clear power in law to resist this insidious form of blackmail. The amendment would declare with utter clarity that such practices were wrong. It might also give parents grounds to pursue in the courts schools or councils that behaved in this way. I am open to advice from the department on better wording to achieve this aim. I am sure that my attempts are rather clumsy. I hope that the noble Baroness will have some sympathy for this amendment to deal with concerns that have arisen. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: I have some sympathy with the concern that lies behind this amendment. The guidance and evaluation criteria for this year's early years development plans made it clear that information provided to parents must be without bias to any one sector and should also make it clear that children are not legally required to attend primary school until they are of compulsory school age. This message will be strengthened in next year's guidance.
I turn to paragraph (a) of the amendment. No admission authority for a maintained school can require parents to send their child to a school before the child has become of compulsory school age. Even where a school does admit before compulsory school age parents may apply for a place starting from when their child reaches compulsory school age. But where a school is popular and oversubscribed a place may no longer be available. Where schools are very popular and competition for places is high I am sure that no one will deny—least of all the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—that a very popular school that operates an early admission policy should inform interested parents of the popularity of the school. Parents should know that places might not be available at the school of their choice if they choose not to apply for a place until their child is of compulsory school age. Not to do this would deny parents the opportunity to make informed decisions. But there is a key difference between informing parents and "blackmailing" or "threatening" them. The latter are clearly unacceptable.
However, some authorities have adopted a practice of agreeing parental requests to defer entry to a primary reception class until a child reaches compulsory school age. My department will be drawing the attention of school admission authorities to this in the interim guidance on arrangements for school admissions which will be issued for consultation shortly. Where this practice is adopted, parents apply for a place at the normal time of admission but in effect the place would be held for the child until he or she is older, up to compulsory school age.
But we have no plans to require admission authorities to allow deferred entry. It is right that the decision to adopt this policy should be made at local level where
1136
an assessment can be made of any financial implications for schools and LEAs as well as the extent of disruption both for children and schools. For example, the financial implications of deferred entry could threaten the viability of small rural primary schools.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment would have the effect of severing the link between early admission to reception class and admission to the primary school proper. I sympathise with the reasons behind this part of the amendment, but its introduction would not be practical. I think that the noble Baroness was aware that this might be the case. Let me illustrate this with an example. We already have separate admission arrangements for securing a place in a primary school's nursery class and for securing a place in the same school's reception class. To then suggest that there should be another admission process to secure a primary school place at five would for some parents mean making three separate applications for a place at the same school within a period of two years. That is not a sensible position for parents.
I sympathise with what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve but I believe that severing the link between early admission to primary schools' reception classes and admission to the school proper is not the answer. The right approach is to have guidance on good practice. That is much more likely to be effective and we shall consider providing guidance on good practice in the admissions code of practice.
I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I shall reflect on what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 112 [Early years development partnerships]:
[Amendment No. 241C not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 241CA:
Page 84, line 23, at end insert—
("() Every partnership shall establish a committee (the "partnership committee") which shall include broad representation of all parties concerned with early years education in the local authority's area.").
The noble Baroness said: This group of amendments dovetails in well with the earlier amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on the importance of partnership. They may seem technical but they have a serious practical purpose.
The early years development partnerships are intended to involve the broader spectrum of parties in the area concerned with nursery education. In most cases it seems that they do, but the nature of these bodies is unwieldy. In terms of running the partnerships and advancing local nursery plans there will need to be an executive body. The Bill envisages in effect that this will be the local authority. It will have power to make arrangements for meetings, establish committees, and so on. But the local authority is, through its maintained schools, a provider of nursery education. In a direct sense it is a competitor as well as a partner. We discussed on Amendment No. 241BB ways in which

