Sitting of 16 June 1998

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    EU Troika Visits (Great Lakes and East Timor)
    Ann Clwyd: If he will make a statement on the EU troika visits to the great lakes and to East Timor. [44513]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is attending the Cardiff European Council.
    The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), led a three-day EU troika visit to Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 2 to 4 June. The troika had productive meetings with the Presidents of each of the four countries. It reiterated the EU's commitment to promoting stability; security; democracy; respect for the rule of law and human rights; and economic development for the benefit of the great lakes region.
    The EU heads of mission troika visit to East Timor, scheduled for early June, has been postponed because of Indonesian security concerns. We hope to reinstate the visit as soon as possible.
    Ann Clwyd: On East Timor, does my hon. Friend agree that there is now a real opportunity to solve the long-standing problem of that very unfortunate country? Does he agree that President Habibie's suggestion of special status for East Timor within Indonesia falls far short of the right of the people of East Timor to a referendum, to allow them to determine their future and choose self-determination if they wish, as is their right under international law and United Nations resolutions?
    Mr. Fatchett: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's first comments. We now have a window of opportunity to
    116
    make progress in resolving the long-standing issue of the status of East Timor. During my recent visit to Indonesia, I took the opportunity to make that point to Foreign Minister Alatas. I was pleased to note signs of movement in Indonesia—specifically, the release of political prisoners.
    My hon. Friend will also be pleased to know that I had the opportunity to meet Xanana Gusmao, who talked to me about his views on the development of East Timor. He was in good health, and I asked the Indonesian Government for his early release, with that of other political prisoners.

    China
    Mr. Norman Baker: What assessment he has made of the effect of his policy of dialogue with China on its human rights record. [44514]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We believe that our policy of dialogue, which we have pursued both bilaterally and within the European Union, supported by practical assistance, is beginning to produce results. China has taken several positive steps which we hope will bring about increasingly close co-operation with United Nations human rights mechanisms and will lead to practical improvements in areas such as the administration of justice.
    Mr. Baker: Is it not the case that promises by the present Chinese Government are not worth the paper on which they are written? Will the Minister accept that the present Chinese Government are characterised by a total disregard for human rights, as demonstrated by the imprisonment of political prisoners in so-called re-education camps, by the torture of monks and nuns in Tibet and by the eradication of most things Tibetan? Is it not the case that, by failing to pursue a UN resolution, the Government have virtually given the green light to the continuation of human rights abuses and told the Chinese that economic interests are more important than human rights? Although the Government may mean well, is that not in fact an ethical foreign policy in reverse?
    Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman draws totally incorrect conclusions in the last part of his question. The Government continue to press the human rights agenda with China. At every available opportunity, we talk about the need to improve human rights. As I said in response to the hon. Gentleman's main question, there are practical signs of improvements that we have achieved. However, it would be foolish of us to say that all is well. There is a great deal more to be done on human rights, and we shall continue to argue strongly for it.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. The visit by the Chinese delegation arranged by the Inter-Parliamentary Union did a great deal of good in strengthening relations between China and the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend made a substantial contribution to that visit. Does he agree that such visits are the way to resolve the human rights problems and other issues in China? Long may the relationship between the UK and China continue.
    Mr. Fatchett: It is important that we maintain and broaden the dialogue at all levels and take every

    117
    opportunity to stress our concerns about human rights in China. I know that my hon. Friend, as part of the all-party China group, has taken every opportunity to speak about those concerns and to press the human rights agenda.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is not China's human rights record still abysmal—in particular, as it relates to the one child per family policy, which enforces abortion up to full term and continues to discriminate against baby girls? When will the Government take much more positive action in their dialogue with the Chinese Government, who understand only force and pressure? Sadly, so far, we have seen no improvement in the human rights record.
    Mr. Fatchett: I reiterate that we take every opportunity to raise those issues. I shall list for the hon. Lady what we have achieved over the past few months. We have persuaded China to sign up to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. We have persuaded China that human rights in Hong Kong will be reported on separately. We have persuaded China to accept a visit from the United Nations High Commissioner, Mary Robinson. All those are successful steps forward. I am the first to admit, together with the hon. Lady, that there is a long way to go, but we believe that dialogue is the best way to make progress.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: If he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [44515]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): We remain deeply concerned about the extreme violence and indiscriminate attacks on civilians in Kosovo. I visited Belgrade and Pristina last week and urged both the Serbian Government and the Kosovar Albanians to find a peaceful way forward. The contact group of Foreign Ministers met in London on Friday and agreed that, if Belgrade did not take steps without delay, there would be moves to further measures to halt the violence, including those that may require the authorisation of the United Nations Security Council. We welcome the meeting in Moscow today between Presidents Yeltsin and Milosevic. President Milosevic must realise that there will be no let-up in international pressure until he takes steps to end the violence and resolve the problems of Kosovo peacefully at the negotiating table.
    Mr. Cunliffe: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's statement and the initiative taken by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to bring world leaders together on this great humanitarian issue. Some people believe, however, that NATO shadow boxing will not bring that tyrant to his knees. Some of us think that a man who, for a decade and a half, has practised the detestable system of ethnic cleansing will not be easily frightened by such manoeuvres. Is it not time that we stopped pussy-footing around and issued an ultimatum to that gangster saying that unless he stops the repression in Kosovo, we will commence military action?
    Mr. Lloyd: The contact group has already gone a long way beyond simple condemnation of the actions of the
    118
    Government in Yugoslavia. The contact group and the European Union have already begun the imposition of an investment ban and an assets freeze. A ban on air flights from Yugoslavia is under consideration. NATO is considering what steps it can take. Yesterday, for example, Operation Determined Falcon took place in airspace not over Yugoslavia but over the neighbouring countries. That was a real measure of NATO's determination. I assure the House that contingency planning by NATO continues. President Milosevic cannot claim—and nor should the world believe—that he has not been properly warned.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Whatever the great provocation, will Ministers think very long and carefully before committing the British Government to supporting direct military attacks on Serbia unless that policy has the support of the Russian Government and the United Nations Security Council? We should bear it in mind that the Kaiser is a poor role model in such matters and that many countries in other parts of the world might be attracted to the idea of taking what they regarded as just military action if United Nations support was not always considered essential.
    Mr. Lloyd: There is no doubt that the resolution of this situation is now in the hands of President Milosevic: he should end the violence now. He should withdraw the security forces from Kosovo and allow in the international monitors and humanitarian agencies. If President Milosevic takes that agenda on board, we will begin to make progress. That is the right way forward. However, I think the House understands that options have not been ruled out at this stage.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What exactly would be achieved by air strikes?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend enters the realm of speculation. Actions have not been ruled out: at this moment, NATO is examining all credible options. However, the resolution of the present crisis clearly lies in the hands of President Milosevic. If he does the things that I have outlined—if he makes it clear that he intends to enter into meaningful and time-limited dialogue with the Kosovar Albanians—we will be able to resolve the crisis instantly. Beyond that, I shall not stand before the House and say that we are prepared to rule out credible options at this stage.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister agree that the diplomatic steps taken today will work only if President Milosevic discontinues his brutality towards civilians in Kosovo and accepts that the status quo is no longer an option and that the autonomy of the province is inevitable? If those diplomatic steps are effective, will it not be another illustration of the principle enunciated earlier this year by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, that diplomacy is at its most effective when it is supported by a credible military threat?
    Mr. Lloyd: We have received some reports of today's meeting between Presidents Yeltsin and Milosevic. For example, it is reported that President Milosevic has agreed to negotiate with the Kosovar Albanians, but at present it

    119
    is impossible to say whether that amounts to anything new. In that context, we await confirmation from President Milosevic. The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right: if we were to say at this stage that we will not contemplate certain credible options, we would be playing into the hands of President Milosevic, and—I must also say—the extreme voices among the Kosovar Albanians.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the Minister assure the House that any action taken will be consistent with the United Nations charter and will be designed not to inflame existing tensions in that very difficult region? Will he assure the House that further assistance will be given to the Government of Macedonia and that steps will be taken to assist the refugees who are at present in Albania—as well as other measures that may be necessary in order to try to resolve the conflict?
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend has asked several important questions. Britain has certainly been active in seeking to bring a resolution before the United Nations Security Council. However, the actions taken by the international community will depend very much on the circumstances on the ground at the time. They will determine what actions are acceptable and permissible. The position of Macedonia, with its large number of permanently resident Albanians, requires considerable attention. We need to ensure that Macedonia has the monitoring that it needs, which will include a continuation of the military presence in that monitoring operation.
    My hon. Friend asks about the position of displaced persons already within Kosovo and elsewhere in Yugoslavia. The best answer to that would be if the humanitarian agencies such as the Red Cross were allowed in and enabled to do the work that they do better than anybody else.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Can the Minister tell us anything about the progress of the European Union monitoring mission? The hon. Gentleman will know that I asked the Government to take a lead in pressing for monitors to be allowed into Kosovo as long ago as 10 March. Has any progress been made?
    Will the Minister now answer the question that he has twice failed to answer: do the Government accept the view that no military action can take place without the authority of a resolution of the United Nations Security Council?
    Mr. Lloyd: I pressed exactly that point with the Yugoslavian Government last week. At present, they have not given the freedom for monitors to travel that we expect of them. At a European level, we are prepared to deploy 18 more monitors immediately, with more to follow in due course. The spirit of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question is absolutely right. We need monitors on the ground so that we can be assured that violence against the civilian population has at last come to a halt. That is a necessary precondition for all else to follow.
    In terms of action at the United Nations, Britain is extremely active in seeking a suitable resolution. However, the exact course of action that will be taken by
    120
    the international community in the end will depend on the circumstances that confront it at the time when that action takes place.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: So that there be no misunderstanding, is it the position of the British Government that we believe that Serbia should retain sovereignty over Kosovo?
    Mr. Lloyd: So that there be no misunderstanding, let me say that the position of the international community has been consistent. We have called for meaningful negotiations between the Government in Belgrade and the Kosovar Albanians, under the leadership of Dr. Rugova, on the basis that there must be autonomy for the Kosovar Albanians within the context of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

    Central and Eastern Europe
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What help is being provided through his Department to central and eastern European countries to fund political education. [44516]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): We are committed to supporting the democratic development of the countries of central and eastern Europe. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office provides grant in aid to organisations such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe and the Britain-Russia centre.
    The Government also fund democracy-building and civic education programmes directly through a wide range of departmental programmes, including the former know-how fund political projects fund, the Europe command project budget, the human rights project fund and the east-west contacts fund.
    Mrs. Lait: I thank the Minister for that information. Are funds available to help groups that wish to improve political campaigning in central and eastern European countries? Will groups such as the European Union of Women, which next week is bringing over a group of Russian women politicians, be able to receive Foreign Office funds to help them in their efforts to improve campaigning, canvassing and fundraising among the political parties in central and eastern European countries?
    Mr. Henderson: Where there are meaningful projects that could be taken up, funding could be available to all political parties that wish to link up. Through the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, £411,000 was spent on central and eastern European development last year. A sum at least equivalent to that is available again this year.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: In welcoming any assistance that we can give to countries overseas in developing their democracies, does my hon. Friend agree with me that we should be a little cautious in this country—certainly the Tories should be very modest in any advice that they give to countries overseas about democracy—so long as we have a system where the second Chamber has more than 700 Members who have inherited the right to legislate?
    Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I think, as he does, that one must be

    121
    extremely cautious in offering advice to colleagues in other countries. The worst thing that any of us could do would be to adopt a post-imperialist approach whereby we tell other people what is good for them. We must lay out examples of what we think we do well; it is up to others to decide whether they think they can learn from them.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: I am rather saddened that the Minister has indulged in petty politics, which is far removed from the objectives of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, of which I am a past governor, and the educational organisation to which he referred. This country has a lot to be proud of in its democratic processes. I challenge Labour Back Benchers, if they are about to reform the House of Lords, to say which of this Chamber's powers they would be prepared to transfer to an elected upper Chamber.
    These are serious questions, but the principal point is that we have to transfer the deep roots of our democracy into those countries to create stability in Europe. Does the Minister understand the imperative to enlarge the European Union to embrace those countries with new democratic principles, and is he aware of the cost that achieving that will put on the wealthier members of the EU?
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has raised a wide agenda. I have always believed that it is important to build contacts with colleagues in those countries, not only so that they can learn the technical aspects of building a democracy and of guaranteeing human rights, but so that there can be political dialogue, understanding and the building of attitudes, which are important in issues such as enlargement of the EU. The Government strongly support that, and want proper funding to be in place to achieve it.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that the £3 million given to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is insufficient? I understand that the foundation intends to reduce its operation in central Europe because of demands elsewhere, which I fully appreciate, but there is an on-going need to train politicians and local activists in central Europe: Hungary has a new Government; there are extensive regional and local government elections; and new structures are being created in Poland, which is a key player. Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that it would be foolhardy in the extreme for us to reduce our commitment to, and support for, democratic institutions and parties in central Europe?
    Mr. Henderson: The grants that are made available to organisations such as the Westminster foundation are constantly under review. What is examined is how effective those organisations have been in disbursing moneys in a meaningful way, and we shall continue to monitor that. If a case can be made for an extension, we will, of course, consider it.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the Minister pay tribute to the establishment of the know-how fund by the previous Administration and acknowledge what an extraordinary success it has been? Will he accept bids for places for people from central and eastern Europe to
    122
    attend political courses at English universities, where they would have the chance not only to receive admirable teaching, but to savour the atmosphere of a true and extremely sophisticated democracy?
    Mr. Henderson: I very much support the hon. Gentleman's aim of an exchange of students between central and eastern European countries and Britain. There are not many things for which I would pay tribute to the previous Conservative Government—but setting up the know-how fund is one of them.

    EU Reform
    Mr. Tom Levitt: What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts about reform of the European Union. [44517]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): We have regular discussions with our European counterparts about a wide range of issues dealing with reform of the European Union.
    Mr. Levitt: I am sure that the leadership that the Government have shown to the EU during their presidency will have been noted throughout Europe and beyond, and many people in many countries will have welcomed the fact that the Labour party, rather than the Conservative party, was in a position to give such leadership. What stage has been reached on enlargement in the discussions that my hon. Friend has had, and will he comment on the preparations that the countries of central and eastern Europe—especially Poland, which we all want as a partner—are making for joining the EU?
    Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance that the Government have attached to the enlargement procedures in the European Union, which have been pushed hard for the past six months. That will be reflected in the conclusions of the Cardiff summit, which were made available only after 2.30 pm, so I was not furnished with them before I came to the House. I think that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House later in the week, when he will clarify those conclusions.
    I have been impressed by the preparations that have been made by all the countries that are negotiating to join the European Union. I recently visited Poland and I was excited by the fact that people saw EU membership as a great opportunity. They were prepared to make changes to their life style and to their democracy, to make changes to guarantee human rights, and to make the big changes required in their economy, including in their steel industry. I am confident that, through dialogue with the European Union in the coming years, Poland will accede successfully.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: In his discussions on the reform of the European Union, has the Prime Minister taken into account the massive opposition to economic and monetary union shown by British public opinion? In particular, is the Minister aware of the result of the Gallup poll published today, which shows that only 33 per cent. of the British people support the abolition of

    123
    the pound and our entry into economic and monetary union, whereas 65 per cent. oppose it and only 2 per cent. are now undecided?
    Mr. Henderson: The establishment of the single currency has been one of the main issues that the European Union has considered over the past six months.
    Dr. Lewis: And longer.
    Mr. Henderson: Yes, and longer. There is an understanding among the leaders of Europe—I am confident that it will be reflected in the conclusions of the Cardiff summit—that a strong structure to the single currency has been established and that it will serve well the 11 countries that will join it on 1 January and those countries that may exercise an option to join it at a later stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made the British Government's position clear. When we have been able to assess whether convergence has taken place—after the next general election—a judgment will be made on whether it is in Britain's economic interest to join the single currency. It is against that background that the Cardiff talks have taken place in the past two days. All the leaders have been keen to assess the views of the business community and ordinary people. Contrary to the result of the poll to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I sense a growing understanding of what the euro would mean for life styles.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Do Her Majesty's Government accept any money from the European Commission for the propagation of the view that the euro is an advantage rather than a disadvantage? If so, what opportunities will be taken to ensure that the British people understand the implications of the actions of any Government who hand over their taxation and finance powers without being clear about the political cost to their country?
    Mr. Henderson: The European Commission disburses the funds that it controls for that purpose among the partner nations of the European Union. One factor that it takes into account is the view of the Government of each country. Over the next three years, we shall discuss macro-economic policy, the establishment of the euro and whether it is in Britain's interest to join. The Government want to guarantee that all those who will eventually have a say—the public will have a say through a referendum—are fully informed about what it will mean for their life styles and their workplaces.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the reform of the European Union. Do such discussions include the protection of the rights of citizenship throughout the world of citizens of the European Union? Has any approach been made to the Government of Morocco on the false allegations and extraordinary penalties imposed on European citizens, including a British citizen, Dr. Graham Hutt?
    Mr. Henderson: I am not quite sure of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. In all its dealings, the European Union seeks to ensure that international standards are upheld. That applies to the matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Is the Minister aware that the reform of Community structural funds and initiatives is taking place at a time when parts of Wales, and other areas of the United Kingdom, will for the first time qualify for objective l status? Will he and his departmental colleagues ensure, as the reform proceeds, that none of those areas' applications will be disadvantaged?
    Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue and its importance to the people of Wales. Its importance was made clear to me not only in last week's debate in the House, but during my visit to Cardiff over the past two days.
    There are, in fact, two issues. First, we must ask whether in the redrawing of boundaries throughout the United Kingdom, which is essentially an administrative act, a fair system is being proposed. We must also ask, when the commission reaches a conclusion, whether a fair system has been agreed—whether the system compares Wales favourably in administrative terms and how boundaries have been drawn in other European Union countries. That is the first test. The Government will want to ensure through Eurostat, the organisation that will deal with the arrangements, that a fair system has applied. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have supported submissions from Wales for a redrawing of boundaries to allow the possibility of objective 1 status for part of the country.
    The second issue is the reform of the structural funds system. It will take place and I expect that, following the conclusions at Cardiff, a timetable will be drawn up allowing it to be agreed before the European Parliament is dissolved for the elections in March or April. Within that timetable, the Government aim to ensure that a fair system of structural funds is agreed so that once funds have been allocated to help the countries of central and eastern Europe—which will need additional funding during the accession process—the rest of the cake can be disbursed fairly, which includes taking into account the requirements of Wales.
    Mr. Michael Trend: I am sorry to learn that the Foreign Secretary is sharing Council resolutions with the world before sharing them with his own Ministers. Does that mean that there will definitely not be a full-time report on the flop of this presidency. as there was a ludicrous half-time report, that shows what a wasted exercise it has been?
    Can the Minister confirm the report in The Times yesterday that no Foreign Office Ministers participated a fortnight ago in discussions of a major review of European policy and the way forward at No. 10 Downing street? Is that not the final indignity for the Foreign Secretary and his team?
    Mr. Henderson: It would be a bit difficult for me to be in Cardiff with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the last hour or so of the summit's conclusions and in the House of Commons to answer questions. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions about how I could have achieved that, I am willing to entertain them.
    I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the future of the European Union is a major issue that affects all the states in Europe. The British Government treat it as a top

    125
    priority and there have been extensive discussions among a number of Departments about some of the issues that will arise in the next six months and beyond.

    Nuclear Tests (South Asia)
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Pakistan and Indian Governments in connection with their nuclear tests. [44518]
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the discussions he has had with the Indian and Pakistan Governments in relation to nuclear tests. [44522]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We have had a number of discussions with the Pakistan and Indian high commissions in London and with other representatives of their Governments. This morning, I had a meeting here in London with the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
    Mr. Pike: When the Foreign Secretary was with his colleagues in the G8 last week, were they able to agree on joint steps to persuade Pakistan and India that there should be no more tests, that moves should take place towards non-proliferation and that they should address the roots of the problems between the two nations, including the problem of Kashmir?
    Mr. Fatchett: The G8 Ministers meeting last week succeeded in reaching those agenda conclusions. In particular, we urged the Governments of India and Pakistan to sign the non-proliferation and test ban treaties. We also made a point that I made to the Pakistan Prime Minister this morning—that it is crucial for us to enter a dialogue with India and Pakistan so that they can deal with the fundamental issues that have divided them over the past 50 years. Resolving the Kashmir issue is an important part of that agenda.
    Mr. Robertson: As the testing has serious implications for the environment, for peace and indeed for trade, will the Minister clarify press statements that India is prepared to sign up to some parts of the test ban treaty? If no progress can be made, will he assure the House that he will take every. possible step to ask the United Nations Security Council to take whatever measures may be necessary?
    Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman mentions the position that has been taken by the Indian Government—that they would be willing to consider signing up to parts of the non-proliferation treaty. That is unacceptable to the permanent five and the G8. We have made that view clear to India. We cannot have an a la carte approach to the non-proliferation treaty. The same message has been delivered to Pakistan.
    The hon. Gentleman mentions UN involvement. The P5 has already been involved in those issues and, through senior officials we established at last week's G8 meeting, there will be continued monitoring of progress and developments. We will consider what further action has to be taken.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I support what my hon. Friend has said about condemning the tests
    126
    conducted by both India and Pakistan, but does he not think that the position of the big five nuclear powers in that condemnation would be stronger if they were seen to be actively disarming and disabling their nuclear weapons? If we want to live, as we all do, in a nuclear-free world, perhaps we should make a start in that direction.
    Mr. Fatchett: It is crucial that we continue the nuclear disarmament talks. The Government have taken a responsible and active role in that approach and will continue to do so. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the security of ordinary people in south Asia has in no way been helped by the nuclear explosions detonated by the Governments of India and Pakistan. In many ways, those people are more insecure and more impoverished as a result of the actions that have been taken by their Governments.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: Will the Minister confirm that these tests mean that the Indian state of Kashmir is surrounded by nuclear powers: India, Pakistan and the People's Republic of China? Will he acknowledge that the problem—that is what it is—of Kashmir arose under an earlier Labour Administration? Will he confirm that the Government will make every effort to ensure that Kashmir is on the UN Security Council's agenda so that the people of Kashmir can be granted the plebiscite on their future that they have been denied for the past 50 years?
    Mr. Fatchett: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a genuine interest in the issue of Kashmir and in the welfare of its people. We recognise that Kashmir is at the heart of the continuing difficulties between India and Pakistan. If we are to improve the relationship between the two countries, we have to address the problems that are created by the status of Kashmir.

    Great Lakes
    Mr. Kevin Barron: What steps his Department is taking to help bring stability to the great lakes region of Africa. [44519]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), gave a few minutes ago concerning the EU troika visit to the great lakes region. The troika urged regional leaders to pursue negotiated solutions to their problems and to avoid any recourse to the use of violence. Bilaterally, we are currently providing financial assistance to the Burundi peace talks, which are due to convene in Arusha from 15 June. We are also funding a number of initiatives in the justice sector in Rwanda and are the largest bilateral donor to United Nations human rights field operations in the region. In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the EU and the UK are supporting, both financially and politically, the democratic transition process.
    Mr. Barron: Will my hon. Friend expand on what steps the Government are taking to support the international tribunal for Rwanda? Does he agree that before reconciliation can take place in that country the

    127
    people who perpetrated the genocide in that part of Africa need to be brought to justice? That must happen before there can be reconciliation between the Tutsis and Hutus.
    Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right that the process of reconciliation depends absolutely on justice being not only seen to be done, but put into proper operation. That is why this Government, along with many others, are making significant contributions to the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda, which is sitting in Arusha.
    We have not only provided £400,000 as our assessed contribution to the tribunal, but seconded two British police officers to help with the investigation. We are also specifically sponsoring a programme of visits by magistrates, social workers and non-governmental organisations from Rwanda to the tribunal so that they can see that the justice process is taking place.
    We also welcomed the recent guilty plea by the former Rwandan Prime Minister, which has moved the process on. I can tell my hon. Friend that we shall continue to support the tribunal —which itself provides a good prelude to an international criminal court, the basis of which is now being discussed in Rome. Such a court will be another important step on the road to international justice.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister will know that the United Kingdom has unique experience of Africa and that we probably have greater knowledge and experience of it than any other country in the world. Bearing in mind that experience and our continuing involvement with the Governments of many countries that have recently gained independence, does the Minister think that the countries with which we have been involved will be able to have any influence in the countries of the great lakes region in establishing law and a meaningful form of democratic government that will be acceptable to the people of Africa as a whole?
    Mr. Lloyd: The answer, of course, is yes. Some of the states in the great lakes region are playing a very constructive role in the region. Specifically, the regional powers have brought to bear enormous pressure on the Government of Burundi to persuade them to enter a meaningful internal dialogue with the national assembly. That pressure has now resulted in a negotiated process in Arusha. I should pay tribute to former President Nyerere of Tanzania, whose individual contribution to the process has perhaps been more significant than that of anyone else. He is helping the talks reach a successful conclusion. The region, and the world, will owe him a debt.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: The stability of the great lakes region is inextricably linked to political developments throughout the area, and current events continue to highlight the region's fragility and vulnerability. In the light of natural concerns about the consequences of future political change, will the Minister tell us the Government's attitude towards the multi-democracy movement in Uganda?
    Mr. Lloyd: I should like first to welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. I am sure that this is not the last time that we shall exchange views across the Dispatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!") Well, I trust that she will be on the Opposition Front Bench again. She raised a very important point. There are many views on evolution of
    128
    the democratic process on the African continent. Some time ago, when I was in Uganda, I made it clear that we favour an electoral process being established whereby the Ugandan people are sovereign, those who wish to stand for election are able to do so and the people of Uganda are able to vote for the candidate of their choice. I am sure that all hon. Members will endorse those principles.

    Sierra Leone
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: When he expects to receive Sir Thomas Legg's report on arms sales to Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [44521]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd): Sir Thomas Legg has said that he will complete his investigation and report as soon as possible. He is currently interviewing witnesses and examining evidence.
    Mr. Skinner: Does the Minister agree that, in many ways, the matter is really a story about the British intelligence services—which believe that they are answerable to no one when they are meddling abroad—and high-flying civil servants straight off the cast of "Yes, Minister", at least one of whom says that he cannot read his own memory? Is it not also about a shadow Foreign Secretary who believes that he has discovered some great defining issue in the lifetime of a Labour Government whereas, in reality, he is like a dog in the gutter that keeps returning to its vomit?
    Mr. Lloyd: I was tempted to agree with my hon. Friend, at least on the shadow Foreign Secretary, but he invited me to go a little too far. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend has touched on the remarkable contrast between the shadow Foreign Secretary's view that he has chanced upon his Scott report and reality—
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Nothing like.
    Mr. Lloyd: Nothing like, as the hon. Gentleman says. Scott, of course, was a deliberate cover-up by Ministers. That Government deliberately chose to supply arms to Iraq, a regime that went to war with Britain in due course. It was a deliberate attempt to mislead Parliament. The contrast is remarkable. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not been able to demonstrate, because he cannot, that Ministers colluded, that Ministers sought to provide arms or that Ministers sought to break the United Nations embargo—or that Ministers even sought to mislead either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. That is the difference. I shall be interested to see whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman welcomes the fact that, when he comes shortly to read the conclusions of the Legg report, he will not be locked in a room for a few minutes to review that investigation, but will have the chance to read it properly and to come before the House to say that he is sorry.
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Minister give us an assurance that Sir Thomas Legg will examine the relationship between all officials in the Foreign Office and Customs and Excise while he is conducting his inquiry?
    Mr. Lloyd: Yes, of course. Sir Thomas Legg's remit is already public. Sir Thomas has already begun his

    129
    investigations. He has access to all officials, to all the papers that he chooses to review and, very important, to all Ministers. I and my colleagues are looking forward to the opportunity to give evidence to Sir Thomas.
    Mr. David Winnick: Did my hon. Friend notice the warm and enthusiastic welcome that the British high commissioner to Sierra Leone received on his return because the people there identify him with the return of democracy and hold us in the highest regard? Is not it nonsense to say that when the arms embargo was agreed by the United Nations it was on the basis that there would be no difference between the dictatorship that had taken over and the democratic forces? Surely there is all the difference in the world, as there was when there was an arms embargo against apartheid in South Africa—which hardly involved those who were fighting the regime.
    Mr. Lloyd: Let me make it absolutely clear that the return of the high commissioner to Sierra Leone was recognised by the people of Sierra Leone as significant because his role and, indeed, that of the British Government was critical in the return of the democratically elected President to that country. That is something that the people of Sierra Leone do not want to forget, although Opposition parties try on occasion to deflect the issue.
    It is important to place one point on the record. Much has been made of what I previously told the House. I said on 12 March:
    "The suggestion that Britain was conspiring with hired killers is wrong".—[Official Report, 12 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 844.]
    It was absolutely right to say that then. It was wrong to suggest that we had conspired with hired killers, and it is wrong. We do not conspire and we do not work with mercenaries.
    Mr. Michael Howard: The Minister and the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) appear to have forgotten that we are discussing matters that the Foreign Secretary described as "grave" and "serious". Baroness Symons told the other place yesterday that before she answered questions on 10 March she was briefed about allegations of illegal arms shipments being referred to the appropriate authorities. Does the Minister still maintain that he had no such briefing although he actually visited Sierra Leone at the end of that month? If he did not, has he established why?
    Mr. Lloyd: I am really astonished by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's line of questioning. I recently told the House:
    "At that time, I was not briefed, told, advised or in any way informed either orally or in writing of alleged arms shipments or of the Customs and Excise inquiry."—[Official Report, 14 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 537.]
    If that form of words is not comprehensive, I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman for goodness' sake to come and tell me what more he wants. It is absolutely clear. It is before the House of Commons and before Sir Thomas Legg. When I appear before Sir Thomas Legg, I will repeat that form of words and he will be able to establish the truth. That will come back to the House.
    130
    At that point, I trust that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have the good grace to withdraw his outrageous remarks.
    Mr. Howard: Has the Minister established the reason for that astonishing failure to brief him?
    Mr. Lloyd rose—
    Mr. Denis MacShane: He has already had two questions.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Opposition Front Bench is perfectly entitled to another question, otherwise I would not have called the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). I determine the allocations allowed for those on the Front Bench.
    Mr. Lloyd: I do not want to fail to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. Unfortunately, I did not hear it because of the noise.
    Mr. Howard: Has the Minister established the reason for the astonishing failure to brief him on something that was clearly relevant to his visit to Sierra Leone?
    Mr. Lloyd: I realise that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in full flight in pursuit of what he feels is his political moment. Unfortunately, he is chasing the wrong target. His question will be comprehensively answered when Sir Thomas Legg publishes his report. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will then realise that his Scott report is simply a chimera, as is his political future.

    Myanmar
    Mr. Clive Soley: What recent contacts he has had with the Myanmar Government concerning the restoration of democracy and the rule of law. [44523]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): We regularly raise our concerns with the Burmese Government. Our ambassador in Rangoon had discussions with the Burmese Foreign Minister most recently on 4 May. He also remains in regular contact with opposition leaders, including Aung San Suu Kyi. We have used our European Union presidency to renew EU measures against the regime and drafted this year's United Nations Commission on Human Rights resolution on Burma.
    Mr. Soley: I am pleased to hear that reply and am anxious that the name of Aung San Suu Kyi should not fall out of the news again. Have we been able to use our influence with the Association of South-East Asian Nations, which could apply pressure to ensure change in the regime?
    Mr. Fatchett: In all our contacts with ASEAN countries we impress on them our view that there is a need for democratic change in Burma—the need to recognise the role of the opposition parties and the important contribution to the future of Burma that could be made by Aung San Suu Kyi. We want the ASEAN

    131
    nations to resolve the matter internally. The United Kingdom Government and the European Union have taken their position. We consider Burma's violation of human rights wholly unacceptable and we shall continue to put that message across to all those in ASEAN and elsewhere who will listen.
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: Will the Minister pay tribute to the vernacular language transmissions of the BBC World Service to Burma? Has he been able to assess their effectiveness in at least influencing some people in Burma to look for a restoration of democracy?
    Mr. Fatchett: I am always glad to pay tribute to the work of the BBC World Service, which makes an important contribution not just in communicating British values and democratic values, but in ensuring that many people in many parts of the world hear an objective news service that would otherwise be denied them. That is true in Burma, as in many other countries. I hope that it has had some impression on those who have power in Burma. I am afraid that I cannot be over-optimistic about that, but we shall continue to work towards the same objective.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What progress has been made in the middle east peace process. [44524]
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What progress has been made in the middle east peace process. [44530]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): Concern has been expressed at the Cardiff European Council about the continuing deadlock in the middle east peace process and the threat that that poses to the stability of the region. We have reiterated our strong support for the efforts of the United States to gain the agreement of the parties to a package of proposals which, if accepted, would open the way to the relaunch of final status talks. We have welcomed Palestinian acceptance of those proposals and continue to call on the Government of Israel to give a
    132
    clear and positive response. The European Council also welcomed the increasingly substantive role of the EU under the UK presidency.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that economic stability is fundamental to Israel and the Palestinians—a fact recognised by both sides? Does he also agree that we should make as much progress as quickly as possible towards the final EU-Israel association agreement, which would make a major contribution to promoting and maintaining the economic stability that is so necessary to the peace process?
    Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend will know that the EU-Israel association agreement has been ratified in the House and undergone all the United Kingdom parliamentary procedures. That is true for the overwhelming majority of European Union countries. It is not true, however, for Belgium and France. The process is therefore held up in those two countries.
    Dr. Starkey: Land for peace is a crucial element of the middle east peace process. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Israeli Government appear to be trying to pre-empt the final settlement by extending illegal settlements across the whole of the west bank, with the associated road building, and by continuing planning policies in east Jerusalem that are changing the demographic balance between the Arab and Jewish populations to the detriment of the Arab population? Is he particularly concerned about the danger posed by the Israeli Government's plans for the E1 site, a huge site adjacent to Har Homa, which, if developed, would cut the Palestinian area in two?
    Mr. Fatchett: We have always accepted the principle that land for peace is the basis for progress between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That is why we have continued to urge further redeployments by the Israeli Government. We hope—we have said so on many occasions—that they will take the United States' suggested offer, which is on the table. That is the way to make progress. We have also made it abundantly clear that we see the settlement development as inimical to the peace process and illegal in international law. We again urge the Israelis to stop the settlement development. Otherwise, it is impossible to achieve further redeployments and meet the Oslo principles, which we consider so important.

Legal Aid (Reform)
3.31 pm
Mr. John Bercow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to place restrictions on the granting of legal aid to persons resident outside, or not paying tax in, the United Kingdom: and for connected purposes.
The case for reform of the legal aid system is widely accepted across the House. The argument between the Government and the Opposition is about the means by which most effectively to do so.
The background to the present problem is well understood: an exponential rise in the legal aid budget over the past six years. As the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has pointed out, the budget stood at £682 million as recently as 1990–91. By 1996–97, it had ballooned to an alarming £1,477 million. To place the matter in context, one observes that the budget for civil legal aid and family cases has tripled over that six-year period to £671 million. The average cost of pursuing those legally aided cases has risen by 53 per cent. over and above inflation. Yet, at the same time, 39,000 fewer pieces of legal advice or representation have been provided. In short, it is true that, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, we have been paying more, but getting less. That clearly cannot be expected to continue.
In defending the Government's consultation paper, "Access to Justice with Conditional Fees", the Parliamentary Secretary told us that the Government wanted
"to focus taxpayers' money where it is most needed and can do most good".—[Official Report, 4 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 1060.]
He went on to contend that, in his judgment and that of the Government, they could do most productive good for the British people in the area of social welfare—employment matters, housing, tackling debt-related problems, benefit entitlement and, in some cases, pursuing actions against bureaucracy and officialdom. I do not necessarily disagree with that analysis. The Parliamentary Secretary was making a reasonable point, although we differ about whether the Government's announced, and thus far largely unamended, proposals will achieve the reasonable objectives that the Government have established.
In response to the statement by the Parliamentary Secretary, his shadow, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), observed that the Government's plans were
"ill thought out, socially divisive, economically illiterate and politically inept".—[Official Report, 4 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 1063.]
My natural restraint and moderation, which are familiar throughout the Chamber, are such that 1 do not intend today to indulge in such an arsenal of aggressive adjectives to describe the likely outcome of the Government's policies. I content myself with observing that in all the debates on these matters, little, if any, reference has been made to whether specific categories of persons should not be eligible for legal aid or should face greater restrictions before being able to secure it. That is a reasonable proposition—I put it no more strongly than that—for the House to consider.
We are all familiar with the old saying, "No taxation without representation." There must be an argument that we are entitled—perhaps morally obliged—as an elected
134
legislature to impose some restrictions on the rights to representation in British courts of people who neither ordinarily live nor pay taxation in the United Kingdom. That seems a reasonable proposition.
In preparing this Bill, I naturally inquired about how many people might be covered by legal aid in the category which forms its essence. I was sorry, and somewhat surprised, to discover that there are no collated statistics on people who do not live or pay tax in the UK, but nevertheless receive legal aid. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) chunters from a sedentary position that he thinks that that is a satisfactory state of affairs, but I do not. I make no criticism of the Legal Aid Board for failing to keep statistics because living or paying tax in the UK is not a legal criterion for applying for or granting legal aid. However, if we are in favour of transparency and openness, as the Government say that they are, those factors are relevant. A public register should be established to record who has applied for and received legal aid. It would categorise and explain the cases of those who do not live or pay tax in the UK but who nevertheless receive help. My first concern, therefore, is that there is no public information.
My second concern is that although there are no overall collated statistics, we know that 67,175 bills had to be paid in respect of immigration and nationality cases in 1996–97, which constituted only 4 per cent. of the total legal aid budget. Significantly, I remind the House, and Conservative Members in particular, it amounted to a 45 per cent. increase in such cases over three years.
My third concern is whether we get value for money in respect of such cases. The sad answer is that we do not know. Although individuals, including lawyers, may be sceptical of whether legal aid should continue to be granted for particular cases or of whether such aid should be granted in the first instance, and although they can apply to the Legal Aid Board for a review of the decision to provide such funding, the board does not have to give reasons for its decisions. It can decline to review the provision of legal aid and give no reason for its decision.
My fourth concern, which underlines the importance of the Bill, is that there is reason to believe that legal aid is being abused. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough made that point on 21 November 1997 at column 553 in a debate on legal aid when he drew attention to the fact that the judges in the divisional courts regularly complained about hopeless immigration cases being brought before them. Someone had been prepared to sign the certificate, and legal aid—public money—had been provided for the reconsideration of cases that had no merit. Merit is supposed to be a criterion, so there is a serious problem of public funds being frittered away.
There is a powerful argument for establishing limits on who is eligible for legal aid, dependent on length of residence here and whether applicants pay taxes here—and surely there should be a public record of what is paid. The British people are fair-minded. We believe that people who live in this country, pay taxes in this country and have a loyalty to this country should have help from this country, regardless of race, colour, creed, religion or sexual orientation, if they need that help. Those who do not need help should not have it; it should be withdrawn from them.

135
My Bill is directed towards a fairer and more equitable system and a better expenditure of public funds. It is a good Bill, a sound and overdue measure. I hope that it will have widespread support in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Bercow, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. Howard Flight, Mr. Nick Gibb, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Owen Paterson, Mr. David Prior, Mr. Laurence Robertson, Mr. David Ruffley and Sir Teddy Taylor.

Legal Aid (Reform)
  LEGAL AID (REFORM)
  Mr. John Bercow accordingly presented a Bill to place restrictions on the granting of legal aid to persons resident outside, or not paying tax in, the United Kingdom; and for connected 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 204].
Opposition Day
  13TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Hospital Waiting Lists
    Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    3.41 pm
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
    That this House notes with regret the increase in National Health Service hospital waiting lists since May 1997; deplores the failure of Her Majesty's Government to achieve implementation of its promise of an early reduction of such lists; notes that current Government policies in respect of hospital closures and bed reductions are likely to increase the lists further; notes that the proposals to abolish fundholding and reduce flexibility for general practitioners in purchasing health care for their patients will also add to the lists; and urges the Government to reconsider these changes.
    We have chosen to debate waiting lists because the Government's broken pledges are of massive concern throughout the country. I was almost encouraged when I switched on my radio this morning and heard that the Secretary of State had announced another 2,000 beds. I thought, "This is wonderful. Every time we have an Opposition day, we can get 2,000 beds out of the Government." We shall consider it a great triumph if, at any time over the next month, the Secretary of State responds to our concerns and announces more money to put into the national health service. We shall be watching for that, and we hope that he will take seriously our request that he should do so.
    However, my enthusiasm for the 2,000 beds quickly dwindled when I realised that they were nothing more than the same 2,000 beds that had been announced on 2 June. For one wonderful moment I had thought that we were going to get 4,000 beds, and I am sure that, from the tone of the statements by the Secretary of State, the general public were meant to think that those were extra beds. However, they are not; they are the old beds.
    What is more, there is not even any evidence that those 2,000 beds represent a net gain. Are they, for example, to be set against the programme of closures and bed reductions now going on in hospitals throughout the country? This morning, I was at Kent and Canterbury hospital, where a reduction of 400 beds is threatened. Do we assume that those 400 beds will be added back in addition to the 2,000, or are we now talking about a maximum of only 1,600 beds? I would be grateful if the Secretary of State would explain both the minuses and the pluses, and tell us either the net gain or—as I suspect—the net loss.
    Before the general election, Labour promised to "save the NHS", and to cut waiting lists by 100,000. They called that their "early pledge". Labour has now been in government for 14 months and we are entitled to examine that early pledge. The Government now say that they will meet the pledge before the next election, so that early pledge has become a "better late than never" pledge.

    137
    Let us recall what Labour told us when it was in opposition. Its posters told us that
    "NHS waiting lists will be shorter";
    its mugs—that is, the china sort—told us, "Treat more NHS patients"; and its election manifesto promised to cut health service waiting lists by 100,000. Then, the Secretary of State told us:
    "This Government only makes promises we intend to keep."
    However, the truth is rather different: waiting lists are now 11.5 per cent. higher than when Labour took office and that early pledge has been comprehensively broken. There can be no doubt that those pre-election promises were deliberately designed to make the voters think that waiting lists would be reduced quickly; not only have waiting lists risen, but the Labour Government are deliberately adopting policies that will cause them to rise still further.
    The Secretary of State has made various excuses. First, he deliberately put waiting list surgery on hold to cope with a winter crisis that did not, in fact, materialise. The Opposition have been told of cases where temporary nurses were hired at great expense, only for them to have nothing to do, because there was no winter crisis; and of waiting list surgery cancelled, only for the hospitals to have nothing with which to replace it, because there was no winter crisis—a catalogue of waste and inefficiency. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State could have predicted exactly how mild the winter would be—after all, if he does not know how many hospitals he is responsible for closing, it is most unlikely that he would be in touch with the long-range weather forecasters. However, I am saying that he did not sufficiently think through, or keep sufficiently flexible, his priorities last winter.
    Having said that, I give the Secretary of State a little bit of credit, because he accepted that it was his decision and, therefore, his fault. He bungled in his judgment, but at least he had the grace to admit that the record waiting lists were his own creation. He did so in the House, when he said:
    "As top priority was given to emergencies, waiting lists have grown".
    He himself made the direct connection; he then said:
    "I set that priority, and the health service met that priority".—[Official Report, 18 March 1998; Vol. 308, c. 1290.]
    That is more than the Prime Minister is able to do.
    During Prime Minister's Question Time on 29 April, the Prime Minister flatly refused to take any responsibility whatsoever for increased waiting lists. I might add that it was not clear from his answer whether or not he held the Secretary of State directly responsible—I suppose that we shall have to wait for the forthcoming Cabinet reshuffle to discover the answer to that question. However, there now appears to be a rather interesting dichotomy, between a bungling Secretary of State for Health who admits that it is all his fault and a Prime Minister who cannot take responsibility for anything.
    Despite the Secretary of State's flush of culpability over the winter pressures fiasco, it seems that he is not yet ready to make the ultimate sacrifice. Usually, if someone admits an error of judgment that causes untold misery to 133,000 people, one would not expect that person to say,
    138
    as the Secretary of State said in his message to trust chairmen and chief executives, "Okay, I bungled, but you're the ones who may be fired." What makes the Secretary of State's response even more astonishing is that the people he has threatened with the boot are the Labour party's friends, whom he had appointed to trust boards barely four months before.
    Let me remind the House of the figures: 79 per cent. of those appointees declaring political activity did so for the Labour party; and 84 per cent. of those appointees who are councillors are Labour councillors. That is what the Secretary of State calls
    "making trust boards more representative of the people they serve",
    but most people would simply call it gerrymandering.
    The reason for that preponderance of Labour activists is the result of a rather convenient oversight: the Department of Health wrote only to council leaders, not chief executives, when seeking nominations from local authorities. It appears that some Labour council leaders—inadvertently, it is said—failed to pass on the letter to their colleagues in other parties, so that only Labour activists were nominated in any significant number by that method.
    Of course, it must be a little embarrassing for the Secretary of State. Having gone to all that trouble to ensure that trust boards were packed full of Labour supporters, he is now in the rather awkward position of being forced to sack them all as scapegoats for his Government's broken early pledge on waiting lists.
    However, trust chairmen will not have to look pensively through their morning post just yet because it seems that the people's pledges are, in fact, portable pledges, to be moved around whenever it is most convenient to the Government. In March, the Secretary of State promised, to the House and in a press release, that waiting lists would be below 1.16 million within a year—by April 1999. Three months later, on 2 June, he said during Health questions that
    "by this time next year waiting lists will be down to the level that we inherited."—[Official Report, 2 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 159.]
    Was that just another bungle by the Secretary of State or has he delayed the pledge by three months? Will he now set the record straight? Will the deadline for the first new clause of his revised waiting list pledge expire by 31 March 1999 or 30 June 1999, or will he extend it again? Which is the correct pledge? I look forward to hearing his answer.
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I know that the right hon. Lady has not been doing her job for very long, but I should have thought that she would have understood by now that under the useless statistical system that we inherited from the previous Government, it takes the national health service about two and a half months to come up with the figures. That is the explanation for the discrepancy.
    Miss Widdecombe: It is always somebody else's fault. This time, it is the fault not of the trust chairmen, but of the statisticians—the right hon. Gentleman's own civil servants. He still has not answered the question, but I take it that 30 June 1999 is the date to which we are all now working. If it is, that can go on the record and we can hold him to account. That is no way to run the health service.

    139
    The convenient confusion over the Secretary of State's waiting list pledge and the treatment of health service staff is just part of the picture that we are beginning to see of a health service in turmoil. In one breath to tell people that they have done us proud, as the Secretary of State puts it, and in the next to threaten them with the sack when it is the same Secretary of State's decisions that have caused the record waiting lists merely demonstrates that Labour has never been fit to manage anything. That rather sad display of macho management will serve only to demoralise health service workers even further.
    Mr. Paul Truswell: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Miss Widdecombe: In a moment.
    The Secretary of State appears intent on alienating the most important workers in the health service. First, he alienated the nurses by giving them a staged pay rise. He said that he was embarrassed. So he should be—in July 1996, when the then Government proposed to stage the pay rises of Members of the House, the right hon. Gentleman voted against it. He voted to take his pay rise in one go. He was not embarrassed then, so no wonder he is embarrassed now, as should be the Under-Secretary of State for Health and the Minister for Public Health who also voted against staging then. Let the Secretary of State explain that to the nurses.
    The Secretary of State should be embarrassed also that when he is closing hospitals across the country, there is to be a £1 billion hospital in his own back yard.
    Mr. Roger Casale: I appreciate that the right hon. Lady is speaking on behalf of the Opposition, but is she aware that the Government have made over £5 million available to West Kent health authority in the area that she represents which will be used to create 132 new beds, which were cut under the previous Government? Will she take the opportunity at least to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the extra resources that he has made available for her constituency?
    Miss Widdecombe: I shall discuss the position in Kent presently, and the hon. Gentleman will not then be smiling so confidently as he is now. The situation in Kent is grievous, and it is entirely the result of decisions taken since May 1997. We shall hear about that in a moment.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Lady discuss what is going on in my health authority? It is getting an extra £1.8 million for these matters. Why is the right hon. Lady complaining, when every Member of the House of Commons represents a seat where millions of pounds has been allocated to shorten waiting lists? What is wrong with that? Labour is delivering.
    Miss Widdecombe: First, that money must be allocated because the Government's policies are not working and waiting lists are lengthening. Secondly, when we discuss those millions, I shall show the hon. Gentleman that the money is not worth as much as he supposes.
    I return to the demoralisation in the health service. The sources of increased pressure on waiting lists are not only the Secretary of State's bungled attempt at
    140
    "tough management", as he calls it, but the pathetic financial settlement that the Government have seen fit to offer the health service. "Pathetic" is not my word; it is the word used by Dr. Sandy Macara, chairman of the British Medical Association—a group that has rarely criticised the Labour party in the past 19 years, and now says that its financial settlement is pathetic.
    The BMA says that because, despite all the talk of extra money for the health service, we had an increase of 3.1 per cent. in real terms per annum, whereas the average increase under the present Government has been only 2 per cent. Of course they have made some extra sums available, but let us see what we have to remove from those extra sums. Perhaps the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will get out his calculator.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have it here.
    Miss Widdecombe: We can remove higher-than-expected inflation. That is another broken pledge; Labour said that it would keep inflation low. We can remove health service inflation. We can remove the abolition of private medical insurance tax relief, deficit reduction, the phased pay award and other black holes in Labour's spending campaign, which render the additional money that they keep talking about only a fraction of its current worth. For example, if one removes the factors that I have suggested, the £417 million announced in the Budget becomes a paltry £32 million.
    The effect that underfunding has had on the health service is now visible; what will be the cost to waiting lists of another year of short change? If underfunding and winter pressures were the only factors, the waiting lists situation might not look so desperate, but that is only half the story. The entire structure of Labour's health service reforms and its hospital closures programme will have an equally devastating effect on the future of the health service.
    Labour's White Paper is a blueprint for increasing the people's waiting lists. The bureaucracy proposed in the White Paper will add substantially to health service running costs. The Government claim that they can save £1 billion from bureaucracy but, without saving anything, they have already added another £150 million a year from the cost of administering the primary care groups alone. Bureaucracy to co-ordinate health authorities and local authorities will be necessary within the structure of their reforms, but they have not accounted for any cost whatever. NICE, the national institute for clinical effectiveness, and CHIMP, the commission for health improvement—to name just two of their inventions
    —will also cost extra money, with no resultant administrative savings. The whole White Paper appears to be a return to the command-and-control structure for the health service, with all the associated running costs. There will be a raft of new quangos, none of which will keep the waiting list pledge afloat.
    The Government have not, as they frequently claim, abolished the internal market. The purchaser-provider split remains. They have only clogged up its workings with unnecessary controls and bureaucratic mechanisms, requiring constant consultation before any decision is taken. That will reduce efficiency and lead to money being diverted from reducing waiting lists to unnecessary administration.