1137
this competition emerges. An LEA cannot be a fully impartial representative of the nursery interest in its locality.
Amendment No. 241CA seeks to ensure that the local authority should establish, as the executive body for the partnership, a committee that contains a broad representation of all the interests, all the types of providers, and professionals. I believe that it is this committee, not the local authority alone, which should organise the activities of the partnership. After all, what is the meaning of partnership if it is not that?
Amendments Nos. 241CB and 241CD ensure that the local authority should act with the agreement of the partnership as it is constituted. That is an important safeguard. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I have some sympathy with what lies behind the amendment. It is absolutely right that early years development partnerships should include representatives of the non-maintained sector and indeed a wide range of early years interests, including the local authority. But we do not intend to allow LEAs to dominate partnerships and use them to their own ends. The guidance we issued last year makes that clear. The guidance goes further. It places responsibility on LEAs for convening a partnership which includes representatives from private, independent and voluntary providers, childminders and parents as well as LEA and GM schools, the social services department, the health authority, diocesan authorities, local business and SEN groups. That is quite a list, but it enables partnerships to ensure that the full range of issues relevant to young children are taken into account in drawing up plans.
It is only now that partnerships are beginning to consider how they operate under the guidance. I do not believe that the aim of ensuring that all voices are equally heard would be achieved by establishing a partnership committee which is somehow separate from the main partnership. Indeed. I cannot see what establishing such a committee would achieve. Furthermore, the need for some representatives to attend two sets of meetings might well reduce their ability and willingness to be actively involved in the business of partnerships.
I hope that that explains our reaction to the proposal and that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I shall reflect on what the noble Lord said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 241CB to 241CD not moved.]
Clause 112 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 241D not moved.]
Clause 113 [Early years development plans]:
[Amendments Nos. 241DA to 241E not moved.]
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 [Approval, modification and review of statement of proposals]:
Baroness Blatch move Amendment No. 241EA:
Page 85, line 29, at end insert—
("() In considering such statements the Secretary of State must at all times have particular regard to—

(a) such representations as may be made to him by non-maintained providers or by local bodies representative of non-maintained providers in the local authority area; and

(b) such comments as may from time to time be made by the Chief Inspector of Schools on the quality and appropriateness of the nursery education provided by maintained and voluntary aided schools in the local authority area, and on the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the local education authority concerned.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 241EA, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 241EB to 241EF and 241EG, which is the final amendment standing in my name tonight.
Amendments Nos. 241EA to 241EF are designed to ensure that when considering statements from a local authority on its early years development plan the Secretary of State has a specific duty to take into account representations made by and on behalf of private and voluntary providers. That would greatly reassure them that there could be no stitch-up between the department and a local authority behind their back. It also ensures that local authorities and the department keep private providers fully informed about any changes in the plan that may be under discussion or required.
Furthermore, as is reasonable, the amendments require the Secretary of State to take into account comments from Ofsted about the general quality of the LEA and the appropriateness of its provision in deciding what weight is given to its plans.
I turn to Amendment No. 241EG. There are already great outcries about the ever increasing burden of bureaucracy. The Bill and all the apparatus that goes with it will further increase that burden. The Bill also creates an astonishingly cumbersome bureaucratic procedure for creating and monitoring the plans. I believe that we have established a right and proper principle in legislation that the compliance costs to business of any legislation should be calculated and published first. Surely, it is right that we should consider also the compliance costs on government, local government and the voluntary sector. The amendment asks the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on this and for the Chief Inspector of Schools to report on the burden as he finds it on private and voluntary providers. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: Again, to a large extent we share the desire of the noble Baroness to ensure that the drawing up of early years development plans and views from all early year interests in the area will be considered.
Obviously that consultation will raise concerns. That was certainly the case in terms of the plans that are already in place. Those concerns were considered before approval was given. That process will continue.

1139
It is obviously also important that all providers are aware of the developments that affect plans they are part of. However, I am not convinced that we need to place a duty on LEAs to provide this information on the face of the Bill. I think the appropriate place for this is in the guidance, which will arise again for next year. This Bill will, of course, give the guidance statutory force.
As far as concerns Amendment No. 241EK, there are benefits in having a single inspection day—
Baroness Blatch: Amendment No. 241EG.
Lord Whitty: I am sorry, Amendment No. 241EG. We are talking about the same amendment. There are benefits in having a single day. However, we would not wish to legislate for that at this stage, but to consider the options in the light of consultation.
There is a further amendment relating to the impartiality of inspectors, which the noble Baroness has moved. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 26 already, in our view, ensures that inspectors cannot inspect where their connections or loyalties are suspect, so I think that is unnecessary.
With regard to the final amendment, Amendment No. 241EG, which was originally grouped separately, I think we are slightly at cross-purposes. The amendment I referred to is in an earlier group. I shall not be partisan at this stage of the evening and make more than the slightest reference to the cost of voucher schemes. Nevertheless, we consider that the conditions for participating in this Bill are considerably less than that scheme. We do not consider it is desirable to require an indication on the face of the Bill of the cost of administering this new system.
We shall of course, listen to views on this and review the guidance and requirement, and grant if necessary. But it should not be an amendment on the face of the Bill.
I hope that in the light of that rather hurried reply at this stage of the night, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My apologies to the noble Lord for intervening on Amendment No. 241EK. He was, in fact, right. He was speaking to Amendment No. 241EK. Amendment No. 241EG was the one which came later.
We have had a lot of warm words and a lot of sympathy. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, I find it frustrating that we will not know the results of our labours until many months have passed. We shall watch vigilantly but it may just be that on reflection, when we have read what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have had to say, some of these amendments may come back at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 241EB to 241EF not moved.]
Clause 114 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 241EG not moved.]
Clause 115 agreed to.
Schedule 26 [Inspection of nursery education.]:
[Amendments Nos. 241EH to 241EL not moved.]
Schedule 26 agreed to.
Clause 116 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 241M:
After Clause 116, insert the following new clause—

TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS FOR CHILDREN RECEIVING NURSERY EDUCATION OTHERWISE THAN AT SCHOOL
(". After section 509 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—
"Travel arrangements for children receiving nursery education otherwise than at school.
509A.—(1) A local education authority may provide a child with assistance under this section if they are satisfied that, without such assistance, he would be prevented from attending at any premises—

(a) which are not a school or part of a school, but

(b) at which relevant nursery education is provided,

for the purpose of receiving such education there.
(2) The assistance which may be provided for a child under this section consists of either—

(a) making arrangements (whether for the provision of transport or otherwise) for the purpose of facilitating the child's attendance at the premises concerned, or

(b) paying the whole or any part of his reasonable travel expenses.

(3) When considering whether to provide a child with assistance under this section in connection with his attendance at any premises, a local education authority may have regard (among other things) to whether it would be reasonable to expect alternative arrangements to be made for him to receive relevant nursery education at any other premises (whether nearer to his home or otherwise).
(4) Where the assistance to be provided for a child under this section consists of making arrangements for the provision of transport, the authority may, if they consider it appropriate to do so, determine that the assistance shall not be so provided unless—

(a) the child's parent, or

(b) the person providing the relevant nursery education concerned,

agrees to make to the authority such payments in respect of the provision of the transport (not exceeding the cost to the authority of its provision) as they may determine.
(5) In this section "relevant nursery education" means nursery education which is provided—

(a) by a local education authority, or

by any other person—

(i) who is in receipt of financial assistance given by such an authority and whose provision of nursery education is taken into account by the authority in formulating proposals for the purposes of section 113(2)(a) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, or

(ii) who is in receipt of grants under section 1 of the Nursery Education and Grant-Maintained Schools Act 1996." ").

The noble Lord said: The provision of the new clause under this amendment would give a discretionary power to local education authorities to provide transport or help with transport expenses for children travelling to and from settings which provide only part-time education for children under 5. At present, local education authorities have no power whatever to provide such transport.
It is an enabling power. In practice its application and, indeed, whether it is needed will vary from area to area. Nevertheless, we regard it as an important provision which fills a gap in the law. It provides also for LEAs to be able to ask providers and parents to contribute to the costs of transport, which provides additional flexibility which ensures that those who will benefit can work together to reach a solution that will meet everyone's needs.
The subsequent amendment amends Section 509 of the 1996 Act, which requires LEAs to publish details of their nursery transport policy in the same way as they do for other aspects of their transport policy. I hope that
1142
the Committee will find these helpful additions to the law which will support greater provision in the nursery sector. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I do not rise to oppose the amendment but giving the local authorities the power to exercise is one thing but giving them the money to exercise it will be another.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 117 agreed to.
Schedule 27 agreed to.
Clause 118 agreed to.
Lord Whitty: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Poverty Elimination Targets
  Poverty Elimination Targets
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Regional Airports: International Access Policy
  Regional Airports: International Access Policy
  Air Quality Standards: Expert Panel
  Air Quality Standards: Expert Panel
  Northern Ireland: Organic Production
  Northern Ireland: Organic Production
  Northern Ireland: Audio-recording of Police Interviews
  Northern Ireland: Audio-recording of Police Interviews
  Firearms Licensing: Medical Information
  Firearms Licensing: Medical Information
  Service Personnel: Hearing Tests
  Service Personnel: Hearing Tests
  Gulf War Service Personnel: Hearing Tests
  Gulf War Service Personnel: Hearing Tests
  Service Personnel: Noise and Hearing Research
  Service Personnel: Noise and Hearing Research
  Agriculture Council, 25–26 May
  Agriculture Council, 25–26 May
  Incontinence Services, Scotland
  Incontinence Services, Scotland
  Continence: Policy
  Continence: Policy
  NHS Trusts: Depreciation Requirements
  NHS Trusts: Depreciation Requirements
  Water Fluoridation
  Water Fluoridation
  Medicines Control Agency: Key Targets
  Medicines Control Agency: Key Targets
  Turkey: Licences for Supply of Arms and Military Equipment
  Turkey: Licences for Supply of Arms and Military Equipment