    141
    There is reduced freedom for general practitioners because primary care groups, rather than fundholders, will choose between trusts, and that will reduce the flexibility of individual GPs to choose shorter waiting lists for their patients. The reduced efficiency caused—
    Mr. Truswell rose—
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Go on, read from your briefing.
    Mr. Truswell: No, it is entirely of my own making; I have no briefing from anyone else.
    I speak as a former member of a family health services authority, and that authority had some Tory nominees on it, none of whom subscribed to the concept of GP fundholders. Does the right hon. Lady think it was right that so much money accumulated in GP fundholder budgets while health authorities were running deficits? That money could have been used to treat patients and reduce waiting lists. Does she accept that while I was a member of a family health services authority, our auditors brought to our attention a number of cases where they thought that fundholders were not using the money efficiently, such as for the purchase of lavish oak furniture? Does she not think that those cases should have been dealt with, and that the money should have been spent on reducing waiting lists?
    Miss Widdecombe: Fundholding increased flexibility and allowed doctors to choose what was best for their patients. Fundholding resulted in a vastly improved service, to such an extent that, although the early demand was cautious, there was later a huge demand for fundholding. I would have expanded fundholding, not got rid of it.
    Even more disturbing than what I have described so far is the programme of hospital cuts and closures by stealth. Beds, wards and even whole hospitals are being shut down as Labour's lack of investment in our health service bites.
    Mr. Nigel Beard: My constituency was marked by years of hospital closure on the promise of a new hospital corning, which was intended to be built under the private finance initiative. However, dither and delay prevented it from coming, and confidence in the health service lapsed. My right hon. Friend has redeemed the promise and we are to have a new Queen Elizabeth hospital in the area.
    Miss Widdecombe: I am delighted to hear about the Secretary of State's U-turn in accepting the PFI, but in the month that the election was declared—in March last year—Labour said, "We have no plans to close hospitals." Labour deceived the electorate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] I shall give some examples.
    In Oxfordshire, the outlook is especially bleak. Three community hospitals face the axe. One of those, Burford community hospital, contains a specialist Alzheimer's rehabilitation project. The unit is not replicable in the medium term, so if it goes, no substitute service will be provided. It will close when Burford shuts, despite being
    142
    a centre of academic excellence for research into Alzheimer's. Patients using Burford will face a 40-mile round trip to out-patient facilities in Oxford.
    The closure of the hospital will mean that elderly patients using Burford as a halfway stop when returning home from hospital stays will be forced to block beds for other patients waiting for treatment. I have heard that story from many community hospitals. One of their most important functions is to relieve acute beds by taking people who are no longer in need of acute beds, but who are not yet ready to return home, and rehabilitating and caring for them in the interim. If those hospitals close, that function will go with them. That can only result in longer waiting lists, as beds are blocked.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the exact situation that she describes applies in Dorset? We have a massive bed-blocking problem, which has got much worse over the past year. [Laughter.]
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. Dorset, Oxfordshire, Warminster and Wallingford are merely examples. We shall hear far more during the debate, but we should note that the response to my hon. Friend's intervention was laughter on the Labour Benches. I do not think that that laughter will be shared by the patients who fear that their hospital will be closed, or in my hon. Friend's constituency or throughout the country when people realise how deceived they were by the Government. The Labour Government said that there would be shorter waiting lists, but lists have risen to record levels. The Government said that there would be no closures, but they are now closing right, left and centre.
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: Will the right hon. Lady tell the House how much more money she wants spent on the health service?
    Miss Widdecombe: We did not plan to close those hospitals, so we would have spent the money to keep them open. We spent 3.1 per cent. more every year, but the Government have spent 2 per cent. more. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: The point is that hospital reorganisation can be very expensive. The proposed rundown of Kent and Canterbury hospital in my constituency, which my right hon. Friend visited this morning, is a good example. The community health council has pointed out that Kent health authority's figures for the likely costs of the closure are wholly unaudited, unsupported and grossly understated.
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I intended to make those very points when I turned to Kent, as there seems to be a misapprehension that all of Kent is swimming in new Government money.
    As my hon. Friend said, I visited Kent and Canterbury hospital this morning. It is an acute —not a community—hospital with an award-winning cancer unit. Local people cannot believe that there is any question of that hospital being axed, with all the in-patient facilities scrapped. People will face a 100-mile round trip for radiotherapy if the oncology unit is scrapped, for example. I must admit that I am interested in that myself as the nearest oncology

    143
    centre is Maidstone. If the oncology unit at Kent and Canterbury hospital is closed—I accept that it is only a proposal at present—I want to know what extra resources will be made available to Maidstone to enable it to cope with the people who will be forced to make that long round trip.
    People feel let down and disillusioned. The 465 beds at the Kent and Canterbury are threatened with a reduction to 65. How does that square with anything that Labour said before the last election? People never believed that Labour would close their hospitals; they never believed that Labour would preside over record waiting lists. They were led to believe that there would be increased funding, reduced waiting lists and hospitals kept open. The Government have failed in each and every one of those areas—and they have failed dismally.
    Let the Secretary of State now make several things clear and we shall listen very carefully —I shall not be ambitious and ask him to apologise. The Secretary of State needs to tell us if and when he will meet his pre-election pledge on waiting lists. He needs to tell us how much more than his original estimate of £100 million it will cost to meet that pledge, however late it may be. He needs to tell us—he has been asked this many times during Health questions, but has dodged the issue every time—whether he will guarantee that no other areas of our health service will suffer as a result of the Government's panic reaction to tackling the waiting list problem that they have created.
    If the Government eventually reduce waiting lists at the expense of other investment in our health care system, they will not have delivered on their pledge. To cut back or to marginalise other core areas of health service activity would be to cheat all hospital users. The Government have fudged and bungled their early pledge: it has been broken and twisted beyond repair. There will come a point when the Secretary of State must realise that he cannot turn around his supertanker fast enough and that he is heading on to the rocks of Labour' s pre-election early pledge. When he reaches that point, I suggest that he considers whether he should follow the example of all decent captains and go down with his ship.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I must apologise, as my voice is going—I should obviously consult our wonderful national health service. Does my right hon. Friend realise that both the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have had to accept that money has been cut from social services budgets in places such as Dorset? The process of unblocking beds by putting people into community care is falling down completely in Dorset —it is not just a matter of its maintaining previous levels. The Secretary of State must tell us what he is doing to ensure that the other Departments' budgets are not being cut in that way.
    Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. My hon. Friend gives a great deal of flavour to my point, which is that we are already receiving intelligence from various parts of the health service, from chairmen and chief executives, who are telling us—
    Mr. Eric Martlew: Labour chairmen.
    Miss Widdecombe: If they are Labour chairmen, Labour Members should listen carefully to what they are
    144
    telling us because it is not very helpful. They are telling us that there is such a frantic demand for statistics coming from the Government, and so much fear and panic over trying to make it look as if the Government can keep their waiting list pledge, that staff are being prevented from getting on with the job in hand. That information is coming not from politicians, but from those who are responsible for running the health service, and who are faced with the sack by the Secretary of State if they do not deliver.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The right hon. Lady knows that I am sympathetic to her attack on the Government for postponing their early pledge on waiting lists—if not looking as if they are in great difficulty in delivering it. However, the implication of the right hon. Lady's attack is that her party would put in the money to ensure that waiting lists were reduced. If that is now her party's policy, will she explain why, last Thursday, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer accused the Chancellor, when he announced more money for the public services, of going soft on public spending?
    Miss Widdecombe: The Labour party made twin promises, as the hon. Gentleman will know.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer the question.
    Miss Widdecombe: I am answering it. The first promise was, "We will stick to the previous Government's spending plans." The second promise was, "We will reduce waiting lists." The Labour party made twin promises at the same time. That being so, the Government cannot now blame keeping one promise for breaking the other.
    How does the Secretary of State respond to the motion? He responds with exactly the same manipulation of fact—I put in no higher than that.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
    Miss Widdecombe: No. I shall make some progress and I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. It was not a particularly intelligent intervention last time, and I do not suppose that he has learnt anything in the short time between because he has not been listening. That being so, I am going on.
    How did the Secretary of State react to the motion? He did so by making the statement that appears in the amendment, which is that the House
    "notes that by March 1998 no-one in England was waiting over 18 months for treatment, meaning that this Government has already achieved what the Conservative Government never achieved".
    I say that again. The amendment states that
    "no-one in England was waiting over 18 months for treatment".
    Naturally we wondered what surveys had been done to establish this, and we asked. We were told that it was established through management intelligence. That is, I think, a ring-round.

    145
    There is at least one case of a schoolboy who has been waiting not 18 months, but 19 months for a simple throat operation. His mother wrote:
    "He can't sleep at night because his throat hurts and he can't eat properly. I know that he has got to wait his turn"—
    so this is a reasonable parent—
    "but it has been 19 months and that is too long for a little boy. Two months ago I wrote to St. Thomas's because I hadn't heard anything since I took him to the doctor's in 1996. They came back saying that they had looked into my complaint and they gave him an appointment to have his tonsils out on 10 June. On 28 May I got a letter saying that he could not go in because there was an emergency case coming in, but how did they know that 12 days in advance?"
    That is the situation, so the statement to which I have referred is untrue and I expect the Secretary of State to withdraw it.
    Mr. Graham Brady: Is my right hon. Friend further aware that when waiting lists in Salford and Trafford, in my health authority area, have risen by about 5 per cent. in only four months, there is the further scandal of operations being moved? People are not being moved through the system and then having operations, but being removed from waiting lists and going on to deferred lists, which do not count in the official figures. That is happening, but we are still seeing waiting lists increasing dramatically.
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend is right, but I also want to ask the Secretary of State another simple question. The first was, will he acknowledge that the statement in his amendment is wrong, which means that he cannot press the amendment because it would mislead the House?
    Mr. Dobson: No, I will not.
    Miss Widdecombe: The Secretary of State is saying that that child has not waited 19 months. I shall read that into the record, and I am sure that the mother of that child will want to take it up. He is saying that she is not telling the truth, but he should be saying that the amendment is wrong and should be withdrawn, because to press it would be to mislead the House, which I am sure he would not want to do.
    Let me ask the Secretary of State another simple question. He talks about 18-month waiting lists. That, of course, is for treatment. There is an easy way to make sure that no one waits more than 18 months for treatment, which is to make sure that they wait rather a long time for a consultation. Will he please publish lists of how long people have been waiting for consultations, and make them comparative, so that we can see the true state of affairs?
    Mr. David Lock: I of course accept that the right hon. Lady has managed to identify one person who has been waiting more than 18 months, but does she accept that, under the Conservative Government, a time was reached when 220,000 people had been waiting more than 18 months, and 92,000 people had been waiting more than two years? Would she apologise to those people, whom she let down year after year?
    Miss Widdecombe: The Conservative Government cut the number waiting for more than a year from 200,000 to 15,000. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would applaud that.
    146
    In considering this rather silly amendment, which contains an inaccuracy and which the Secretary of State, in all decency, should not press on the House, we should make a final survey of what we inherited, what they inherited and where we are now. In the last full year of the previous Labour Government, there was a 2.7 per cent. cut in the NHS. Under us, there were consistent rises, year on year. During our previous period in government, our spending rose 74 per cent. The Labour Government's capital investment fell; ours rose, by 66 per cent. Under us, pay for doctors and dentists went up 34.5 per cent.; under them, it went down 31 per cent. Under us, nurses' pay went up 67 per cent.; under them, it went down 3 per cent. Our lists of people waiting more than a year went down by 92 per cent.; theirs went up by 26 per cent. [Interruption.] I am wrong. I am sorry, but I thought that one of my hon. Friends wanted to intervene. I always value contributions from my hon. Friends, so I was prepared to give one of them a chance to speak.
    Where are we, at the end of just over a year of the Labour Government being in power? They plan to reduce flexibility for doctors, they have closed hospitals and reduced spending year on year, and they put such an emphasis on statistics that we are being told that basic care is suffering. That can all be summed up easily: they spend less, they close more, they make people wait longer.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I crave your advice on something that is going on in the House—behind you, I am afraid, because of the people who are involved. The normal situation is that people in the Box send notes to Ministers. Those notes are being caught up by the parliamentary private secretaries and sent round to other people.
    Madam Speaker: My only concern is that either a Minister or a PPS approaches the Box.
    4.19 pm
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "notes with pleasure the £2 billion increase in National Health Service spending since 1st May 1997; welcomes the allocation of £500 million to cut waiting lists by the end of this Parliament to 100,000 below the record levels inherited from the last Conservative Government; notes that as a result of record increases in waiting list surgery the National Health Service will be opening around 2,000 extra beds and keeping open around a further 1,000 in marked contrast to the cuts under the last Government; notes that by March 1998 no-one in England was waiting over 18 months for treatment, meaning that this Government has already achieved what the Conservative Government never achieved; and further welcomes the ending of two-tier care by the introduction of primary care groups which puts doctors and nurses in the driving seat of modernisation.".
    The Tory attack on our handling of the national health service seems to me to be an unholy combination of barefaced cheek and amnesia.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Dobson: No, I am not giving way for the time being. Many Back-Bench Members wish to speak. The shadow Secretary of State went on for a long time, and so that other people can contribute to the debate, I do not propose to take a large number of interventions.

    147
    The motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition begins by regretting the increase in waiting lists since May 1997. We welcome the Tories' new interest in waiting lists. I wonder why they regret only the increase since May 1997. They have expressed no views on the massive increases in waiting lists that took place before 1997. I have checked the records. Such has been the massive concern of the parliamentary Tory party about waiting lists that, during the previous Parliament, when more than 230,000 questions were tabled and answered, Conservative Members asked just 32 questions about waiting lists, which is six a year.
    Miss Widdecombe: The reason for the concentration of interest on waiting lists as opposed to waiting times or capital spending is that Labour made the promise, and the Government are being held to account. The interest in waiting lists stems from Labour's rash promise.
    Mr. Dobson: The Opposition spokeswoman has taken up more time in my speech than I have, and she has already had 40 minutes of her own.
    Under the Tories, there was a relentless increase in hospital waiting lists. During the 1990s, after the reforms of the national health service of which the Tories were so proud, the figure exceeded 1 million. They seem to have forgotten that, when we took over in May last year we inherited from them record national health service waiting lists, which were rising faster than at any time in the history of the service. They have either forgotten that, or they are proud of their useless record when they were responsible for the health service.
    Not only do we regret the rise in the waiting lists both before and after May last year, but we intend to do something about it. That is what we promised at the general election. It is worth remembering that, at that election, the Tories proposed to do nothing more about waiting lists: they were apparently satisfied with things as they were.
    Mr. Heald: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
    The people of this country want waiting lists to come down. For them, the worst aspect of the health service is the waiting: waiting for an ambulance, waiting in accident and emergency, waiting for an out-patient appointment, waiting to go into hospital, and, for God's sake, once they are in hospital, sometimes having to wait to get out again. We recognised that concern, and we promised to get waiting lists down. The Tory party was apparently quite satisfied with the situation that then prevailed.
    It will not be easy to get the waiting lists down: no one ever suggested that it would be. As I said this time last year, they are like a supertanker: it will take time to slow them down, longer to stop them rising, and even longer to turn them around.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: What was "early" about the Secretary of State's pledge?
    Mr. Dobson: It was certainly an early pledge, and we are doing something about it. If we are to improve the health service, we must take account of the state it was in when we inherited it. It was in a very bad state. It was
    148
    stretched almost to breaking point. Staff were run off their feet, and there was a lack of resources. The Tory Government used to pride themselves on the way in which they looked after public money. Sixty of the 100 health authorities–60 per cent.—were in debt.
    A massive increase in the number of emergency cases had been taking place for some time. When we took office, we asked the officials what research had been done into the reasons for that increase, and what had been done to tackle it. Answer came there none. The idle, useless lot who had preceded us had not examined the problem at all; we have had to start doing so.
    Last summer, I made it clear that, in the coming winter—last winter—the national health service should give priority to dealing with emergencies. We realised that, given the resources then available to the NHS, we could not ask it both to bring waiting lists down and to deal with emergencies. I took responsibility for that from the day on which I said it, and I continue to accept personal responsibility. I am not ashamed to do so. I said that emergencies should come first. I took substantial steps to promote joint working throughout the NHS and with social services all over the country, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided an additional £300 million to cope with emergencies during the winter.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Dobson: I will in a moment.
    That made 700 extra beds available during the winter to help the hard-pressed people in the health service to cope with emergencies. They achieved a brilliant success. I know that the weather was mild last winter, and that there was no flu epidemic; but last winter the NHS dealt with more emergencies than ever before, and there were none of the scandalous lists of people waiting on trolleys and mattresses in corridors that had characterised nearly every winter in the 1990s. That is immensely to the credit of those working in the NHS and local social services. It contributed to the rise in waiting lists, as I had said it would at the start, but I believe that the right priority was given.
    Until recently, I had not heard one person object to that decision. Then the last shadow Secretary of State for Health said that it had been made to save my face. I possess my face, and I would not want to sacrifice anyone for the sake of my face. Nothing was done for the sake of my face.
    Now the new shadow Secretary of State says that our action was a failed public relations exercise. Was what was done in the West Kent health authority area, part of which the right hon. Lady represents, a public relations exercise? Was it a public relations exercise to put £117,000 into flu vaccinations to protect the most exposed groups? Was it a public relations exercise to put an extra £1 million into 132 additional nursing and residential home placements and home care?
    Mr. Brazier: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Dobson: No.
    Was it a public relations exercise to spend £50,000 on extending district nurse cover in the right hon. Lady's area, to spend £200,000 on additional beds at Mid-Kent

    149
    hospital, or to spend £150,000 on a minimum care ward and discharge lounge at Kent and Sussex Weald? Apparently so.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Dobson: I will in a moment.
    Recently, at the invitation of the senior representative of the consultants in the British Medical Association, I visited Halton general hospital. That representative was proud to introduce me to a team of respiratory care nurses who had spent the winter using some of the money to visit old people and other people with chest complaints, and deal with them at home. Being in hospital would have put them in danger, owing to the nature of hospitals. That was not a public relations exercise; it was a brilliant effort on the part of people in the NHS, which was appreciated by everyone—except, apparently, the new shadow Secretary of State for Health, who would rather make cheap political points.
    Mr. Brazier rose—
    Mr. Heald rose—
    Mr. Matthew Taylor rose—
    Mr. Dobson: I will give way to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor).
    Mr. Taylor: The Secretary of State has rightly referred to the brilliant effort by staff in the NHS. He is aware, of course, of the situation in Cornwall, where four hospitals and a maternity unit face closure. He has to accept that it is now his responsibility to say yes or no to the health authority proposal. He will understand that there is much concern among the staff themselves in those hospitals and the maternity unit about their future, and there has been substantial delay in making a decision. Can he give any indication as to whether there is any chance of an early decision, one way or the other, which will at least relieve the burden that they are under? I hope that the decision will be to keep the hospitals and maternity unit open.
    Mr. Dobson: I am not supposed to adjudicate on individual decisions on the Floor of the House, because I could be challenged, whether my decision went one way or the other, and I have a quasi-judicial role in this matter. All I can say about the Cornwall situation is this: it is nothing to do with money. The chief executive of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly health authority has said that, even if he had the money, he would close those hospitals.
    I am dubious about that idea, as the hon. Gentleman and other Cornwall Members know, and I am looking at the objections to those closures extremely seriously. It is all right people saying, "Make up your mind quickly." If I had made up my mind a lot sooner, they might have got the wrong answer. If they hang on a bit, they might even get the right one.
    Mr. Heald: In East and North Hertfordshire health authority, the number of people on the waiting list has gone
    150
    up by a third in the past year, so will the Secretary of State apologise to the 4,000 extra people on the waiting list, and answer the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asked: what about Lee Bosley, who has been waiting for 19 months? How can the Secretary of State possibly say that people are not waiting for 18 months when here is someone who has been waiting for 19?
    Mr. Dobson: I do not know the details of the case that has been raised across the Dispatch Box, but the statements that I have made are based on information that has been supplied through the normal statistical arrangements in the Department of Health. Indeed, I have so insisted on it getting things right that one of the reasons for the increase in waiting lists is that it has had to look around, and has found some people who, strangely, disappeared from the waiting list last year. They are now back on because I want the figures to be accurate. If they are not, I will follow that up and ensure that something is done about it.
    Mr. Duncan: So will the Secretary of State withdraw the amendment?
    Mr. Dobson: No, I certainly will not withdraw the amendment because, frankly, I would not take the word of the people sitting on the Conservative Front Bench if they were the last people on earth. The child's mother may be right, and I am prepared to find out what has been going on, but I am not prepared to accept any accusations that are hurled at me by people on the Conservative Front Bench. If they had really been interested in the interests of the child, they could have got in touch with my Department—and I would have sorted the matter out in advance—rather than trying to make cheap points at the Dispatch Box.
    We are entering just our second year of government and, with the extra money, I am convinced that we can and will tackle waiting lists. In his first Budget, the Chancellor found for this year for the NHS £1.2 billion over and above what the Tory Government had intended. In his second Budget, which was announced fairly recently, he found an extra £500 million, specifically to tackle waiting lists. That takes to £2 billion the total extra funds that we have put into the NHS since we came to power.
    Of the £500 million of waiting list money, £417 million extra will go to England—rightly, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will get their share—to start getting waiting lists down. That is how it will be used. Today, I have published —anyone who reads it will be able to challenge the figures—a preliminary survey of what is happening with that money, which shows that more beds are being provided, that more wards are being opened, that more staff are being taken on, that there is more operating theatre time, and that there are more weekend and evening surgeries.
    Let us look at what is happening with beds. The Opposition motion accuses us of reducing the number of beds, but, as a result of the availability of that £417 million—or, indeed, only part of it—this year 2,000 extra beds will be made available to the NHS, which would not otherwise be available. Moreover, 1,100 beds which were planned to be closed will not be closed. Therefore, this year, 3,000 extra beds—the equivalent of six new district general hospitals—will be in use to help

    151
    bring down waiting lists. That action is being taken at a time when we are getting on with building another six district general hospitals, including the one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew).
    Several honMembers rose—
    Mr. David Faber: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: I shall not give way for the moment.
    Although the new Opposition health team have not been in the job very long, they should know that, between 1979 and 1997, the Tory Government—of whom they seem to be so proud —closed 43,000 acute beds in the national health service. This is our second year in government, and 3,000 extra beds will be available. Compare that with the 43,000 fewer beds that were available under the Tories. What a contrast!
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Dobson: I shall not. I shall mention the hon. Gentleman, after which he can intervene.
    This morning, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—who keeps leaping to the Dispatch Box—said on radio that he wanted to see the lists of those beds. We have published the lists. However, to save him looking them up, I tell him that, because of the Government's action, there will be 30 extra acute beds in Leicestershire, which will serve his constituency. In west Kent—which includes the constituency represented by the shadow Secretary of State for Health–125 extra beds will be available. I know that the right hon. Lady is in favour of old-fashioned courtesies—so I am just leaning forward to hear the words, "Thank you." She should be grateful that she is getting that extra money.
    I shall give some other examples.
    Miss Widdecombe rose—
    Mr. Dobson: Let me finish the list.
    There will be 450 extra beds in London; 60 in Birmingham; 75 in Leeds; 73 in Berkshire; 67 in Liverpool; 36 in east Norfolk; 89 in Suffolk; 60 in Bradford; 115 in Derbyshire—because we are as interested in rural areas as in big cities—and 48 in Durham. Extra staff will be taken on. Moreover, £65 million will go into primary mental health care and community services—all of which can make a contribution by looking after people at home, so that they do not place a demand on hospital beds.
    The Government's action has been welcomed across the country—except by the Tories. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said that people are moaning about the Government's action. However, I should tell her that, in May, Ruth Carnall, chief executive of the West Kent health authority, told the Gravesend Reporter:
    "We welcome this money, particularly since we understand"—
    she is quite right—
    "that it is not just a one-off but part of an intention nationally to enable health authorities to maintain lower lists."
    152
    The Government have had such welcomes from the people who actually have to do the work across the country.
    The Tory motion, out of date as it is—as the Tories usually are—mentions bed reductions. However, as I said, there will be 3,000 extra beds.
    Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has quite consistently talked about extra beds. I therefore ask him again the question that I asked him earlier: will those extra beds be over and above complete restoration of all the beds that are now being cut and all the hospitals that are now being closed? Will the extra beds in Kent, for example, mean that we will not lose 400 beds at Kent and Canterbury? If we lose 400 beds at Kent and Canterbury, 63 extra beds somewhere else in Kent will be of minimal use.
    Mr. Dobson: The 63 extra beds in Kent will be provided this year. Consultation is under way in Kent about proposals made by the East Kent health authority that involve changes and—if the authority has its way—bed reductions at the Kent and Canterbury hospital. That, if it is approved, may take place in future years. I am talking about this year. There is not going to be any reduction in beds in Canterbury this year.
    In addition, the proposition for the changes in Kent to which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald objects comes from the members of the East Kent health authority, every single one of whom was appointed by a Tory Secretary of State, not by me. As I do not like to mislead the House, I must point out that I reappointed the woman who chairs that health authority because it seemed wrong to change horses in mid-stream. I believe that I have the support of the Tory Member for Thanet—the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale— in so doing.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Dobson: I give way to the former Secretary of State for Health.
    Mr. Stephen Dorrell: The Secretary of State can clear up very simply the question whether there is to be a net increase in bed space. Will he give the House a clear undertaking that the published figures for this year will show that 3,000 more acute beds were available in the national health service than were available in the health service last year? Are the acute beds in the health service going to increase by 3,000? Is that the commitment that he is giving the House?
    Mr. Dobson: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, under the present statistical arrangements in the Department of Health, over which he presided, we shall not get those figures until 1999. We are talking about practicalities, not crackpot statistics as provided by the Tories. The practicalities are that the hard-working staff in the NHS will this year have access to 3,000 more beds in which to treat patients. That is clearly a step forward.
    The Tory motion also criticises our proposals for improving primary care and giving greater power and influence to general practitioners, community nurses and midwives. We are doing that because everyone recognises

    153
    that the Tory reorganisation of the NHS was wrong. The Tories introduced a competitive internal market which produced a two-tier system. It set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital, and it cost a fortune in bureaucracy. If anyone doubts the huge amount of waste in the bureaucracy, I shall give one simple example.
    When we took office, we were faced with having to agree, or otherwise, what was called the eighth wave of fundholding. We decided not to go ahead with it. The previous Government had earmarked £20 million for last year just to pay for the bureaucracy involved in the eighth wave of fundholding. I stopped it. That released £20 million, £10 million of which was spent on improved breast cancer services across the country, including £194,000 in the health authority which serves the shadow Secretary of State and £183,000 in that which serves the shadow Minister of State.
    We know from what she has said in the past that the shadow Secretary of State believes that the Tory reforms are now really delivering results, but the main result they delivered was untold harm. Talking to people in the NHS, I find it very difficult to find anyone who will admit to supporting the old system. Admittedly, the majority of people in the health service never did support it, but even some of its former advocates have publicly recanted. Even more disturbing is the fact that the odd one, well known for advocating the internal market years ago, has sidled up to me to whisper that he was a secret member of the resistance all along. Such people are not very convincing, but I give them the benefit of the doubt.
    Our proposals will put doctors, nurses and midwives back in the driving seat, not only in primary care but right across the national health service. That is bad news for management consultants, but good news for the rest of us. Management consultants have done untold damage to the NHS.
    GPs are rightly concerned about the future of general practice. It is natural that they should be, as it is their careers, their premises, their staff and their patients who are involved. They have raised practical concerns, and there have been talks between the British Medical Association and officials in my Department, and, more recently, between representatives of the BMA and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), whom I should like to thank for the amazing amount of hard work that he has put into those talks. I hope and expect that the talks will achieve a successful outcome.
    We share the desire of the professions—not just the medical profession but the nursing profession—that they should have a bigger say, and the desire to raise standards. We want to carry the professions with us.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although GPs raised with him issues such as recruitment to the service on his extremely successful visit to Over Wyre medical centre in my constituency yesterday, there was a real sense of optimism and a determination to provide services close to the
    154
    patient, or customer, in rural areas? GPs want to provide services at the local, GP practice level, rather than having to rely on acute hospital trusts and becoming involved in waiting lists.
    Mr. Dobson: I confirm that that was the reception I received. We want the health service to provide treatment much closer to home. Many of the procedures, treatments and operations which once had to be carried out in district general hospitals will, with new technology, be able to be delivered on GP premises, much closer to people's homes. That is one of the things that we are trying to develop.
    I greatly welcome the strong support of the medical, nursing and midwifery professions for what we are trying to do to improve quality. I do not think that there has ever been a time in the history of medicine in this country when the medical profession has been so committed to trying to improve quality and standards.
    Until now, there has been no national health service machinery setting clinical standards, spreading good medical practice or checking on standards of performance. We are putting that machinery in place, with the overt support of the professions. Like them, we are determined that there will be no more Bristols, no more Kent and Canterbury cervical screening scandals, and no more Devon and Exeter breast screening scandals. We are going to put in place machinery to set standards, and then ensure that they are met. [Interruption.] If we are to hear booing from the Opposition about standards, I have to say that machinery should have been in place to pick up what was going wrong in Kent and Canterbury and in Devon and Exeter, but there was not.
    When I asked the Tory-appointed chair of the South Thames health region to conduct an inquiry into the scandal in Kent and Canterbury, which had not been cleared up by the previous Government, who had allowed the people who had got it wrong to produce a report and then keep it private, he said—the previous Government were responsible for some of this—
    that the reasons for failure were poor and confused management; there had been repeated warnings of understaffing, poor training and low morale which had gone unheeded for many years. He said that there was a lack of a clear line of accountability on both management and quality assurance for the national programme. He went on:
    "I have been forcibly struck by the different ways in which the introduction of the internal market … exacerbated an already inherently weak situation … Many of the decisions which had an adverse effect on the cytology department were made … because of the perceived need to be free standing and competitive in the newly created market."
    That is why we are opposed to the internal market in the NHS.
    Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Secretary of State give way?
    Mr. Dobson: Not at the moment.
    Unlike our Tory predecessors, we are doing something about quality, and about our waiting list commitment. We admit that it will be hard to achieve. In the last year that the Tories were in power, the increase in treatment of people on the waiting list was just 1.2 per cent. To achieve what we want this year will require an increase

    155
    of 10 per cent. It is a huge increase, but, on the basis of the statistics supplied to me, there are no 18-month waiters—I shall look into that. There are fewer 12-month waiters than in the past two years, and there has been the biggest fall in cancelled operations since figures were first collected.
    All that depends on the people working in the health service, and on more money. We have found an extra £2 billion for the health service since we came to power—that is £2 billion more than the Tories intended to spend, and £1 billion more than the Liberal Democrats promised to spend. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the Government's disciplined framework for public spending and investment. I am confident that, when the outcome of the comprehensive spending review is revealed, there will be more money available to the national health service.
    The interesting question about the comprehensive spending review is not for us, but for the Tories. What will they say? They have been calling for more money for the national health service today, but last week the shadow Chancellor was attacking my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for squandering public money. We think that more money should go to the health service. Do the Tories agree? If so, do they have the agreement of the shadow Chancellor to say so?
    We have no doubt that the national health service was under-resourced under the Tories, and needs more resources. Under this Labour Government, it will get more resources, not just to get waiting lists down, but to raise standards and give the hard-working staff the quality of buildings, plant, equipment and pharmaceutical products that match their excellence and commitment, putting them in a position to respond to the changing needs of the people of our country. With Labour—the party that founded it—the national health service will be renewed. It will be fit for the 21st century, and it will not be in the hands of the Tory party.
    Mr. Faber: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that Madam Speaker values the rights of Back Benchers. I have heard her speak about the speed with which Ministers should reply to letters, and she has said that, whenever possible, Ministers should offer the courtesy of hosting delegations from Back-Bench Members of whatever party who want to discuss issues. This morning, I visited Warminster hospital in my constituency, where the mental health ward is due to be closed by the local health authority because of the Government's policies—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I have heard enough to realise that that is not a point of order for the Chair.
    Mr. Faber: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled that there is no point of order, so the hon. Gentleman cannot raise anything further to it.
    4.52 pm
    Mrs. Marion Roe: I am grateful to you for calling me early in the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am required to chair a Select Committee in 15 minutes.
    156
    I apologise to you and to the House that my parliamentary duties will prevent me from remaining in the Chamber for the following speaker and for the winding-up speeches.
    It is a great sadness that the 50th anniversary celebrations of the NHS are being marred by Labour's broken promises. At the general election, the public were misled into believing that NHS services would improve, not deteriorate. The reality is that acute hospitals and community hospitals are being closed, waiting lists are growing and waiting times are becoming ever longer. If the Labour party had matched the Conservative record on health service funding, the NHS would have £750 million more for next year than the Chancellor of the Exchequer has so far given it. I hope that the pressure from the Conservatives will persuade him to find additional funding.
    In a recent Gallup poll on the two most urgent problems facing the country, 48 per cent. of respondents cited health, hospitals and medical services. No wonder the Prime Minister has been forced to postpone the publication of his first annual report on the Government's performance because of the growing criticism of Labour's failure to meet its key election pledges. The decision to postpone the launch of the report earlier this month has come as Ministers face embarrassment over a spate of official figures showing that the Government are encountering difficulty in achieving many of their five early pledges. The Secretary of State for Health has admitted to being embarrassed about waiting lists reaching 1.3 million—an increase of 133,300 since Labour came to power 14 months ago. He seems to be in a state of permanent blush.
    Last February, I asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware that patients attending the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City were waiting a maximum of 12 months for elective surgery in May 1997, but that nine months later they had to wait 18 months. The waiting lists have grown dramatically in every specialty. Needless to say, I did not receive a satisfactory reply from the Prime Minister.
    The Labour party cannot claim naivety over the promises that it made at the general election. It must have been a calculated confidence trick on the British people. Those in the Labour leadership assessed how they could persuade electors to vote for them, produced the appropriate propaganda, inflicted it on the unsuspecting electors and are now pretending to us all that they really believed it.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Roe: I cannot give way, because I have to chair a meeting in 10 minutes. I apologise, but I am afraid that 1 am under pressure of time.
    Anybody who knows anything about health realises that Labour's health policies were never going to reduce waiting lists by 100,000 in the early years of its term of office. The Secretary of State for Health is using crisis money in a desperate attempt to achieve a short-term solution instead of identifying the fundamental problems of demand and need. His strategy will reward poor performance by throwing money at trusts with longer waiting lists. It will distort practice, undermine the

    157
    development of a co-ordinated strategy and bail out the inefficient practitioner who does not make best use of his facilities.
    The Government have fallen into a trap. They are trying to reduce waiting lists by treating more patients through a short-term burst of activity. History shows that to be a fundamentally flawed strategy. Waiting lists have risen inexorably since 1948. Despite an increase of more than 800,000 in the number of patients treated annually, waiting lists lengthened by 100,000 between 1991 and 1995 because more than 1 million extra people were referred to the waiting lists.
    Since the election of the Labour Government, on their spurious health pledges, the rate of increase has accelerated because they have failed to recognise the underlying pressures: increased chronic illness in all age groups; greater understanding of the options available; greater expectation of medicine; increasing demands on the service; new technology; and new therapy. Evidence shows that there is an equilibrium between waiting lists and activity. Increases in activity will be met by increases in referrals, which puts further pressure on the waiting lists. The Secretary of State's shallow attempts to bail out media pledges cannot succeed. Like King Canute, he will discover that the tide of demand will inundate him.
    Of course, money for waiting lists will result in extra people being treated. They will benefit and their quality of life will improve, but that political measure will do nothing for genuine clinical need. Managers under pressure to deliver the Government's requirements will target the simple and quick procedures. Cataracts, varicose veins and bunions will be treated. People will be pleased and the statistics will improve for a while, but what about the chronically ill—those with multi-system pathologies, waiting for complex, time-consuming and expensive procedures? They will continue to wait and to suffer. The Government's facile financial approach makes fiddlers out of managers and victims out of patients.
    The Secretary of State should have invested the money in meeting genuine clinical need, targeting those most in need of treatment. He should also remember social need. Consider the elderly lady with a sore hip. She may not have the highest clinical need, but what if she lives four storeys up in a block of flats with a lift that hardly ever works? Such desperate social need is not recognised. She is a number on a list that is ever delayed because the resources that she requires are expensive.
    If the Secretary of State were genuinely keen to achieve change rather than short-term political kudos, he would understand the folly of his approach to those requiring hospitalisation. If he put lists in the hands of primary care GPs, he could build on the unique clinical intimacy between British GPs and their patients. Operations would be done not because they were quick, cheap and easy but because they delivered the best results.
    It is no coincidence that waiting lists have improved dramatically since GPs became personally involved, with doctors controlling when and where to provide an intervention and having a cheque-book to back up fulfilling the need. It is incontrovertible that one GP practice providing clinical care and managing resources will achieve more than 10 that do not—or more than 50-plus reluctant participants in one of the new
    158
    Government-imposed primary care groups. Such PCGs will undoubtedly mean that the initiative taken by GPs in the past on behalf of their patients will be lost, thus damaging the opportunity to provide more services at a doctor's surgery rather than in hospital, as well as damaging general improvements in hospital services.
    If the Government want the best for patients, they must recognise the skills of GPs at practice level in identifying need. Such GPs support not just a list or a number but the individual who is damaged by disease or disability—the person who needs the help of the medical profession, irrespective of whether they are first or 101st on some list. That is what a visionary Government, unhampered by bigotry, should support. Of course, such practice already exists. The Conservative Government were operating such forward-thinking, innovative policy after the introduction of their reforms.
    My constituents are not concerned directly that 10, 100 or 100,000 other people are waiting for an admission or an operation. If they are distressed, in pain or incapacitated, they want treatment as soon as possible. The only way in which the Labour Government will truly benefit patients is to admit the magnitude of their folly and recognise that waiting lists are an irrelevance. They should focus on the true indicator of success: waiting times that meet the needs of the individual and not the statistician.
    5.1 pm
    Mr. Kevin Barron: I rise to support the amendment and to debate the motion.
    Two words came to mind when I read the motion. One was "stones" and the other was "glass houses". The Tories seem to have some block—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State brought this up—in wanting to refer only to waiting lists since May 1997. We know fine well where the seed of the recent surge in NHS waiting lists lies—back in the first quarter of 1991, when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) introduced his national health service reforms.
    Before those reforms, there had never been NHS waiting lists of 1 million people. Over the two years following the reforms, we saw waiting lists rise in every quarter but two. The number went through the million mark and has remained in excess of that ever since. By the time Labour took office, waiting lists were at a record high and were rising faster than at any time in NHS history. I do not think that anybody is surprised at the fact that it will take time to stem the increase and bring the figures down.
    I admire my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government for taking the challenge and stating publicly that we shall do something about NHS waiting lists. I should tell Opposition Front Benchers and the House that a timetable for the pledge on waiting lists was never set before the election. I know, because I was party to the writing of that pledge into the manifesto and on to our pledge cards.
    Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman can get his fix a little later in the debate.

    159
    A time was never set. In the past few months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set a time by which we shall reduce waiting lists to last year's level. Then we shall start reducing them further.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is often very convincing, and is very nearly making a convincing point. He is failing to excuse one other thing. There cannot be a early pledge to do something as a first step in a Parliament—a manifesto applies only for one Parliament —if it is then announced that the pledge will be honoured only by the end of it.
    Mr. Barron: I do not agree with that. The hon. Gentleman has covered health matters in the House long enough to recognise the reality of what has been happening in the NHS.
    Mr. Brazier: Why pledge that waiting lists will be reduced?
    Mr. Barron: Because we shall reduce them; that is why.
    The motion
    "notes that current Government policies in respect of hospital closures and bed reductions are likely to increase the lists further".
    About four weeks ago, Opposition Front Benchers did not know the Government's policy on hospital closures. Indeed, for a short time in the media, trust mergers became hospital closures. I was as confused as those in the Opposition Front-Bench team even before the first 24 hours of their trying to make that point were up.
    If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right in saying that there will be 3,000 more beds in the acute sector by the end of this financial year, it will be the first time that that has happened in the history of the NHS. We ought to be congratulating the Government on being prepared to take such action, given that, year on year, no matter who has been in office, there have been fewer beds at the end of each financial year than there were at the beginning ever since the NHS was brought into being.
    In the Budget, the Chancellor provided an extra £500 million for health care, £ 417 million of which is to be spent on the Government's waiting lists initiative to provide those extra beds. About 850 schemes are being introduced by health authorities all over the country. Such schemes include the provision of more beds, the opening of more wards, more staff being taken on, more theatre time and the extension of treatment, and the introduction of weekend and evening surgeries. Those are not soundbites; they are clear and sensible ways of tackling the problems of NHS waiting lists.
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) has had to leave the Chamber. Over the years, I have had a bit of time for her in her independent role as Chairman of the Health Committee. I wish that she had been a little more independent in her speech today. It is not true that the idea behind the waiting lists initiative is to introduce simple, quick and easy procedures. That is far from so. The hon. Lady said that we should target the most needy and not consider what is happening in the NHS. We can all consider individual need, but we must recognise the immediate impact that it has on waiting lists—whether for day surgery, in-patient surgery, or
    160
    whatever. We must consider procedures inside the NHS, to ensure that we get things right. We must ensure that money goes to specifics and gets things done.
    In the Rotherham borough, health service partnerships have already agreed a plan of action. The waiting lists initiative in Rotherham health authority will mean an additional 24 gynaecology sessions, covering 100 additional cases, including weekend cases, at a cost of more than £100,000. There will be additional theatre lists for orthopaedics, dealing with an extra 115 cases at a cost of £105,000. There will be two additional ear, nose and throat lists a week, covering 175 cases. Later this year, depending on how things pan out, it is likely that there will be a third ENT consultant, whom we have wanted for many years in my local health service. That additional ENT provision will cost £112,000. We shall get an ophthalmic consultant and extra work at a cost of £131,000; an additional colonoscopy session for 20 cases, costing more than £21,000; and an extra consultant to treat 500 orthopaedic patients annually. We have been after orthopaedic consultants in Rotherham for many years. Unfortunately, it is not the best place in the world to work. We have great problems getting people to come to our area to work in the health service. That will cost £250,000.
    For general surgery, we shall get an extra arteriogram session each week to deal with 120 cases, and additional endoscopy will treat 50 cases at a cost of more than £67,000. We shall get an alternate Friday prosthetic list to deal with 25 orthopaedic cases, costing more than £79,000. An additional oral surgery theatre list for 150 cases will cost more than £99,000.
    Nearly £1 million is going into Rotherham to help people. Those targets, when met, will benefit hundreds of people who have been waiting for far too long on our national health service lists. Such initiatives should result, not only locally but nationally, in the biggest increase in operations in the history of the NHS and the biggest ever cut in waiting lists. The money will be targeted to deliver what patients want most: shorter waiting lists.
    In addition to the extra money, about £500,000 is available in Rotherham for innovative ways of clearing waiting lists. That money will also be invested in reducing waiting lists by maintaining the flow of operations, building on our success last winter. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that the £300 million for the winter crisis was wasted, but it did exactly what it was planned to do. It avoided the winter crises that we had year on year under the previous Government. We could not acclaim something that was not there and get it into the media. It is nonsense. Rotherham got £769,000 extra last winter to avoid what we had suffered in years gone by.
    Mr. Brady: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it was a mild winter and that pressure on the health service was less than it would have been in a normal winter?
    Mr. Barron: I do not think that the facts prove that it was such a mild winter. The pressure was reduced by the initiatives mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, such as getting out into the community in Kent to stop flu epidemics. That was how the money was put to good use, to avoid the crises that we have had before.

    161
    Better primary, community and mental health services are coming under this Government. I have a health action zone in one of the poorest areas of Britain. It will start to examine people's problems and the problems that the health service has in delivering. The Government are doing things that have been sadly neglected for many years.
    We shall also start to modernise the waiting list system. Some of the extra money will go on pioneering new streamlined appointment systems, so that day patients can book the dates of their operations. It is extraordinary that people go to their general practitioner and then have to wait weeks and weeks before seeing a consultant at the hospital, and then wait weeks for treatment. I can go to one of three travel agents in my town, book holidays, hotels, car hire and everything else anywhere in the world, but people cannot book into a consultant's clinic in a hospital. The information technology that the Government have been getting on with will help us to do that. It is much to their credit that they done it when previous Governments have neglected it.
    This is targeted investment, not just giving money to the NHS. The Opposition can say, "We've been giving more than you; aren't we better than you?" but this is about targeting investment, so that we know that it will get waiting lists down and improve the NHS. Good management and innovative change are important. The Government will do better than previous Governments. All Governments do better than their predecessors, because medical science moves on. We shall do better in areas where the previous Government failed, by organising and managing the health service properly.
    The 18 years of Conservative government saw waiting lists rise by more than 400,000. In the next four months under Labour, they will begin to fall, and they will continue to fall. The Opposition did not ask the electorate to vote for them again in 1992 by promising to ensure that hospital waiting lists increased. This Government have the courage to do things that many thousands of people want. We have the courage to set targets. The electorate will hold us to account. When we get through this first Labour Government in many years, the Opposition will be sorry that they tabled such a motion, because they will have to eat their words.
    5.14 pm
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) gave his usual robust speech, but he did not answer the point that I put to him.
    As always, we welcome the opportunity to debate health. We even welcome the opportunity to debate waiting lists, although, as I will explain, we think that the Government chose the wrong target, so this is the wrong focus for a debate.
    When the Labour party was in opposition, it tried to think up a compact promise for what it would do for the national health service. Labour thought of a nice, tight soundbite, "We will save the NHS." I am happy about that, because the NHS was in some difficulty under that party's predecessors. The Labour party then tried to think what that would mean in substance. Despite all the sound advice that it will have received from professionals and
    162
    from within its own ranks that people care far more about how long they wait for treatment than about how many people are in the queue with them, in the end, the Labour party chose the wrong target. Labour made only one early pledge on health and, unfortunately, it was the wrong one. The Government are hoist by their own petard. They must deliver, but they are now in difficulties.
    Rumour has it that some Ministers, including senior Ministers, know that they are spending money on the wrong things. This is their bed and they must lie on it. The Secretary of State took few interventions and, in particular, refused one from my medical friend, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who may know something about the matter.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): My right hon. Friend knew what he was going to say.
    Mr. Hughes: The difficulty may be that the Minister may not like what my hon. Friend was going to say. The Secretary of State listed things to do with waiting that mattered to patients. Every one was to do not with waiting lists but with waiting times—more clear evidence from him that the Government have got their target wrong.
    That evidence is backed up by what the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) said when in opposition. In 1996, when he launched the document—to which the hon. Member for Rother Valley may have been referring—"New Labour, New Life for Britain", and gave the early pledge, his explanation was:
    "waiting means misery for patients. They are often in pain or discomfort."
    I could not agree more. We all understand that the longer people wait, the longer, by definition, they are likely to be in pain or discomfort.
    Having adopted waiting lists, not waiting times, the Government are in considerable difficulty. There was no hint that it would take five years, the whole Parliament, to get 100,000 people off the list. There was no such qualification. I challenge any Labour Member to produce one bit of evidence from any Labour candidate who said that it would take the whole Parliament. It was not even said immediately after the general election, but said some little time later. Someone must have told the Secretary of State that he had better qualify it. That is not surprising: if one makes the wrong pledge, one ends up in difficulty.
    It is not only me, my party or the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), but the British Medical Association, the Health Service Journal, the British Medical Journal and the Government's advisers who say, "It's the wrong target, Government. We are sorry that you made that so clear."
    The only problem is that, although the Secretary of State has said that he is embarrassed about the fact that the numbers waiting are rising, nobody has yet owned up to the fact that the Labour party is embarrassed because it chose the wrong target. I hope that the Minister of State will say, "I'm sorry, we were wrong;"—it makes a welcome change to hear Governments of any colour admit that they were wrong—"but we chose the wrong target. We will deliver, although it will take us longer than we said and longer than we planned
    —but actually it is waiting times, not waiting lists, that we should be talking about."

    163
    If the great socialist Labour party nirvana can be reached by—
    Jackie Ballard: Socialist?
    Mr. Hughes: That is doubtful; let us assume that it is neo-socialist, or new Labour.
    If the great nirvana can be reached by taking 100,000 people off a waiting list that now consists of 1,300,000 people, that is a pretty mean, poor target. I do not think that out there the people will be greatly rejoicing at the prospect held out by the Government: "By the end of this Parliament, one in 13 people on the NHS waiting list will not be waiting any more, but 12 out of 13 will still be waiting. Sorry about that, kids." At that rate, it would take 50 years of Labour Governments to get those people off the list. I do not think that that is an encouraging prospect. It is a pretty thin, mean, small, pathetic target.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomasrose—
    Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way.
    If that is all that the one promise made about health before the election means, it is pretty thin gruel.
    I shall not rehearse the fact—because we all know it, and it is recounted every three months—that waiting lists have gone up ever since the election. For the first few three-month periods, that was not Labour's fault; for the second few, it was more Labour's fault; and, if the numbers keep going up, it will be even more Labour's fault.
    We all understand that supertankers take a long time to turn around. I hope that the Secretary of State is right and the figures come down. Indeed, I hope that they come down by much more than 100,000—by more than 200,000 or by more than 300,000—but there ain't much sign of that yet. I certainly hope that our colleagues on the Labour Benches do not say at the next election, "We've done wonders; we've taken one in 13 people off the waiting list, and that allows us to come before you and ask for re-election."
    We are debating waiting lists on a Tory motion, so it would be unfair not to say a word about the motion, or about the Tory record, despite the fact that, as the Tories are not in power and the Labour party is, what the Government do is more relevant at the moment. My job as the spokesman for an Opposition party is to hold to account the Government, rather than Her Majesty's official—more official than us—Opposition. [Interruption.] They are not the only official Opposition, but they are the only technically registered official Opposition, even if they are not always the most effective Opposition.
    It is a bit difficult for the Tories to launch an attack about waiting lists and waiting times, for three statistical reasons. First, between 1979 and 1997—their famous 18 years—waiting lists rose by 546,000, or more than half a million. Secondly, under the Tories, a record number of people were waiting for more than a year for operations—there were 200,000 of them in September 1987. Thirdly, under the Tories, a record number of people had been waiting for more than two years for operations—almost 50,000 of them.
    164
    The Tory record is therefore difficult to defend, despite the fact that, at the end, although there were many more people waiting, there were fewer people waiting for longer—[Interruption.]—which we welcomed. We have always welcomed that.
    Miss Widdecombe: Thank you.
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member for Rother Valley used a comparison that I had not thought of when he talked about stones and glass houses. I, on the other hand, was thinking about pots and kettles, which suggested to me the fact that there was "something of the night" about the Conservative attack—but I do not want to go further down that road.
    The point made by the Secretary of State at the end of his speech, which I also made in an intervention to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, needs answering. The Tory party cannot credibly attack the Government on waiting lists while the Conservative shadow Chancellor says that the Labour party is profligate with public spending.
    Mr. Duncan: Yes, it can.
    Mr. Hughes: All right; the Tory party can say that waiting lists are too high and should come down, but that the money that the Labour party is putting in is far too much. [Interruption.] I shall wait for the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to explain how two apparently contradictory statements—
    Miss Widdecombe: The pledges are contradictory.
    Mr. Hughes: I agree. We always said that before the election. The Minister of State was shadowing the health portfolio for Labour before the election, and he and his hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley will both know that we said then that Labour could not pledge to keep to Tory spending totals and still expect to save the NHS. Those pledges were incompatible, and have been proved to be incompatible. [Interruption.] There is not a punter out there who does not know that.
    Saving the NHS needs more public money—[Interruption.]—as the Chancellor announced on Thursday.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much sedentary comment, and we cannot have a very coherent debate with that background noise.
    Mr. Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    I now want to deal with the announcement about beds which was remade today—"remade", because the announcement that there would be 2,000 more beds in the health service this year, and 1,000 beds saved that otherwise would have gone, was made a fortnight ago. It appeared in the Evening Standard, for example, on 2 June. I have the list of those beds here, and I already knew that Guy's and St. Thomas's, my local trust, would get 24 more beds. That is another example of one of the recycled announcements at which the Labour party in government is so good. I welcome the fact that more beds will be kept this year; of course I do. I welcome, and do not even doubt, the fact that there will be 2,000 of them—

    165
    beds that would not have been kept or been reopened had it not been for waiting list money. I also welcome the fact that another 1,000 beds that would have been closed will be kept open.
    However, I have not yet heard—I ask the Minister to tell us the answer in his winding-up speech—whether the money committed to doing that this year is guaranteed on a recurring basis for the three-year period that the Chancellor defined last Thursday. The Minister will understand that, if the money is not guaranteed, the beds may not be kept open after this year. There will then be a further crisis, and they will have to be reopened later using additional money. That is no way to run anything, let alone a health service.
    My hon. Friends the Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon—in fact, probably all my English right hon. and hon. Friends—have told me that they know that the shortages in the health service, and the fact that we have so many people on waiting lists, are in part due to the fact that we do not have enough staff in the service. We have not had the money to recruit the 8,000-plus nurses that the health service is short of, or the 1,000-plus doctors, let alone the general practitioners.
    Yesterday, I spoke to a recently retired very senior nurse manager who said that we were building up a huge crisis because staff did not want to come into the health service. I do not pretend that the Government do not understand that; I know that they are aware of the problem. It must be acknowledged, however, that we have to provide more than beds and operating theatres; we have to provide the staff.
    I am not talking about existing staff working extra time–12 and 18-hour shifts—or about agency staff or staff on bank duty. I am talking about real permanent establishment staff who can supply all year the consistent teamwork to provide health care in the way that the NHS does best.
    There have always been waiting lists. I suspect that doctors are keener on them than the rest of us, because they believe that lists are a good way of rationing. There has always been rationing, too, since the NHS was created—let us not delude ourselves about that. I rarely hear the fact admitted by either the Government or those on the official Opposition Front Bench.
    I hope that, if not by the end of this Parliament—I see no sign of the present Government's delivering on the pledge—at least by the end of the next Parliament, we will have put enough money into the health service to reduce waiting times, and therefore waiting lists, to a reasonable level for everybody. In my book, "reasonable" means six months. I have worked out the figures and have explained them to colleagues in other places and at other times, and the Library has provided figures too. I cannot see why, with sufficient investment over five years, we cannot get waiting times down so that no one has to wait more than six months for any serious treatment.
    People in many other countries do not have to wait longer than that. Longer lists are nonsense; they are evidence of the British queueing disease. When too many people are waiting for buses, once a few extra buses are provided to clear the backlog, one has to provide only enough to keep picking the people up from the bus stops.
    166
    If we provided a decent injection of money into the health service over the next five years, we could clear the backlog.
    Of course demand rises, and of course we may have to put in a higher proportion of gross domestic product, but we could get waiting lists and times down to a reasonable level. There is a realistic difference between somebody with, say, an ingrowing toenail, who could reasonably be expected to wait 12 months, and somebody with a serious condition. If someone has a cataract, the longer the operation is delayed the more likely that person is to go blind. The longer a hip operation is delayed, the longer somebody is likely to be out of work. Some conditions are serious and need treatment soon, and some are less serious.
    More people are waiting now than ever before, whatever the arguments about the detailed statistics. There is a crisis. Demand may have risen; expectations may have risen—but that is the position we are in. We need to respond to that, and the public want us to spend more money on health, to deal with those problems, than on any other part of the public service.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman says that we are not spending enough money on the health service, but would he speculate on what the state of the NHS would be if his party's spending plans had been implemented and £1 billion less had been spent on the NHS?
    Mr. Hughes: If that had been a less predictable question, it might have caught me unawares. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer it."] Of course I shall answer it—unlike other hon. Members, I answer every question asked in the House. The reason why the hon. Gentleman makes that point is that he misunderstands that the Liberal Democrats argued for spending additional to inflation, not inclusive of inflation, as the Labour party's figures were. The debate between Labour and the Liberal Democrats has always been on that point.
    Mr. Thomas indicated dissent.
    Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman might not like the argument, but that is the difference. Before I sit down, I shall get rid of the history, because debates about what we said we would spend before the election are debates about history. I like history and am happy to debate historical points, but that is not what people outside think matters the most; they are concerned about what is to be spent now.
    Mr. Andy King: The hon. Gentleman should be supporting us.
    Mr. Hughes: Of course I support money going into the NHS, but I want more, the nation wants more and there is more available to spend. Let me tell the House how.
    In the document produced by the Chancellor last week accompanying the first stage of the announcements of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, "Stability and Investment for the Long Term", a revealing section on page 41 shows that the Government have more in reserves this year than they had expected at the time of the Budget. In the Budget, it was announced that there was estimated to be a £1.5 billion undershoot in public spending—spare money in reserve for this year; the Chancellor announced

    167
    last week that public spending last year undershot by £3 billion; therefore, there is in reserve an additional £0141.5 billion.
    Mr. King: No.
    Mr. Hughes: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying no—that is what the Chancellor said last week.
    Mr. King: It is what is done with it that counts.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already asked hon. Members to cut out the sedentary comments—they are not helping the debate.
    Mr. Hughes: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I agree that it is what one does with the money that matters.
    There is £1.5 billion extra in the reserves—£3 billion in all, sitting unallocated, waiting. Whereas the Government have so far announced £500 million extra—this picks up on the intervention from the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas)—we say that they should have allocated the health service £1.25 billion this year, to be spent on staff recruitment, the reduction of waiting lists and improvements to community care and social care, which help to prevent hospital bed blocking.
    The 50th anniversary of the NHS is about to be celebrated. None of us is naive, so we do not doubt that there will be a bit of a song and dance and an announcement of more money for the health service. We are all ready for that and we shall welcome it, but the sum to be announced will have to be far greater if it is not to be misrepresented as largesse, when it is not very large at all. The reality is that there is £3 billion sitting in the reserves this year. The health service this year could easily have spent the money on funding the staff pay review all at once, instead of its having to be phased. That would have greatly helped morale and recruitment, but the Government have not done that; nor have they since increased pay for NHS staff, which hardly anyone in the House would resist.
    The announcement that the Prime Minister should make is, at least, that real growth—not cash growth—this year should be 5 per cent. over that of last year and that, for the rest of this Parliament, it should be 4 per cent. a year. That is about another £1 billion this year coming out of the reserves and probably an additional £2 billion—real growth—each year for the remaining three years of this Parliament. We shall judge the Government by whether there is a real, significant and substantial increase in money for the health service, not by recycled announcements of a bit more money that will not go halfway toward meeting the shortfall accrued under the previous Government.
    I leave the House with this reflection: despite the Chancellor's announcement last week and the fact that what should first be measured is quality, not quantity—the Secretary of State was right to say that what matters most is how good the health service is, not how much we put into it—there is not a single informed person in the country who does not believe that, unless we ratchet up considerably the relatively small amount that we put into the health service, our 6.5p in the pound, we shall not be able to sustain the health service at the level the public expect and need. The reason why the Labour
    168
    Government's rating in terms of public confidence in their handling of the health service has slipped so badly from last year to this is that the public do not see the money being forthcoming. Our challenge to the Government for the 50th anniversary of the NHS is to announce money that will keep the beds open next year and the year after, money that will keep the health service growing at a decent rate throughout the lifetime of this Parliament and money that will catch up with the consistent underfunding of the past 18 years.
    The pledge on waiting lists was an early pledge which, sadly, will be delivered late, if at all. It was a modest pledge that will hardly affect most of the people waiting for treatment. It was the wrong pledge. The Government now need to change their priorities. If they do that and come up with the money, the NHS and its patients will be grateful; but, if they do not, they will surely and justifiably be held to account by the electorate.
    5.35 pm
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: In the 18 months before the general election last May, my constituents had seen two thirds of their accident and emergency departments shut. All four local NHS trusts were in severe financial difficulty, staff morale was at a low ebb and, not surprisingly, local waiting lists were at record levels and set to rise further. In the years after the Tory reforms, the NHS had degenerated into a bureaucratic health market, kept going mainly by the commitment of NHS staff. It had become a patchwork of businesses competing with each other, dependent for their funding and for their very existence on their success in winning orders and making money.
    On Second Reading of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) declared that the reforms would
    "herald a new era for the National Health Service".
    How right she was, but the truth is that that era is one that my constituents are delighted to have seen consigned to history. The right hon. Lady also claimed that the reforms would turn the NHS into
    "the thriving, expanding concern that it should be."—[Official Report, 11 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 722.]
    She was entirely wrong on that point. The reality of the NHS at the time of the general election was one of rising waiting lists and record sums being spent on administration. The Conservative NHS reforms that she endorsed so enthusiastically turned access to health care into a lottery. People living in the same borough—even in the same street—were confronted with widely differing patterns of care and waiting times for operations. My constituents suffered particularly in respect of ophthalmology, as waiting times for the patients of GP fundholders were up to two and a half times shorter than those for patients of non-fundholding GPs.
    The financial position inherited by the Labour Government was appalling: 59 out of 100 health authorities ended the last financial year under the Conservative Government in deficit, as did 128 NHS trusts. At the same time, huge sums were being wasted on bureaucracy and administration as, from 1989-90, annual spending on managerial and administrative staff almost doubled, from £1.2 billion to £2.3 billion. Indeed, in one year, spending on managers soared by 17 per cent.,

    169
    while spending on nurses rose by only 1 per cent. Those who were Ministers in the Conservative Government should admit that they took their eye off the ball. The Audit Commission found that senior management costs in some trusts were more than double those in others, for no comparable reason. Estimates put GP fundholding costs at £80,000 per practice per year, totalling more than £200 million spent each year administering fundholding— money that could, and should, have been put into patient care.
    I can think of no other area of government that so encapsulates the way in which the Conservatives let down the people of this country, or that so epitomises the mismanagement and incompetence that riddled the previous Government. It is a story of Tory failure to embarrass and shame even the most senior figures in the party.
    The predecessor of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), said only recently:
    "We had a very clear policy on health up until 1st May. It was rejected by the electorate."
    That policy was decisively rejected by the electorate. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) owned up in his book to some embarrassment about
    "the excessive cost in managerial overheads of GP fundholding".
    Perhaps, when he sums up the debate, he will tell us whether that remark will be in the paperback version.
    I congratulate my hon. Friends on the Front Bench because, in contrast to the record of failure and mismanagement of the Conservative party, they have begun to tackle the deep-seated problems that the Conservatives bequeathed us. The NHS White Paper and the public health Green Paper hold out the prospect of a health service that truly works in co-operation to provide high-quality health care. Doctors, nurses and their management are genuinely beginning to put together a new health service, and are working much more closely with partners in local authorities and the voluntary sector.
    In that context, the extra money allocated for the waiting lists initiative is extremely welcome. The extra 3,000 beds to treat patients, which the initiative will fund, are in stark contrast to the record of bed closures under the Conservative Government, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. I particularly welcome the 450 extra beds in London. My health authority is to receive an extra £3 million, over and above what the Government have already allocated to it. Some £1 million of that will be used to reduce waiting lists at Northwick Park hospital by an estimated 1,200 patients.
    Mount Vernon hospital, which is located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) but serves my constituents, suffered considerable speculation about its future under the previous Government, which was exacerbated when its accident and emergency department was closed. The extra 15 beds that will open at Mount Vernon and the £250,000 from Brent and Harrow health authority's allocation from the waiting lists initiative will offer confirmation of Mount Vernon's continuing viability and reassure my constituents, who felt let down by the previous Government's failure to stop cuts at that hospital.
    170
    I also welcome the plans to establish in my constituency a three-way partnership between Northwick Park, which is the district general hospital, Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare NHS trust, which is the local community services trust, and Harrow social services to increase community nursing. In the first instance, that will facilitate discharges from hospital and, secondly, it will help to keep out of hospital people who would, perhaps, have been bed blockers, and who can be more appropriately cared for in their home. Reforms in the White and Green Papers will continue to promote that spirit of partnership.
    Health improvement plans and the new duty to work in partnership with other care agencies will be essential in cementing effective joint working between local authority departments and health care agencies to continue to tackle waiting list reductions. I hope that Ministers will ensure the speedy dissemination of the lessons to be learned from the way in which health action zones and the pilots under the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 are working so that all patients can benefit.
    The Government are tackling the waiting list problem. More beds are being provided; more wards are being opened; more staff are being recruited and more theatre time is becoming available. The Government should be congratulated on fulfilling their first waiting list promise, made last November, that by the end of last March nobody would be waiting more than 18 months for treatment. That target has been achieved by the work of health authorities and trusts, which is now being stepped up through the work of the waiting lists action team and the appointment of the chief executive of Leicester royal infirmary to reinforce the national drive to slash NHS waiting lists. The Government will fulfil our pledges to cut waiting lists.
    It would be worth hearing from the Conservative party what exactly their policy is on the national health service. What actions and reforms would the party of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton implement if, God forbid, it were still in power? Do Conservative Members still cling to a belief in the discredited reforms that they so enthusiastically backed nine years ago, which produced a health service weighed down by bureaucracy? Do they support our reforms, but feel a little shy about owning up to that, or do they have something else in mind for the national health service?
    I ask that question because, on 13 June in The Daily Telegraph, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald described the NHS as needing not just a little tinkering, but a radical overhaul. It would be worth while if Conservatives clarified what they mean by a radical overhaul. Do they mean, for example, that the national health service should be privatised? I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) is no longer in his place, because I remember only too well his proposal to privatise many of the social care agencies. It would be interesting to know whether the Conservative party continues to support that proposal. Had that been implemented, it would have been disastrous for partnerships between social care agencies and the health service to reduce waiting lists.
    The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon wrote in 1994, when he was working in Conservative central office, that it would be best for the Conservative party if there were absolutely no publicity about the national health service.

    171
    I suspect that, if he were still working in Tory central office, he would be arguing that it would be better for the Conservative party if no publicity were given to the national health service for the next 10 years.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. John Horam: The famous NHS waiting list pledge, on which the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and other Labour Members were elected, was quintessentially new Labour in that it was superficially impressive, would not cost very much and would make almost no difference even if it were implemented.
    As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has just left the Chamber, said, it was a pretty thin pledge in the first place. I am sorry that I am agreeing with him—perhaps he is uncomfortable with that when his party is so close to the Labour party. The pledge was almost as thin as the hon. Gentleman's famous pledge to do something about the NHS by putting another 6p on a packet of cigarettes, which was the Liberal Democrats' funding suggestion at the general election.
    From an ordinary person's perspective, a waiting list reduction of 100,000 is significant, but if we consider the total waiting list—of 1.3 million—it is not. It is even less significant if we remember that the pledge was to increase the number of patients treated, which is roughly 9 million in any year. That is a thin pledge.
    The £100 million of savings on bureaucracy, which the Labour party pledged would pay for more patients to be treated and reduce waiting times, was equally thin. Again, to an ordinary person £100 million sounds like a lot, but it stands against the £40 billion spent on the NHS in England, Scotland and Wales in any one year. It is a meagre amount to achieve an insignificant objective, and it has made very little difference.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Horam: We have a relatively short time for the debate and I have already referred to the hon. Lady's colleague, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, so I shall not give way.
    The public have noticed that even Labour's meagre promise has not been fulfilled and that nothing has changed except that the problem is worse than when the Labour party was in opposition. In my area, for example, waiting lists have gone up to 8,500 over the past 12 months; they have gone up by 140,000 over the country as a whole. I accept that if one throws enough money at the problem the figure will begin to decrease. I expect that there will be cheers from the Labour Benches at some stage in this Parliament; I did not imagine that it would happen within one year, but perhaps within in two or three years the Government will say that they have reduced the number of patients not being treated compared with a figure when the Conservatives were in power.
    How did the Government get into this situation? There is one simple reason—
    Helen Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Horam: Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me complete my sentence. It is because they have not
    172
    continued the funding that we put into the NHS. They have reduced the steady increase of extra funding that the Conservative Government put into the NHS year after year. The present Government are now increasing it—as they did previously—by 2 per cent. a year; we increased it by more than 3 per cent. a year when we were in power. That is the difference between us.
    All the recycled pledges, recycled beds and recycled figures do not add up to anything by comparison with the simple fact that the present Government are spending less than we achieved throughout our 18 years in power. They have cut the increase—
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman was voting against the Conservative Government for much of the time—he was a Liberal.
    Mr. Horam: The present Government have cut the year-by-year increase in NHS funding achieved by the Conservative party. That is the simple fact. Even the Secretary of State's brusque interventions cannot conceal the fundamental facts about the NHS. The Government have cut spending. That is not what the public expected and none of the Government's recycled pledges can detract from that reality.
    What are the Government trying to do to get out of the mess that, as the Secretary of State admitted, he created by his injudicious pledges? He is trying to bully managers throughout the country into giving priority to reducing waiting lists. That is not a sensible way to carry on.
    Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Horam: No.
    As the Secretary of State should know, even he, as Secretary of State, cannot turn round this supertanker with his own hands. He counts on the 1 million people—he keeps quoting that figure—employed in the national health service to do the job for him. They are the people at the chalkface.
    If he knows anything, the Secretary of State should know that one cannot declare that, in one six-month period, priority will be given to accident and emergency services and, in the next, to waiting lists; the people will have gone. If, in one period, priority is given to accident and emergency consultants and nurses, they cannot be switched to orthopaedics, gastroenterology or urology in the next six months. The people cannot be made to reappear out of the hedgerows of the national health service once they have gone. One cannot run a service that way.
    I repeat the argument made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey: the reduction of waiting lists is the wrong target. What matters to the ordinary person in the street is not waiting lists—whatever they may be—but waiting times. Under the previous Conservative Government, in the period after 1988, when the reforms were introduced, the average waiting time decreased from nine months to four months. That was one of the previous Government's major achievements. The average waiting time for treatment was reduced by more than half during those seven or eight years.
    Labour failed to address that issue in its famous pledge. The Government are now failing to address it in their attempts to bring their pledges under control, and they

    173
    will continue to fail to address it if they continue with the absurd reduction of waiting lists aim as a result of their pledge—a cross that they took up themselves.
    What should the Government be doing? The hon. Member for Harrow, West asked what the Conservatives would do if we were once again in power. First, we would reintroduce Conservative levels of spending —as the Government should. We increased spending by 3 per cent. in real terms over 18 years.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Under the spending plans that the hon. Gentleman must have agreed, my health authority would have received two and a half times less than the current Government are giving it.
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman may talk about his authority until he is blue in the face. In the country as a whole, spending increased by 3 per cent. in real terms, on average, during the last 18 years of Conservative government. It has increased by only 2 per cent. in the first two years of the Labour Government. That is fact, and it is one reason why waiting lists have lengthened.
    I hope, as a Conservative Back Bencher, that if we were returned to power we would increase spending to the levels that we achieved in the last period of Conservative power. If the Government were to do so over the next three years—they are approaching the end of their comprehensive spending review, so in a few weeks we shall know what health will receive—it would cost them approximately £10 billion over three years. If, at the end of July. the Department does not receive at least £10 billion for health spending, the Government will have failed, over the next three years—never mind over the Parliament—to match what the Conservatives achieved over 18 years in power. The Government cannot get away from the fact that they are cutting spending by comparison with what we achieved.
    Above all, the NHS wants a regular increase in spending. No party in the history of the NHS has achieved that. The NHS wants to feel that it will not receive an increase of 5 per cent. one year, 2 per cent. the following year, 8 per cent. the year after and perhaps no increase the next. It does not want that because it leads to bad planning, as switching priority from accident and emergency one month to waiting lists the next does. The NHS needs a regular, sustained increase over three to five years—the period of one Parliament. It is time that we, as politicians, addressed ourselves to that point. The NHS is underfunded; at least we can achieve continuity and stability in its funding increases.
    Finally, the Secretary of State should consider his macho management style. People are working as hard as they can to fulfil these ridiculous pledges; it will not do to say that people will be sacked just like that. As a result of the Conservative reforms, we have built up a considerable core of clinical directors who are both managers and clinicians and know what life is like at the chalkface in the NHS. It simply is not good enough to produce diktats from Whitehall, or the Kremlin in Leeds, and expect them to follow them. We should trust them to manage the NHS as it should be managed. The Secretary of State would receive a much better response by doing so than by coming out with these absurd proposals. I hope
    174
    that we would do so if we were returned to power. That would produce a better NHS than the Government are likely to, on their present plans.
    5.56 pm
    Mrs. Alice Mahon: I support the Secretary of State's amendment to the Opposition motion.
    I am pleased that the shadow Secretary of State is in her place. She made an inadequate but not surprising speech, given that she is on record as saying recently that
    "Conservative policy isn't going anywhere, because we haven't actually worked out a policy."
    I understand that both she and her deputy—her sidekick—have very little experience of the NHS, as they both go private.
    I should like to place on the record the fact that the shadow Secretary of State cannot escape her past. Not only is she inexperienced in the NHS; her most famous encounter with the NHS was when, as a Home Office Minister, she advocated shackling pregnant prisoners. She now pretends that she did not support the policy, but that is untrue—and I know, because I obtained an Adjournment debate on the subject during that period.
    We need to explain how our policies will shorten waiting lists—they will shorten, because our approach is radically different from that of the Conservatives. As the Secretary of State outlined, we want to mould health services to meet patients' needs. That means modernising waiting lists. We want to increase public confidence in the NHS; shortening waiting lists is part of that process.
    However, as the Secretary of State said, the national health service is a huge organisation. I accept that more than 1 million people work for it and that it will take some turning around. The national health service was neglected for 18 years; that is why we were returned with a landslide majority. The Conservatives seem to have learnt nothing from the state that they are in as a party, having been judged by the public on what they did to the national health service.
    In the past 14 months, we have made a real start. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said, more than 850 schemes are now in place to shorten waiting lists. We have given an extra £2 billion for the national health service throughout the country and started the biggest hospital building programme in its history. One of the most important things we have done is publish a White Paper that sets out our far-reaching programme; it has some vision in it.
    We have started to dismantle the internal market. Anyone who is still pleading in its favour has been silent today—I believe because Conservative Members have realised that it only produced a huge paper chase and increased administration and billing.
    We are focusing on quality. I am pleased about the development of the national services framework to improve access and quality across the country. I am excited by the proposals for a commission for health improvement and the national institute for clinical excellence. Two recent scandals highlight the need for those initiatives. The Opposition were in charge when those scandals were occurring and being covered up. The Bristol case and the failure of cancer screening in Exeter and at Kent and Canterbury damaged public confidence in the NHS and demonstrate clearly the need for an added safeguard.

    175
    Doctors from the commission will visit NHS trusts at least every three to four years. Where was such monitoring of quality and access when the Conservatives were in power? It was non-existent, and if hon. Members raised the matter in the House they were told to shut up because the Conservatives were doing everything right—but we know that they were not. That initiative is welcome if it will help to reduce waiting lists and wastefulness in the health service.
    The figures that will be collected will cover various aspects of clinical care, including hospital deaths, complication rates after operations, death rates after heart attacks and death rates after fractured neck of femur. Such information can help a national health service that knows where it is going. Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the health service does know where it is going.
    The Green Paper on public health, with its proposals for tackling health inequalities and reducing avoidable death and illness, is one of the most radical initiatives since the inception of the national health service. By reducing health inequalities, waiting lists will be reduced. If people are not ill, they do not need hospital beds. The Green Paper is out for consultation now and will be a major step forward in breaking down barriers between health and social services.
    I compliment my right hon. Friend on his honesty about care in the community. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) may laugh, but for the past 18 years his party used a concept on which we all agreed to close down wholesale care for the mentally ill. I hope that he is not laughing about what we read in the papers about the tragedies of mentally ill patients such as Christopher Edwards and Richard Linford. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels a little guilty about that, because his party was in charge when the scandal took place.
    The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) spoke about a little boy. I wonder whether she would like to speak to the parents of Christopher Edwards, who was not on a waiting list. There were no beds for him or Richard Linford and they ended up in a prison cell together. My right hon. Friend is to be commended on recognising that community care needs a good shake-up and that we did not get it right over the past 18 years.
    The Green Paper is relevant to keeping down waiting lists. We must provide more access to treatment more quickly. We must recognise that health inequalities are tied into low income and that the income gap has widened massively under the Tories. We must recognise, as my right hon. Friend has done, that we need to do something about sex education, and about tackling drugs, smoking and bad housing. If we reduce bad health, people will not need to go into hospital.
    The Green Paper proposes partnerships between local authorities and voluntary organisations and talks about going into schools to preach about preventable health problems. All that was anathema to the Conservatives when they were in power. They had their chance and they blew it. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald may laugh, but I thought that her speech was superficial.
    The Opposition say that the Government have nothing to offer hon. Members by way of extra resources. Let me put on record what we have in Calderdale. We are on the
    176
    verge of being signed up for a new hospital. I pleaded with the Conservative Government for 18 years for a new hospital and now we are about to get one. We have received extra money from the waiting list initiative, over and above inflation.
    Our health authority received an extra £118,000 for breast cancer, which was extremely welcome. The previous Government neglected that area, even though many of us in the House pushed it for years. Twenty-seven beds that were due for closure under the previous Government are now to be kept open. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald tells us that we are getting less, but we have the facts at our fingertips so we know that we are getting more. It is there for all to see and it will be good for my constituents.
    We are getting rid of the hated internal market and replacing it with integrated care. The idea of GP commissioning is far superior to GP fundholding. We do not want to continue with a system that wasted money—and we all know the scandals that arose from it.
    The Leader of the Opposition has seen fit to appoint a rather intolerant and narrow-minded shadow Secretary of State. The British people will have noted that move. They have never trusted the Tories with the national health service and they never will again.
    6.6 pm
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I welcome the opportunity to debate bed closures and to support the Opposition motion. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for her support for my local hospital, Kent and Canterbury, which is faced with a rundown virtually to cottage hospital status if East Kent health authority's proposals are adopted. Just last week our community health council stated that those proposals were unacceptable in their present form.
    East Kent health authority has repeatedly failed to identify the aim of its proposals. It keeps quoting a view with which everyone agrees—that working practices and configurations must change as patients' requirements and expectations rise—but nowhere has it identified a clear objective. In its consultation document it rules out money as the main driving force, and instead refers vaguely to
    "factors involving the supply of doctors, the way they train and the new ways they need to work".
    One of the two principal bodies responsible for policing doctors' training and working practices, the Royal College of Physicians, stated at the outset that it disagreed with the proposals, and local representatives of the Royal College of Surgeons have more recently given a clean bill of health to local acute hospitals and stated that they do not see the need for the proposals. Why does not the Department tell EKHA to go back and think again about proposals that have generated tens of thousands of objections from the community?
    East Kent has recently suffered from bed shortages, so it beggars belief that the closure of nearly 400 beds at the hospital and a large number at Dover is proposed. Even meeting EKHA' s reduced bed totals under the proposal would mean expanding bed provision at Ashford and Thanet, despite recruiting shortages in Thanet.
    Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend is aware that an almost certain consequence of Kent and Canterbury's proposals would be the transfer of cancer care

    177
    to Canterbury and the closure of the unit at Maidstone. I cannot believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) would welcome that on behalf of her constituents. More important, the proposal would lead inexorably to the closure of Faversham hospital, Whitstable and Tankerton hospital, Queen Victoria hospital, Herne Bay hospital and Deal hospital and the downgrading of the Buckland hospital in Dover—a town larger than Canterbury.
    I do not believe that my constituents in Herne Bay would welcome the loss of beds in the Queen Victoria or Herne Bay, or the loss of facilities there and the potential for the development of telemedicine. Does my hon. Friend believe that his constituents would welcome such a loss at the Whitstable and Tankerton hospital?
    Mr. Brazier: The Kent and Canterbury proposals—which I support—do not include downgrading the cancer facility in Maidstone. Rather, they make it quite clear that we need both facilities in Kent: one to cover the east and one to cover the west. They do not challenge any community hospitals and they certainly do not threaten the Whitstable and Tankerton hospital, whose support group is also championing the cause of Kent and Canterbury hospital.
    As well as threatening a large reduction in bed numbers in East Kent at a time of bed shortages, East Kent health authority's proposals threaten our five regional specialties. The cancer care facility at Kent and Canterbury was one of only three last year to win a charter mark for excellence. If that unit were closed, it would move out of East Kent, resulting in some 20,000 patient visits each year for radiotherapy alone to Maidstone—which has the closest alternative unit. That would have knock-on effects for people awaiting treatment in Maidstone. Renal and haemophilia treatment, neurophysiology and neonatal intensive care would also have to leave Kent and Canterbury, and some services would leave East Kent. EKHA has admitted that the destruction and rebuilding of those teams elsewhere involves considerable risk. However, as the community health council points out, the health authority has done no proper risk analysis of its proposals.
    The loss of access to a broad range of other acute medical services is also a cause of huge disquiet in the community. Almost all individual responses to EKHA's proposals from outside the Isle of Thanet—which comprises less than a quarter of the population—have opposed the changes. For the people who live in the Canterbury city council area, which on its own has a larger population and a larger elderly population than the Thanet district council area, and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for the tens of thousands of people who live in small villages in other districts that are served by Kent and Canterbury—Canterbury is the hub of the bus system for the whole of east Kent—the proposals represent a serious threat.
    Any private sector organisation that invested heavily in two sites—an acute hospital was built recently in Thanet and many millions of pounds have been invested in regional specialties at the Kent and Canterbury in the past few years—and then said that it had to close one or other of those facilities would be reasonably expected to take some trouble over its financial estimates.
    178
    East Kent health authority, however, submitted its estimates for changes in cancer care without consulting Maidstone, although Maidstone will be pivotal to the health authority's cancer proposals. EKHA appears to have ignored the costs of redundancy payments to consultants, nurses and other staff who may choose not to move to another location, and its proposals appear to have built in nothing for the extra ambulance costs involved in moving more people greater distances. Above all, the health authority's wholly unrealistic bed numbers make the financial side of the proposal laughable.
    Closure of Kent and Canterbury would mean that East Kent would lose a hospital which, partly because of its proximity to the university and the extra educational and training facilities that it provides, has proved extremely effective in attracting talent to the region. It has proved possible to utilise talents across all three major acute sites by working together on the children's site. That would not be possible if we lost the middle site in the region; the extended distance and the additional time that it would take to travel between Ashford and Thanet would make joint working impractical.
    I hope that East Kent health authority will see sense. I hope that, at its meeting in a few days' time, it will reconsider and not seek to drive through its proposal—and I am delighted that Canterbury and Thanet community health council has made clear its intention to refer the matter to the Secretary of State if EKHA persists. I hope that the Secretary of State will listen hard to the counsel not only of several Conservative Members but of the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt), who participated in a recent delegation to Downing street on the subject. I hope that the Secretary of State will throw out this dreadful proposal that threatens to do much damage to the people of East Kent.
    6.14 pm
    Ms Rosie Winterton: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. We all know from our postbags the anguish that is caused to people awaiting NHS treatment. I have personal experience of that as my father has been waiting some months for a knee operation, and I am aware of how waiting can put people's lives on hold. It affects not only the person awaiting treatment, but his or her family. That is why I think that the Government's commitment to reducing waiting lists is so important.
    Doncaster health authority in my constituency has warmly welcomed the Government's initiative. Even though the health authority already has the smallest number of people waiting more than 12 months for treatment in the Trent region, the extra £1.7 million that the authority has been allocated has allowed it to agree a waiting list target of 4,600 to be achieved by the end of March next year.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) referred to the importance of going back to 1991 when examining the whole picture regarding waiting lists, but I am happy to go back to 1997. In April of that year, the waiting list was 5,773. That means that, by next year, the waiting list will have been cut by 1,200. My health authority also expects that substantial progress will be made in reducing the waiting list by September this year. The built-in incentive of receiving £170,000 on top of the funds already allocated has concentrated minds on making real progress in reducing waiting lists. That can only benefit my constituents.

    179
    We cannot look at the waiting lists initiative in isolation. My hon. Friend referred to the health action zones, and Doncaster is a part of one. The zones enable the health authority and local social services departments to work together on several initiatives, particularly tackling the effects of industrial diseases and the problem of teenage pregnancies. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) referred to the partnership between social services and the health service. I believe that it is vital to get the balance right, as that is the way forward when it comes to improving health services.
    Doncaster has also been awarded pilot status as part of the healthy schools initiative, which will allocate an extra £150,000 to schools to enable them to introduce health initiatives. We have made excellent progress with the establishment of primary care groups, which will reduce the fragmentation and division caused by the previous Government's policies and allow the greater planning of patient services by general practitioners in my area, who have welcomed the initiative. Substantial progress is being made in improving health care.
    Operations will always be cancelled because of emergency cases, which are beyond the control of doctors and hospitals. However, I think that better information could be provided to patients about the reason for operation cancellations. Too often, the letters that are sent out are quite brusque and do not include further dates when people might expect their operations to be carried out. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to give an assurance that we can address such matters.
    I have received a number of complaints about general practitioners who, without giving any real reason, refuse to take pensioners on to their lists. People sometimes get the impression that there are GPs who cherry-pick their patients, refusing those who need what they think might be expensive care. Would my right hon. Friend consider some form of appeal system against that happening, or at least ensure that more information is given about why someone is refused treatment? People feel resentful when they are taken off a list or not taken on one without the reason being explained to them.
    Before the general election last year, I visited my local hospital. Staff morale was at all-time low and the management was in despair. A few weeks ago, I returned to the hospital to present the staff awards. The atmosphere was completely different. The mood of the staff and of management was so much more upbeat. There was absolute certainty that the extra resources allocated to Doncaster health authority would have a great impact on reducing waiting lists. Having that as a long-term objective is something of which the Labour Government can be proud. It will make a real difference to many of my constituents and I am proud to be associated with any initiative in that regard, as I am proud to see a Secretary of State who has the guts to do something about reducing waiting lists.
    6.22 pm
    Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on her magnificent speech. It greatly cheered Conservative Members. I must be careful how I phrase my next sentence, but I am not sure that the Secretary of State for Health knows quite how to deal with my right hon. Friend. Certainly, we Conservative Members look forward to future battles.
    180
    I should say something kindly about Health Ministers. They are courteous, which is more than can be said of all Ministers. They reply reasonably quickly to letters, which again is more than can be said of all Ministers. However, their policies are deeply flawed.
    The idea that the Minister of State can go ahead and press his amendment is bizarre. If he reads the amendment carefully, he will find that it states clearly that no one has had to wait more than 18 months for treatment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald drew the attention of the Secretary of State to a case of someone who had waited 19 months. I think the right hon. Gentleman said that he would reflect on the matter. That being the case, it surely would not be right for the Minister of State to press ahead with the Government amendment.
    A bizarre feature of the debate is that anyone would think that Labour had not won the election. I thought that the Labour party won the election and formed the Government over a year ago. As we reflect on what has taken place over the past two and a half hours, it seems that the Labour Government are responsible for nothing over the past year and that it is all the fault of the Conservatives. Time after time, Ministers have blamed Essex county council, which was Conservative for only a month, for everything that is wrong is the county. Yet the Government, who are now in their second year of office, apparently are to blame for absolutely nothing. That is bizarre.
    I resent the insinuation from Labour Members that Conservatives do not care about the health service. We all know how cynical Labour is about the health service. We can all remember "Jennifer's Ear" and the other propaganda coups that went wrong. That is why I was drawn to read the Daily Mirror two weeks ago, when the headlines were less than flattering about the Secretary of State for Health. The right hon. Gentleman's relationship with the Daily Mirror now seems to be a little sour.
    Mr. Keith Darvill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Amess: I think the agreement is that the Minister of State will start his reply at 25 minutes to 7. That being so, I do not think that he would be too pleased if I gave way and took extra time. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), will start the winding-up speeches soon. It would be unfair on the two remaining speakers if I took extra time.
    The Labour party has been cynical in the way that it has used the health service. I and my family use the health service. We do not have private health care but, given the way that the Government are continuing, we shall need it. They have been cynical in so many ways. I was proud to be associated with Lord Moore and Mrs. Edwina Currie when they were involved in the Department of Health. I learned at first hand what an excellent national health service we have. That can be proved by the ages to which people are living now and the stage at which babies can be saved. Things thrived under 18 years of Conservative government.
    I heard my previous constituency referred to in a seated observation. I was proud to be associated with the health service in my former constituency.
    Helen Jones: Not proud enough to stay there.
    Mr. Amess: I shall come to that in a moment.

    181
    When the accident and emergency unit in my former constituency was due to be closed, I joined the march. The unit was supposed to be closed on the Friday. I had a row, first, with one of the Conservative Health Ministers and, secondly, with the chairman of the health authority. After a meeting two days before the unit's proposed closure, the health authority decided to keep it open. The following year, it wished to remove the gynaecological section. I again did battle with the then Minister. That section is also still in my former constituency. I was proud to lay the foundation stone for the cancer unit and for the hospice in my former constituency.
    I am pleased now to be associated with the various services in my new constituency. It is wrong for Labour Members to sneer and allege that Conservatives do not care about the national health service. Let us consider the record for which Labour Members are responsible since 1 May 1997. During the general election campaign, my opponent said:
    "Cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100 million saved from NHS red tape."
    Labour Members know only too well that they misled people. They pretended that waiting lists would be reduced. They did not lead the British people to expect them to be increased, and the British people never understood that the new Secretary of State for Health would say, "They have gone up but we shall get it right eventually." Who is kidding whom on that issue? The Labour party misled the British people.
    In my constituency, I am pleased that our hospital is a centre of excellence. It is the only hospital in Essex that has acquired associated university teaching hospital status. It is now a cancer treatment centre of excellence. It has received the King's Fund accreditation award. However, let us consider what has happened to hospital waiting lists in my constituency. Last year, there were 9,745 people on waiting lists. In only a year, the numbers have risen to more than 13,000. That is entirely the fault of a rotten Labour Government. The weasel words of the Secretary of State do not wash with me.
    I draw the attention of the Minister of State to waiting lists because I have no doubt that, when he receives his brief, he will tell us that they do not really matter. I was very impressed by an article that appeared in the Health Service Journal, and I shall quote from it. The author wrote:
    "Of course, some people claim waiting lists don't matter. I'm afraid they are badly out of touch with patients' priorities. Let's not forget the longest average waiting times are not for procedures of dubious effectiveness but for pain-easing, disability-reducing, highly cost-effective operations such as cataracts and joint replacements. Cutting waiting lists will cut average waiting times for these so-called non-urgent cases.
    As important, long waiting lists undermine public confidence in the NHS. They embody the sense of bureaucracy, slowness and inconvenience at the heart of declining satisfaction with the health service. Opinion polls consistently show that waiting lists are far and away patients' greatest concern about the NHS. By comparison with other countries' healthcare systems, they are our Achilles' heel. Like it or not, lengthening waiting lists are a powerful metaphor for the state of the health service. This remains stubbornly true despite the government's sustained attempts to divert attention to other aspects of waiting."
    I wonder whether my hon. Friends can guess who the author is. He is none other than the Minister of State, Department of Health who, in a few moments, will try to
    182
    justify what the Government have done since 1 May 1997. I agree with every word that he wrote in that article on 26 March 1998.
    We all know what is happening with waiting lists. Waiting list money is being spent on less serious cases, because other cases have an impact on social services, which themselves have insufficient funding. That means that seriously ill people, including those waiting for cardiac surgery, are not having their wait shortened and may die while on the waiting list. Day case surgery, which is relatively cheap and not life-threatening, but performance of which reduces waiting lists dramatically, is taking place under the new Labour Government—that is their priority. Patients often wait in excess of 12 months for joint replacements and have severely impaired quality of life in that time. Some are being forced into the private sector, using their life savings.
    A year ago, Labour celebrated at the Royal Festival hall, with the clarion call, "Things can only get better." They are not getting better for people who are struggling to pay their mortgages with increasing interest rates, who send their children to schools with increasing class sizes or who are waiting to have operations. The Government have let the people down.
    6.32 pm
    Mr. David Lock: First, may I reflect on why this subject has been chosen for debate? The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) inadvertently let the cat out of the bag. Was it chosen because Conservative Members are concerned about waiting lists, because people on waiting lists are suffering or because people on waiting lists pay taxes for the national health service without receiving treatment to which they are entitled? No. She said that waiting lists were the subject for the debate because the Labour party had msade them the subject. My party did that because they matter to people, to people in the NHS and to people who are suffering, which is why they were an election pledge and why they are important.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Lock: I shall not give way, because I do not have sufficient time.
    Secondly, primary care groups, which have been criticised by Conservative Members, will at least mean that those people who are waiting will do so in an orderly and equitable queue, as opposed to fundholding being a charter for queue jumpers. People must be treated according to their health needs, not according to the status of their doctor.
    Thirdly, we should reflect on the incompetence of the people who were put in charge of health services when the Conservatives were in power. For example, by last year, Worcestershire health authority was overspending by £8 million a year and had a cumulative deficit of about £20 million. Those serious problems are being addressed, and painful decisions are being taken, but it would have been better if they had been considered and difficult decisions taken before the general election.
    Mr. Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, on that point?
    Mr. Lock: No, I shall not give way.

    183
    The painful decisions that we are taking in Worcestershire will be considerably better for the extra £13 million, over and above spending figures that were published before the general election by the Conservatives, that has gone into the health authority as a result of decisions taken by the Government. There are options for the people of Wyre Forest, whom I represent, and the matter is with my hon. Friend the Minister, but if it were not for that extra money, there would be no options and there would be nothing for him to consider. Waiting lists in Worcestershire will come down, as they will come down elsewhere, as a result of decisions taken by the Government. For that reason, I shall support the amendment.
    Mr. Amess: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to include in an amendment a statement that he has reason to believe is inaccurate?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The Minister is entirely responsible for amendments that he tables or statements that he makes in the House.
    6.36 pm
    Mr. Alan Duncan: The terms of today's debate may have been set by our motion, but the climate in which it has been worded was entirely determined by the pledge made by the Labour party in the run-up to the general election. Labour promised to reduce waiting lists, which has caused us to draw to the attention of the House the way in which that pledge has been betrayed.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has covered—rumbustiously, as always—most of the arguments that I want to make, none of which, needless to say, was answered by the Secretary of State. First and foremost is the spending climate in which he pretends that he is beginning to fulfil his pledge. The key point is that spending under this Government is less than it would have been had the Conservative party stayed in office.
    The Secretary of State is unable to fulfil his pledge because, in his naivety, he has boxed himself in by making two conflicting pledges. On the one hand, he said, bogusly, that his Government would stick to former spending plans, but, on the other, he said that he would reduce waiting lists. Those conflicting pledges explain the predicament that he and his colleagues find themselves in. Worse, it has been announced today that inflation has hit 4.2 per cent., so his spending plans will be further eaten into by the Government's inability to stick to their economic targets.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) clearly knows her stuff—she spoke cogently, as ever, and the Government should listen to her. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) clearly does not—he has become an apologist for something that will not please his voters in South Yorkshire. I doubt that he will honestly be able to hold his head high in the streets of Rother Valley again.
    The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke a lot of sense. In discussing the deceit of this so-called early pledge, he joined us in pointing out the truth which Labour Members are not prepared to admit. The hon. Member for Harrow,
    184
    West (Mr. Thomas) read his brief—he dwelt on the past, but seemed to have little vision of how his party will honour its pledge. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), as one would expect of a former Health Minister, brought expertise to the debate, helping us to understand the detail of waiting times and the importance of times rather than lists.
    The hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) spoke as the House has come to expect of her. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made a fluent and thoughtful contribution, which I trust Ministers will have noted. The hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) seemed reluctant to address the Government's failure. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) was, as always, clear and to the point. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) addressed the House with some gall. I wonder whether he campaigned on the Kidderminster hospital in the run-up to the general election. He is becoming an apologist for the reduction in services. Where does he stand with the voters now?
    Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Duncan: I shall not give way, because we are restricted on time.
    The pledge on the health service—
    Mr. Andy King: Does the hon. Gentleman use the health service?
    Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman has been barracking throughout the debate. The answer to his question is yes.
    Given the Government's early pledge, 100,000 people should have been knocked off the waiting lists. Instead, they have gone up by 150,000. The Secretary of State and his chummy Minister are falling behind on their promise to the extent of almost a quarter of a million. To secure their fortunes and to recover from this panic—
    Miss Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Duncan: I shall not give way.
    Will the Secretary of State give a guarantee—which he failed to give the House when I asked him a week ago—that no other area of health provision will be pushed in the wrong direction to get the Government out of the hole they are in on their pledge? I see that the Minister is nodding. Let him put that on the record when he replies to the debate. Will he assure us that no other national health service indicator of performance will be pushed in the wrong direction to get the Minister and his team out of the hole that they have so deeply dug for themselves?
    Miss Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Duncan: I have told the hon. Lady, and I shall not tell her again: I shall not give way, because we restricted on time. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady had been here throughout the debate, I might have given way to her.
    The White Paper reforms are likely to make the Minister's problems worse. He should listen to what doctors say about primary care groups. They are being

    185
    compelled to form groups of 60 or 80 doctors covering about 100,000 patients. According to a recent poll by the British Medical Association, that is against the will of an absolute majority of practising GPs. We intend to listen to doctors, and it is time the Minister did so, too. What he proposes to do with GPs and with primary care groups will make matters worse.
    Mr. Barron: The hon. Member says that the position of primary care groups will make matters worse. How can he defend the fundholding system, which only 50 per cent. of doctors were eventually cajoled into? It created a two-tier system of health care.
    Mr. Duncan: If the Government are concerned about a two-tier system, they should endeavour to level up, not level down. It is typical of the Labour party and the socialist philosophy always to prefer to level down rather than to level up.
    What is the point of an early pledge if it is continually postponed?
    Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Duncan: I have made myself clear.
    What did the Secretary of State mean by "early"? He chooses to talk to his Minister in an attempt to ignore me. What was "early" about his pledge? The Government promised that they would bring down waiting lists as a first step, but it is becoming a bit of a last step. What does the Minister mean by "early"? Early in the morning, just as the sun is setting? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rising."] Morning has broken, blackbirds gone to bed? When the Minister replies, he should tell the House what he meant by "early".
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. In the county of Leicestershire, waiting lists under Leicester health authority have gone up by 15 per cent. In two years—which will be "early"—they will be just the same as they were when we left office.
    Mr. Duncan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Nowhere in the country has the early pledge been fulfilled.
    Miss Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Duncan: No.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that he will not give way.
    Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    In answer to a question from, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), the Prime Minister said that waiting lists will begin to fall by the end of this year.
    Mr. Tony McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Duncan: No, I am running out of time.
    186
    We shall examine the figures on 1 January 1999 to see whether the Government's delayed fulfilment of this pledge will begin to happen. [Interruption.] The Minister is laughing. The only reason he is laughing is that he hopes that he will get out of this Department so that he does not have to pick up the pieces. I hope that the Prime Minister did not give him an early pledge that he would be promoted.
    I look at the faces across the Chamber, and I wonder whether there is anyone left in the Labour party who is prepared to exercise his conscience. In due course, the Labour party will divide into old rebels and new robots. At least the old rebels have come into politics with an opinion, but they so despise their Prime Minister that it will take only a short time before they break ranks. The new robots, who have no idea why they are here, must look at their bleepers to know what they have to do. If there is a conscience left among Labour Members, some of them at least should join us in the Lobby tonight.
    The Prime Minister's credibility is most at stake. He is not here: he never is. He spoke in almost Messianic terms: he talked about making a vow, making a pledge, making a covenant with the people, making a promise. He spoke like the Messiah, as if delivering a message from the mountain top. He promised a better health service. Where is he? He is never here. What would he say if he were here?
    Mr. Bruce Grocott: He would say, "This is rubbish."[Laughter.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to be heard.
    Mr. Duncan: And I will be. Labour Members do not like hearing about what they will have to admit to their constituents. No manner of diversion will distract us from the fact that the Government have broken their pledge.
    If the Prime Minister were here, he would say, "Suffer unto me little children, and I will make you wait. Come unto me all of you who are ill, and I will make you queue. Come unto me all who are old and ill, and I will make you go to the back of the line." This is a cruel betrayal of people who expected better. They were deceived, because they were led to believe that, as an early pledge, waiting lists would be brought down. If hon. Members have a conscience, they will vote with us tonight.
    6.47 pm
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I hope that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) feels better for that. It is always better to get things off one's chest. Just a fortnight ago, when the hon. Gentleman made his debut at the Dispatch Box, he promised that the Conservative health team would be mature and constructive in debate-I think those were the words the hon. Gentleman used. I know that this debate is about waiting, but we are still waiting for that to happen. Thankfully, my hon. Friends have supplied the maturity and reflection that have been so sadly lacking from Conservative Members.

    187
    As the subject of waiting lists has inevitably dominated the debate, I should make it clear at the outset that those who say that waiting lists do not matter—such as the hon. Members for Orpington (Mr. Horam), for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) and for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—have got it wrong, for two reasons. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) kindly quoted from an article that I wrote in the Health Service Journal, in which I repeated what I had said on previous occasions: the longest average waiting times for treatment are for operations such as cataract and hip replacement operations.
    As my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) said, people who have to wait a long time for treatment have their lives put on hold.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: That is because of waiting times.
    Mr. Milburn: Cutting waiting lists will cut waiting times. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, the Tory Front-Bench team and the hon. Member for Southend, West have not grasped that essential point.
    We have already made progress on cutting waiting times, and we will continue to do so—especially for patients who are waiting for urgently needed cancer treatment. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), raised the case of a boy who apparently waited 19 months for treatment. I wish that the right hon. Lady had checked the facts before coming to the Dispatch Box.
    As our amendment rightly points out, on 31 March no patients were waiting more than 18 months for treatment, and that includes the boy who was mentioned. He will have an operation within the next few days, as the NHS trust had always planned. Had the right hon. Lady raised the matter sensibly with the Department, rather than trying, and failing, to make political capital out of it, we would have sorted it out immediately.
    Mr. Duncan: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Milburn: In a moment.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has asked me to tell hon. Members on both sides of the House that, if there are any other such cases, we will gladly deal with them personally. When we say that we will cut the number of 18-month waiters, we mean it.
    Mr. Duncan: Will the Minister confirm that the NHS is commissioning operations in private hospitals in order to bring down waiting lists?
    Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the NHS has been doing that for years. What is new is that this Government have instructed health authority and other commissioners always to use NHS capacity first, if it is there.
    There is a second reason why cutting waiting lists is important. The hon. Gentleman did not refer to that part of my article. The longer waiting lists are, the more people question the ability of the NHS to cope. It is no coincidence that, if hon. Members drive only a few
    188
    hundred yards, they will see enormous posters advertising the wares of private health insurance companies. Those companies recruit on the basis of one simple fact: waiting for treatment. Long waiting lists are the recruiting sergeant of private medicine.
    That may not matter to those on the Tory Front Bench, but I can tell the House that it matters to the millions of people who have to use the NHS day in, day out, and who want it to continue as a universal service funded from general taxation.
    Dr. Harris: Waiting lists can be cut if operations are not offered. If the private health sector recruits by means of longer waiting lists, why is it recruiting through health authorities that no longer offer operations for uncomplicated varicose veins or for infertility after nought, one, two or three cycles? The Minister should think carefully about whether there is now a universal service for some of these so-called non-urgent procedures.
    Mr. Milburn: The difference between my party and the hon. Gentleman's is that we want a universal health service that provides fair access to high-quality treatment in all parts of the country. I hope that, when we announce our proposals for improving quality and fair access—as we shortly will—the hon. Gentleman and his party will welcome them.
    Cutting waiting lists will be the single most important way of rebuilding public confidence in the NHS after all the damage done to it by Tory Governments. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), we will get waiting lists down by both investing and modernising. The two go together.
    We have earmarked an extra £500 million so that waiting lists will be lower in April next year than the record level we inherited from April last year. The cash will pay for extra operations, extra staff and extra beds, and will mean the biggest annual increase in the number of hospital operations that the NHS has ever seen—as my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) said—as well as an extra 3,000 hospital beds across the country. That includes 450 in this city, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) pointed out.
    This morning, the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton issued a press release. I am afraid that he is rather prone to that. It demanded that we publish a full list of extra beds and extra activity. That list has been published. Let me ease the hon. Gentleman's doubts by telling him about some of the extra investment that is taking place—
    Mr. Duncan rose—
    Mr. Milburn: I will give way in. a moment. First, I want to soothe the hon. Gentleman's fears and ease his suspicions. I want to bring him on side. He asked for the information this morning.
    In Leicestershire, an extra £4.8 million will be provided. It will pay for an extra 30 beds; it will also pay for an extra 250 plastic surgery treatments, an extra 407 ear, nose and throat treatments, an additional consultant, 1,300 gastro-enterology treatments, two paediatric consultants and 150 extra paediatric treatments, additional staff for 200 extra ophthalmology treatments, one oral surgeon, 143 extra oral surgery treatments, one orthopaedic surgeon, 1,171 extra orthopaedic treatments,

    189
    extra staff for general surgery and anaesthetic, Saturday opening at Leicester hospital, and 1,568 extra general surgery treatments.
    Mr. Duncan: Will the Minister answer a question that he has not answered so far today? Are those 2,000 new beds the same 2,000 beds that the Secretary of State announced on 2 June?
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: They are the beds that the hon. Gentleman's Government closed.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend has given the hon. Gentleman the answer. It is a terrible shame that he did not take the opportunity to be grateful on behalf of his constituents when it was offered.
    Investing, however, is only part of the story. We are modernising the whole waiting list system. Unlike the Tories, who also launched waiting list initiatives, we recognise that getting waiting lists down and keeping them down needs more than just extra operations in hospitals.
    The hon. Gentleman asked me for an assurance that no other sector of health care would suffer as a consequence of our getting NHS waiting lists down. I will give him that assurance, and I will also tell him that the Government will invest an extra £65 million to ensure that there are improvements in community, primary care and mental health services.
    Those are all essential steps towards modernising the NHS. This Government were elected on the basis of a pledge not just to save the NHS, but to modernise it. We never said that it would be easy—we always said it would take time—but deliver the goods we will. We are a Government who keep the promises we make. Moreover, we are a Government who are not frightened of taking responsibility. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took responsibility for rising waiting lists, he did something that no Tory Secretary of State for Health had ever done: he had the guts to take the blame. Tory Secretaries of State for Health always passed the buck; they always found an alibi; they always searched for an excuse. They never had the courage to take responsibility for their decisions.
    This morning, the hon. Gentleman said on the radio that cutting waiting lists was the yardstick by which the Government's honesty would be judged. He is not right about much, but he is right about that. When we get those waiting lists down—as we will—the hon. Gentleman, too, will have to take responsibility, and admit that the Tories were wrong. He will have to admit that a Labour Government will have achieved something that a Tory Government never managed to achieve: getting waiting lists down, and enabling them to keep going down year after year after year.
    Let us not forget that, for 18 years, the Tories put up waiting lists year after year after year. There were 400,000 more people waiting for hospital treatment at the end of their term of office than at the beginning. By the end of this Parliament, waiting lists will be at least 100,000 lower than the waiting lists that we inherited.
    190
    Given the Tories' record, I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald would do well to heed the advice of her predecessor, the third shadow Health Secretary our health team has faced. He advised the Tories that the best policy for them was zero coverage. Tonight, we have learnt that the Tories cannot listen even to their own advice. After three hours of debate, no one is any the wiser about where they stand. Do they welcome our efforts to cut waiting lists? Do they welcome the extra cash? Do they want more cash for the NHS, which we do, or do they believe, like the shadow Chancellor, that the Government's plans for extra investment are a waste of public money?
    The truth is that the Tories have no policies, they have no ideas, and they are out of touch with the 1 million people who work in the health service and the millions more who use it. They do not have even a credible position in opposition. Fifty years after opposing the very creation of the NHS, they are opposing its modernisation. They deserve to be rejected now, just as they were rejected then. I urge my hon. Friends to do just that.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 327.

    Division No. 304]

    [7 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Amess, David

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Arbuthnot, James

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Fraser, Christopher

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gale, Roger

    Baldry, Tony

    Garnier, Edward

    Bercow, John

    Gibb, Nick

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Gill, Christopher

    Blunt, Crispin

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Body, Sir Richard

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Boswell, Tim

    Gray, James

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Green, Damian

    Brady, Graham

    Greenway, John

    Brazier, Julian

    Grieve, Dominic

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hammond, Philip

    Burns, Simon

    Hawkins, Nick

    Butterfill, John

    Hayes, John

    Cash, William

    Heald, Oliver

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Horam, John

    Chope, Christopher

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Clappison, James

    Hunter, Andrew

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

    Johnson Smith,

    (Rushcliffe)

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Key, Robert

    Collins, Tim

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Colvin, Michael

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Cran, James

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Lansley, Andrew

    Day, Stephen

    Leigh, Edward

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Letwin, Oliver

    Duncan, Alan

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Lidington, David

    Evans, Nigel

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Faber, David

    Loughton, Tim

    Fabricant, Michael

    MacKay, Andrew

    Fallon, Michael

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Flight, Howard

    Major, Rt Hon John

    191

    Malins, Humfrey

    Spring, Richard

    Maples, John

    Streeter, Gary

    Mates, Michael

    Swayne, Desmond

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Norman, Archie

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Ottaway, Richard

    Townend, John

    Page, Richard

    Tredinnick, David

    Paice, James

    Trend, Michael

    Paterson, Owen

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Pickles, Eric

    Viggers, Peter

    Prior, David

    Wardle, Charles

    Randall, John

    Waterson, Nigel

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Wells, Bowen

    Robathan, Andrew

    Whittingdale, John

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Willetts, David

    Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Ruffley, David

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Woodward, Shaun

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Yeo, Tim

    Shepherd, Richard

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Soames, Nicholas

    Sir David Madel and

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

    NOES

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Cann, Jamie

    Ainger, Nick

    Casale, Roger

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Caton, Martin

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cawsey, Ian

    Allan, Richard

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Allen, Graham

    Chaytor, David

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

    Chidgey, David

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Ashton, Joe

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Baker, Norman

    Clelland, David

    Ballard, Jackie

    Clwyd, Ann

    Banks, Tony

    Coaker, Vernon

    Barron, Kevin

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Bayley, Hugh

    Coleman, Iain

    Beard, Nigel

    Colman, Tony

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Connarty, Michael

    Beith Rt Hon A J

    Cooper, Yvette

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Corbett, Robin

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Best, Harold

    Cousins, Jim

    Betts, Clive

    Cox, Tom

    Blackman, Liz

    Cranston, Ross

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Cummings, John

    Borrow, David

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Brake, Tom

    Darvill, Keith

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Davidson, Ian

    Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    (Dunfermline E)

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Denham, John

    Browne, Desmond

    Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Dismore, Andrew

    Burden, Richard

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Burgon, Colin

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Burnett, John

    Doran, Frank

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Dowd, Jim

    Byers, Stephen

    Drew, David

    Caborn, Richard

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Edwards, Huw

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Fatchett, Derek

    Canavan, Dennis

    Fearn, Ronnie

    192

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Fitzsimons, Lorna

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Flynn, Paul

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Follett, Barbara

    Leslie, Christopher

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Levitt, Tom

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Linton, Martin

    Fyfe, Maria

    Livingstone, Ken

    Galbraith, Sam

    Livsey, Richard

    Galloway, George

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Gapes, Mike

    Lock, David

    Gardiner, Barry

    Love, Andrew

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    McAllion, John

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gerrard, Neil

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Macdonald, Calum

    Godsiff, Roger

    McDonnell, John

    Goggins, Paul

    McFall, John

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Gorrie, Donald

    McIsaac, Shona

    Grant, Bernie

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McLeish, Henry

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Grocott, Bruce

    McNamara, Kevin

    Grogan, John

    McNulty, Tony

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    MacShane, Denis

    Hanson, David

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Harris, Dr Evan

    McWalter, Tony

    Harvey, Nick

    McWilliam, John

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Healey, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Henderson, Doug (Newcasle N)

    Mandelson, Peter

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Heppell, John

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Hesford, Stephen

    Martlew, Eric

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Maxton, John

    Hill, Keith

    Meale, Alan

    Hoey, Kate

    Merron, Gillian

    Home Robertson, John

    Michael, Alun

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hope, Phil

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Milburn, Alan

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Mitchell, Austin

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Moore, Michael

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Morley, Elliot

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Hurst, Alan

    Mudie, George

    Hutton, John

    Mullin, Chris

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Ingram, Adam

    Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

    Jamieson, David

    Norris, Dan

    Jenkins, Brian

    Oaten, Mark

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pearson, Ian

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Pendry, Tom

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pickthall, Colin

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Pike, Peter L

    Keetch, Paul

    Plaskitt, James

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Pound, Stephen

    Khabra, Piara S

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Primarolo, Dawn

    193

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Stringer, Graham

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Radice, Giles

    Stunell, Andrew

    Raynsford, Nick

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    (Dewsbury)

    Rendel, David

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Robertson, Rt Hon George

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    (Hamilton S)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Timms, Stephen

    Rogers, Allan

    Tipping, Paddy

    Rooney, Terry

    Todd, Mark

    Roy, Frank

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Ruane, Chris

    Touhig, Don

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Truswell, Paul

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Sanders, Adrian

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Tyler, Paul

    Sawford, Phil

    Vaz, Keith

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wallace, James

    Sheerman, Barry

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Skinner, Dennis

    Watts, David

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Webb, Steve

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    White, Brian

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

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

    (Swansea W)

    Snape, Peter

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Soley, Clive

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Willis, Phil

    Spellar, John

    Winnick, David

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Woolas, Phil

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Worthington, Tony

    Stevenson, George

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Stott, Roger

    Ms Bridget Prentice and

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Mr. Greg Pope

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House notes with pleasure the £2 billion increase in National Health Service spending since 1st May 1997; welcomes the allocation of £500 million to cut waiting lists by the end of this Parliament to 100,000 below the record levels inherited from the last Conservative Government; notes that as a result of record increases in waiting list surgery the National Health Service will be opening around 2,000 extra beds and keeping open around a further 1,000 in marked contrast to the cuts under the last Government; notes that by March 1998 no-one in England was waiting over 18 months for treatment, meaning that this Government has already achieved what the Conservative Government never achieved; and further welcomes the ending of two-tier care by the introduction of primary care groups which puts doctors and nurses in the driving seat of modernisation.

  Local Government (Scotland)
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I advise the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.14 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that Scotland requires financial stability and ethically sound local government; recognises the need for public confidence in advance of the establishment of the Scottish Parliament; and therefore calls on Her Majesty's Government to initiate an independent inquiry into the conduct of local government in Scotland.
  It is fair to say at the beginning of this debate that, whatever twists, turns and controversies it may give rise to, it will provoke less anxiety than the one and a half hours that we had to sit through earlier today. If I had had a prescription pad close by me during the second half of the Scotland game, I could have made a fair bit on prescriptions for valium.
  We have secured the debate to bring to the attention of the whole United Kingdom something that is well known in Scotland: the Labour party in parts of Scottish local government is rotten to the core. Council after council has thrown up tales of junkets, maladministration and financial deficit.
  Why is it that a Prime Minister who seems to take such an interest in everywhere from Islington to Tuscany, and in everything from Britpop to Frank Sinatra, has so much to say on so many subjects but so little to say about the corrosive nature of politics in his own back yard? We hear plenty of comments on Oasis, but not on Ayrshire. He seems to want to deal with luvvies, but not with Lanarkshire. We seem to have a Prime Minister who wants to be leader of the Government without having to be leader of the Labour party.
  We can give only a lukewarm welcome to the Secretary of State's investigation into direct labour organisations.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Why?
  Dr. Fox: Because it is inadequate and comes far too late. Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us when he, his officials or senior Labour party officials first became aware of the problems in North Lanarkshire. An editorial in today's Daily Record—which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree is hardly a Conservative newspaper—states that they knew a considerable time ago exactly what had happened in North Lanarkshire. I must confess, perhaps for the first time, that I agree that
  "nothing less than a full public inquiry rooting out all the unsavoury facts and naming all the names will do".
  Many sections of the Scottish electorate plead for such an inquiry.
  Mr. James Wallace: When did Conservative Members first realise that something was wrong with local government in Scotland? Many hon. Members recall arguing with Conservative Ministers that there should have been a full public and independent inquiry before they proceeded with reform of local government. Is not his plea for an inquiry coming a bit too late?
  Dr. Fox: The list of wrongdoings that I shall give in the debate demonstrates not only that it is not too late for

  195
  an inquiry, but that we require an immediate and thorough investigation into events in Scottish local government. However, the problem is not DLOs themselves or the structure of local government, but the culture of Labour in local government. The Labour party cannot be the solution to the problem—it is the problem.
  Although we can examine the structure of DLOs, the fact is that they are the creatures of whichever council they belong to. DLOs make contracts with the client part of the council and provide services. If they run up excessive bills, the client will simply provide more money. Such a practice certainly would not be accepted in the private sector. Nevertheless, such practices demonstrate the prevailing culture in specific councils.
  As the Government were so desperate to end the compulsory element of compulsory competitive tendering, they gave us the nebulous concept of best value. Perhaps it would help the House if I gave some examples of the operation of that concept.
  As part of best value in this year's housing maintenance contracts for the City of Edinburgh's council tax payers, tenders on an open-market basis were sought in only two areas. Tenders in other areas were "negotiated" with selected contractors, the largest of which was—surprise, surprise—Edinburgh Building Services. That "negotiation" led to an increase of approximately 14 per cent. over previous prices. That negotiated price increase allowed Edinburgh Building Services to make an unrealistically low tender of 67 per cent. in four tendered areas, effectively precluding all private sector bids from being considered. That reveals what best value means to the Labour party—best value for its friends in local government.
  Ms Rachel Squire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a prime example of a council failing to give best value to its council tax payers and of a council being guilty of gross mismanagement and overspending on various services was none other than Tory-controlled Westminster city council?
  Dr. Fox: In so far as the wrongdoings of Westminster have been exposed, I of course criticise them, but the hon. Lady is not going to deflect the argument. We are talking about local government in Scotland. The Labour party is in government now, and it is time that it faced the problems caused by its mismanagement of local government in Scotland. It is time that it had the courage to start dealing with those problems. It is no good Labour Members throwing into the debate one council in England as they will no doubt do this evening—that is usually what happens when they attempt to defend their appalling record in local government in Scotland. Yes, I condemn wrongdoing in local government and shall do so at length this evening.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  In the west of Scotland—
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why will he not give way?
  Dr. Fox: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I shall give way to hon. Members who are better mannered than him.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why will he not give way?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not for the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) to question why hon. Members do or do not give way.
  Dr. Fox: I am keen to give way to Scottish Members who can defend what Labour is doing in local government.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. 1 am an English Member of Parliament. Will you confirm that the Opposition spokesman will not allow me to intervene because I do not represent a Scottish constituency, although he represents an English constituency, too?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall confirm what I have already told the hon. Gentleman. It is for the hon. Member who is on his feet to decide to whom he will or will not give way. That was not a point of order.
  Dr. Fox: Perhaps I should have written one or two extra prescriptions for sedatives this afternoon.
  If we are seeking problems in local government in Scotland, we need look no further than the west of Scotland. In North Lanarkshire, an internal auditor's report has unveiled a catalogue of financial incompetence leading to a £4.5 million debt being discovered. Included in the auditor's findings was the case of a plumber—it has been well documented in the newspapers—who received payments totalling £54,000 despite being on a basic salary of £10,600. It also found that £800,000 of stock had been written off. Council chiefs have confirmed that the police will be called in if further investigations show that the stock was not written off but stolen.
  In the same council, a lollipop man has said that he earned £17,500 a year for 10 hours' work a week. Commenting on that, Mr. John Gillen said:
  "it was the best job I ever had … I couldn't believe my luck, during my stint as a lollipop man I took my wife and two kids to Gran Canaria, bought a new Escort and did up my flat."
  It appears that the council tax payer will have to pick up the tab for Labour's mismanagement in North Lanarkshire.
  The Minister who is winding up the debate—the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald)—has said that the North Lanarkshire deficit could be covered by a £50-a-head rise in the council tax in North Lanarkshire. That might be fine for those on the same salary as the Minister, but will not be much comfort to those who are finding it difficult to pay the already inflated council tax imposed under Labour. That comes on top of previous scandals that have afflicted the council.
  In 1996, the Labour leader of North Lanarkshire council had his office decorated with wallpaper costing £271 a roll which, as the Lord Chancellor would say, you

  197
  don't get at B and Q. His carpet cost £51 per square metre, and he had a new bidet installed—very PC—as part of a £600,000 refurbishment of Motherwell civic centre. In addition, the same council has spent £700,000 on an exclusive car park for councillors.
  Following the revelations in North Lanarkshire, amazingly, a shortfall of £3.5 million has been discovered in the DLO budget in East Ayrshire. East Ayrshire is also a very interesting council. There have been allegations of drunken junketing by Labour councillors. A council official, the deputy director of the commercial operations department, was threatened with the sack and challenged to a fight for refusing to buy councillors a drink on his expenses at a conference. The councillors concerned—James Carmichael and James O'Neill—were the vice-chairman and chairman of the commercial operations committee and effectively his political bosses. According to a report in The Herald, when the official concerned—Charles McIvor—refused to buy a drink, one East Ayrshire councillor said publicly:
  "Why the … do you think we bring officials to conferences?"
  I notice that there has not been the slightest challenge to the report in The Herald. The official's boss, Des Tierney, was then allegedly telephoned at home and told to order his subordinate to buy a drink for the councillors or his job would be on the line, too. The two officials have been suspended since February pending an internal inquiry into the running of the department, although it has emerged that they themselves were asking for an investigation as long ago as December last year.
  Perhaps more serious are the calls for an investigation into the relationship between the council, Cumnock municipal bank and the Cumnock and Doon Minerals Trust. Councillors control the bank and act as directors. Four of the same group act as trustees of the minerals trust, which was set up to improve leisure facilities in the Cumnock and Doon valley area affected by mineral operations. There is a clear conflict of interest, with councillors sitting on planning committees determining applications from opencast coal developers who contribute to the trust which invests in the bank which in turn gives loans to the council that it serves.
  Mr. Desmond Browne: If the hon. Gentleman's research for his speech had gone slightly further than press reports, he would have realised that East Ayrshire council instigated an investigation into the financial management of the DLO in November. It is hardly surprising that a response to a request by Mr. Tierney in December was of little consequence.
  Dr. Fox: The exact timing of an investigation is not the point. The point is the culture that exists within that council, which is obviously permeating all levels of management in the council and blurring the distinction between the duties of councillors and the duties of officials of the council.
  Perhaps the best-publicised recent example has been that of Glasgow. Glasgow city council has for years been rocked by allegations of Labour councillors trading votes for trips and of bitter factionalism between the Labour power groups. The votes-for-trips allegations spurred the Labour party into action that was billed as
  198
  one of the many attempts to clean up the city. Scottish newspapers were full of stories about sleazebusters coming in to clean it up and about hit squads but, of course, nothing ever seems to happen. Like many other investigations, this one showed that the Labour party's actions failed to live up to its rhetoric.
  The Labour party in Scotland confidently predicted that the very public suspension of and disciplinary procedures begun against its councillors in Glasgow would be an example to elected representatives everywhere, but today disciplinary action remains completely stalled in legal uncertainty. However, those are by no means the only problems facing Labour in Glasgow.
  In February 1998, it was revealed that David Moxham, a Glasgow city councillor, owed £3,748 in unpaid council tax dating back to 1993. Because of those arrears, he is legally barred from voting on any financial matter. The council and the Scottish Labour party have constantly argued about who is responsible for any disciplinary hearing. The Scotsman revealed on 25 November that another Glasgow Labour councillor and her husband who are at the centre of a political storm had moved into a £55,000 private home after leaving behind rent arrears of nearly £1,300 on a council flat, while raking in almost £40,000 of public money in the form of council allowances and urban aid-funded jobs. What is going on? Where is the discipline? Where is the clean-up that was promised time and again?
  Furthermore, the stories of Glasgow's wasteful expenditure are legendary. In 1997, when Glasgow was cutting key public services, it managed to find the funds to send some councillors on the following foreign trips: Rostov-on-Don for the Rostov city days event; St. Petersburg for a symposium on cultural policy in Europe; Rome for an international rose exhibition; and Hong Kong for a meeting of the International Badminton Federation. I am sure that all those trips were welcome for those involved, but difficult for a party that was having to cut essential public services. The council also found £810,000 in the same year to run its fleet of 28 luxury cars. Something is rotten there and it is time that we got to the bottom of it.
  Renfrewshire demonstrates par excellence why Labour cannot be trusted in local government in Scotland. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out at Prime Minister's Question Time recently, a senior police officer has said that if that council's chamber were a pub, it would have to be closed down for public order offences, so often have the police had to be called.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman go further and tell the truth? Every time that the police have been called, it has been to eject the Scottish National party members, who parade on the top of the tables, abuse council officials and disrupt proceedings until they are thrown out by the police. The problem is caused not by the Labour party, but by the SNP.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for lobbing a grenade into the debate, which will no doubt go off later. It is a strange defence to say that there is a party that behaves even worse than Labour in local government. It is hardly a defence for Labour's conduct in that council.
  The most serious issue in Renfrewshire is the Ferguslie Community Business security company, about which many questions remain unanswered. I hope that the

  199
  Secretary of State will tell us some facts about it. The report in The Daily Telegraph of 16 August last year—which was not challenged—says that more than £320,000 is believed to have disappeared from two of the firms in the now defunct FCB, which, as most hon. Members know, was allegedly used to launder drug money. Some £321,500 was supposed to have been used to pay casual workers who apparently never existed, according to a leaked report by the FCB's liquidator, Colin Hastings. Are there ghost workers in Paisley, or is there something more sinister?
  The FCB security company was set up in 1987 with almost £200,000 of public money from the Scottish Office, the former Strathclyde region and Renfrewshire district council. It is well known that local Labour activists were heavily involved in the company. We have never got to the bottom of what went wrong with the FCB. It is a serious matter that would not have been brought to public attention without the courageous stand taken by the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who is not in her place at the moment. We all applaud her courage.
  Is it not slightly—no, perhaps I am being cynical and should not say it. Is it not surprising that on the day that the Government are dragged kicking and screaming to the House to give an account of their stewardship of Scottish local government, we finally hear the decision on the suspension of the hon. Member for Renfrew—the hon. Member for Greenock? Perhaps we shall be told the truth. The Labour party has taken 10 months, with two investigations carried out by two different teams, to come to today's stunning conclusion that there should be another Labour party inquiry.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) is often in his place in front of me and certainly has not been suspended for 10 months.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful for the opportunity to check the constituency of the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham).
  When will we be told the truth about the issue?
  Mr. Malcolm Savidge: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I correct in believing that it is usual that if one hon. Member is going to attack another by name, they should inform him beforehand? Has the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) done so?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is normal in the House if one hon. Member is going to mention another hon. Member that he informs him beforehand.
  Dr. Fox: I accept that I should have written to the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire. If he is ever available in the House to pick up his mail, I am sure that he will get that letter.
  The debate is important, because local government will play a central role in the new constitutional relationship in Scotland. If Labour fails to take clear, decisive and public action, Scottish voters will assume that Labour in
  200
  a Scottish Parliament will merely be an extension of Labour's rotten boroughs in local government in the west of Scotland. The Secretary of State must take all the necessary action, not just some of it. The Prime Minister must take responsibility for his party. Sadly, the Secretary of State responds too lamely and too late. The Labour party treats Scotland as its private fiefdom and the Prime Minister treats the Scottish Labour party with disdain, putting as much space as possible between him and it. We need no more words, no more promises and no more time wasting. Labour is the problem, so Labour cannot be the solution. Someone must clean up the act and Scotland will demand that that starts tonight.
  7.35 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes with concern losses in a number of direct labour organisations within Scottish councils; and commends the swift action taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with them."
  I must start by congratulating the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—I shall not say reluctantly, because that would be discourteous to him and to the House—not on his speech, but on his appointment to the Front Bench. We can all safely assume that he is the first representative of Woodspring to hold the position of Opposition chief spokesman on Scottish affairs. I am afraid that I am coming to the conclusion that the view from Woodspring is a little distorted. There may be a plea of mitigation, given the distance, but the situation is unfortunate.
  The hon. Gentleman has obviously read a lot of newspapers. I am not complaining about that—Opposition spokesmen read newspapers. However, when making such serious charges, it is important that he should go beyond press cuttings. He referred to legendary stories. Some of the stories that he mentioned are legendary-they are not well founded in reality. I accept that the Opposition will make what political points they can, but, having read his charge sheet, I am disappointed at the lack of a single constructive suggestion. He did not discuss the future of local government or consider the realities of any of the problems. I regret that, because I would have been interested in something more than simple political knockabout.
  I accept that serious issues have arisen recently. The debate should be taken seriously by all those participating and spectating. For good reasons, I cannot comment on the security company in Ferguslie Park. The hon. Gentleman must know that the issue has properly been in the hands of the police for some time for investigation. We do not know the outcome of the investigation, and it would be improper of me to speculate, but I assure him that the proper authorities will act if evidence of wrongdoing emerges from the inquiry.
  What matters in local government is what works. I accept that there is clear evidence of some difficulties in local government in Scotland. Those difficulties must be addressed. The Government will not tolerate failure and inefficiency in local government, and will act swiftly—as we have done—to deal with such cases. There is a need for change in Scottish local government. I want to say something a little more constructive about that later. We have acted, and will act, on impropriety and the falling away of proper standards, as well as on the agenda for change.

  201
  The only precise question that the hon. Gentleman asked was when I first knew about the difficulties in North Lanarkshire. It was on 27 May. If he follows the chronology carefully from there, he will see that we have acted with speed and decision. If there have been any longueurs, it is because of the strictures of statute.
  We have proceeded under the provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Act 1988. First we had to tell the East Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire councils that they had a specified period—in this case three weeks—in which to offer an explanation and give full information about their direct labour organisations. That was done. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, when we have that and the other information that we require, we shall take what we regard as suitable and–1 hope—appropriate action.
  Dr. Fox: Will the Secretary of State further clarify the matter? The management services officer, Alex Haggerty, said, as the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware, that the council knew of problems concerning losses in the DLO in March 1997. When did the Scottish Office first become aware of that?
  Mr. Dewar: I first became aware of Mr. Haggerty's report—I am neither accepting nor rejecting it—when I came across it in a daily newspaper this morning. To the best of my knowledge, we in the Department did not have access to the document. I have already told the hon. Gentleman—I hope that he will take this from me as fact—that my first intimation of the difficulties was on 27 May. Indeed, a very senior civil servant to whom I turned learned about it from me. We have certainly not been sitting on information about the activities of DLOs and refusing to act on it.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: The precise suggestion in Mr. Haggerty's report, which is published in today's Daily Record and which I have read, is that four Labour councillors had known for some time of the situation concerning the North Lanarkshire DLO. If that suggestion proves to be correct, how will those four councillors stand vis-a-vis disciplinary action in the Labour party?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see, as I will. I do not know who the four councillors are; none of them was referred to by name. I have not at this stage had any evidence about the contents of the report.
  I do not at this stage know very much about Mr. Haggerty, except that he has left the employment of the council. I rely for that information on the press cuttings to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is not helpful to build great theories, or to speculate on such reports. Obviously, I intend to try to find out about the situation, and we shall take appropriate steps in order to do so. I was replying to the specific question of the hon. Member for Woodspring, who I hope accepts my reply.
  Mr. Wallace: There has been some speculation, and it would be helpful if the Secretary of State could clarify matters. I have been led to believe that the post of chief management accountant in North Lanarkshire was created
  202
  last year following expressions of concern by officials about the accounting system in the department that is now giving rise to concern. Does the Secretary of State know whether that is so? If it is, does it not suggest that councillors should have monitored what was happening?
  Mr. Dewar: I am not in a position to answer such detailed questions at this stage. We have taken steps to establish the facts, which I shall explain in a moment. Perhaps we can take the matter forward on that basis.
  I stress to the House that North Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire are two out of 32 authorities; there are 30 other authorities with DLOs. We have, of course, been trying to check the position in order to establish the extent of the damage and the problem. Other DLOs have deficits either on part of their operations or overall, but the distinction is that none of them is unknown. They have all been established for a purpose—for the management of funds—and are, to that degree, under control.
  One can argue about tactics, but there is a sharp distinction between that and what appears to have happened at the two councils at the centre of the storm, where undoubtedly matters ran out of control. On the face of it, there was a collapse of financial discipline, and a quite substantial failure of management systems.
  In North Lanarkshire, it looks as though the deficit is about £4.2 million. The provisional figure in East Ayrshire is £3.5 million. Even though there are variations on the figures, they give some idea of the scale of the problem. In both cases, there have obviously been very serious failures of management and financial control. As the House will know, DLOs are required, very properly, to meet a 6 per cent. return on the capital they employ. It is deeply worrying that deficits in these two cases were not detected or monitored at an early stage. Both became fully evident only after the end of the financial year in question.
  My first and immediate reaction in both cases was to ensure that the councils called in their external auditors to verify financial figures and try to establish the position. As I have said, I also used my statutory powers to require information and explanation of the councils. That is a necessary step, which I stress is to pave the way for further action. I shall return later to what further action I may take.
  On the face of it—I will not conceal this—there has been an unacceptable and intolerable level of failure and mismanagement in the two councils. It is indefensible; no one on the Labour Benches, or indeed in local government, is attempting to defend it. It raises three important questions: first, what is to be done about the cases; secondly, what is to be done to avoid repetition; thirdly, what broader lessons can be learned about the future of DLOs and, indeed, of local government as a whole, especially as we begin to consider the relationship between local government and the Scottish Parliament that will come into being in the middle of next year?
  I have already initiated the statutory process. I expect a response from the councils later this month. It is already painfully clear that the contracts under which the DLOs have made such losses cannot be allowed to continue. The councils concerned have already acknowledged that, at the minimum, the work will have to be re-tendered. I am not yet convinced that that is enough. The question clearly arises whether the organisations can deliver a proper

  203
  service in a controlled way without an unacceptable impact on the council tax payer. Before making up my mind finally on that, I will want to hear what the councils themselves have to say. We are waiting for that information.
  I want to make it clear today that I am perfectly prepared to use my powers to require the council, if necessary, to wind up the DLO and obtain services from the private sector in either or both of the cases. I intend to come to an early conclusion after I have considered the information provided by East Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire councils.
  I want the reassurance that we do not have similar breakdowns in management and control elsewhere. My Department has already approached every DLO; we have asked that external auditors be brought in. The Scottish Office has written to every council in Scotland asking them to check the operation of their bonus systems in direct works departments, and to report back. It appears—at least on the face of press reports-that something went very far wrong with the bonus system in North Lanarkshire particularly. I have certainly no wish to see any repeat of the bizarre anomalies that seem to have emerged in that council, which have been so widely noticed in the press.
  Dr. Fox: Leaving aside the two DLOs in question, does the Secretary of State draw a conclusion about the whole system of DLOs from the fact that a more direct relationship with the private sector may be the answer? Will he organise an investigation into how they operate in their entirety?
  Mr. Dewar: I certainly said—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was listening—that lessons would have to be learned in local government in a wider sense. I shall come to that later.
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: Although the Secretary of State is understandably dwelling on the downside, does he acknowledge that there are well-managed, well-run direct service organisations, such as that in SNP-controlled Angus, which produced a surplus of £250,000 last year while providing top-quality public services at low cost?
  Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman can always be relied on to paddle his own canoe—or perhaps his own coracle—in such matters. I do not want to comment on individual councils that are not at the centre of the matter with which we are concerned; we might get into some difficulties. The hon. Gentleman is making a party point. He could consider the DLO in Perth and Kinross, for example, where he might find a rather different situation.
  Mr. Welsh: I ask the Secretary of State not to destroy the whole system, but to accept that, where it works well, it does so in the public interest. Bringing in the example of Perth and Kinross is rather pathetic, since it had £1.1 million in reserves and has produced a surplus elsewhere in its accounts. That does not compare with the real problems on Labour councils, on which he has dwelt. That is where the difficulty lies. Well-run and efficient DLOs should not be wiped out.
  Mr. Dewar: We are not talking about wiping out anyone. I have no wish to go into this, but I understand
  204
  that Perth and Kinross faces a deficit of £450,000 in respect of its DLO and services. I do not make too much of that, but if we are talking about perfection in every respect, 1 mention it as a corrective.
  Mr. Welsh indicated dissent.
  Mr. Dewar: Perhaps we can agree to disagree, on that as on so many other things.
  We have brought the external auditors in, and will closely examine their results. We want final conclusions by September. We have asked the Accounts Commission for Scotland, an important safeguard that is totally independent, to conduct a rather different sort of audit starting in July. It has been asked to examine the financial and management control systems of every DLO in Scotland. It will be an important report.
  That may help answer the point that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) made by implication. The commission has the power not only to investigate but to comment on fault and on where the problems arise, and, if necessary, to hold public hearings on the matter. Not only that, but it can make recommendations and findings that come to the Secretary of State, which might include recommendations for personal penalties. I do not anticipate that, or make any assumptions. The House can see that we have brought to bear a battery of inquiry and expertise to try to establish exactly what happened and why.
  In answer to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh), I accept that the two councils are, to the best of our present knowledge, alone in respect of the scale of the problem and the background to it—the loss of control that appears to have occurred. I say this with proper caution, because we have not definitively covered every angle, but we think that it is unlikely that there are any more cases. That does not detract from the seriousness of what happened. The breakdown of financial controls inside the two councils was especially worrying, because it allowed the deficit to accumulate unnoticed. I want to be sure that that is not happening elsewhere.
  Mr. John Hayes: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that this is an issue of culture, not structure? That was the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox). Is there a distinctive, undesirable Labour local government culture in Scotland?
  Mr. Dewar: I do not suppose that there is any sort of Tory local government culture in Scotland. If there is, it is being carefully retained in a test tube while the antidote is produced.
  I accept that there are a wide range of councils in Scotland, very different in character, scale and size. There are many different councillors, who range, no doubt, in ability and character, but the vast majority try hard to deliver good services. Across the board, they succeed in doing so, by and large. They would be as distressed as I am by the fact that the two councils in deep trouble raise questions about the integrity and competence of other councils.
  It is important to ask whether, for example, it is right that the council tax payer should continue to bear the risk of failures of this sort. If something goes wrong, the risk

  205
  falls on the services provided by the council and on the council tax payer. It is legitimate to ask whether providing such services directly is the right way for councils to secure for their communities the provision that they deserve. I think that it can be, but I agree that there is a cultural problem.
  In the days of compulsory competitive tendering, with its rigid structures, which were ill suited and which failed, people in some areas became convinced that they should keep work in-house if they possibly could. There have been cases in which people have signed up for tendering, but without having their heart in delivering the results that tendering should produce: the best possible deal for the council tax payer, and, most important, for the person who depends on council services.
  In considering the introduction of best value systems, it is important that councils understand, and act on the basis, that the tendering process must not be weighted in any way, and that it should be a fair test of the market and the best way of producing the services that the users require. It is vital that we get that established, and that it happens in practice.
  Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State's point is fair, but does he accept that it can be greatly in the public interest to have effective direct service organisations and DLOs, because they can provide the cutting edge of competition in those areas? In most councils, such organisations work efficiently. The problem of management and uncontrolled expenditure in the two authorities should not be used to condemn the many councils where such organisations work carefully and appropriately.
  Mr. Dewar: I have already said that, in many areas, the service provided is good and delivery is up to standard. I have also said that, where there have been difficulties, we must get to grips with them and eliminate them. It would be as wrong to say that there should be no in-house services as to say that there must be in-house services and nothing else. It is a matter of balance and judgment.
  I am facing up to an unpleasant truth. There has been a tendency in some parts of the local government world, for perhaps understandable reasons, to be so keen to keep work in-house that we have sacrificed efficiency and not delivered services as effectively as we should have. That is what the best value regime is intended to put right.
  Mr. David Marshall: My right hon. Friend said that services may not have been delivered as well as they could have been. After 17 years of continual cuts by the previous Government, local government was reorganised two years ago. It was a shabby, gerrymandered, ill-conceived, politically spiteful and politically motivated reorganisation.
  Was not the problem that all the new councils and councillors, regardless of party, had to face the serious underfunding by the previous Government of all the essential costs of reorganisation? They put in some £36 million when an independent report by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy stated categorically that reorganisation was underfunded
  206
  by more than £200 million. How can we have perfection, with such underfunding caused by the activities of the previous Government?
  Mr. Dewar: My hon. Friend put his point passionately. I have much sympathy with the difficulties of local government. No one has denied them. We must get the right balance and framework in which services can be efficiently delivered. Best value, on which we have worked closely with COSLA, seems to offer that opportunity. If it is to be taken, we must deal with some of the difficulties that have arisen and that have dramatically struck down the management and financial control system in two important local government areas.
  I agree that compulsory competitive tendering did not work, because it was based solely on compulsion. I agree that it encouraged the creation of an evasion industry. That is why we have abandoned it, and asked local authorities to sign up to the best value regime and implement it willingly and with full co-operation. That is the road that we still intend to travel.
  However, part of that process is a tendering procedure—testing the market in the interests of ensuring that we are delivering services effectively. I am sure that I carry most of my hon. Friends with me when I say that we must adopt a straightforward, uncomplicated approach to get the best tender for the services, and, if they are in-house, to ensure that they are delivered efficiently and effectively as advertised. Apparently that has not happened in Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, and I regret that.
  I make it clear that we must now move forward and examine the whole basis on which local government now operates. The House will know that the public perception of the many able and dedicated people in local government is often undermined by the few who fall short of the standards that are expected of them. There is no doubt about that, and local government deserves better.
  As the House will know, we have suggested a new ethical framework for local government, to rebuild public confidence in its probity. Especially important in that respect is a clearer national code of local government conduct for Scotland, and a new national standards commission for Scotland with powers to investigate and to come to conclusions about the validity or otherwise of complaints that may be made about councillors or officials thought by some to have fallen short of the required standard.
  The commission will have the power to take decisions, and I hope that, when it is in place, it will approach the task with impartiality and consistency. I hope that that will reassure the public that, if there are complaints, they will be dealt with expeditiously. It will also offer an element of protection for councillors against ill-founded allegations—and there are many of those in currency at the moment. The development of best value on the basis that I have tried to outline, the new ethical framework, will do a great deal to help to deal with the problems.
  We must also consider some of the other difficulties that local government faces. For example, we are working co-operatively with local authorities on community planning, on the role of councils in community leadership, and on the way in which they can establish a good and positive working relationship with the Scottish Parliament that is to come.

  207
  We want to examine local government's standing in the community. If less than 40 per cent. of the people turn out to vote in local government elections, clearly that undermines the legitimacy of mandates, and makes it more difficult for those who operate on elected councils.
  Several hon.Members rose—
  Mr. Dewar: I have read the Liberal Democrat motion, so I do not think that hon. Gentlemen need to put their point to me. I accept entirely that this is not simply a Scottish problem. It is worth noticing that, at the English local government elections a few weeks ago, the average turnout was 26 per cent., which suggests that the problem goes far beyond Scotland.
  That may point to at least some of the arguments that will be advanced about changes in voting systems. It will be on the agenda of the McIntosh commission, which was set up in fulfilment of an election manifesto promise by the Government. No doubt its members will have heard the arguments, and will want to consider them.
  I do not intend at present to go down a technical byway, but I am by no means sure that the single transferable vote is likely to be the answer. However, I realise that we are all thirled to the baggage of the past to some extent—none more, and none in more distinguished ways, than the Liberal Democrat party. Undoubtedly there are questions to be answered, and we shall come to them.
  There is also the possibility of considering, as we considered in the past, the traditional committee system through which local government has operated over many generations. The system was endorsed by a Conservative party committee in 1993, but since then it has been under constant attack.
  I was interested to read a Convention of Scottish Local Authorities working party report that at least opened the door to change in that respect, by looking with some favour at some of the arguments for a Cabinet system within local government. Beyond that, there is the possibility of elected leadership in the cities.
  There is a great deal to consider, and, as I have made clear in several recent speeches, I am anxious that all those matters should be on the agenda. I do not want to rush to judgment today, but I believe that the McIntosh commission has an important remit, and that we have to consider all those possibilities, as well as how to attract talented people back into local government and broaden its basis.
  Local government is a vital democratic bulwark, and a level of accountability between central Government and the ordinary citizen is essential. It is also responsible for a wide range of services in Scotland. As the House will know, its total expenditure equals almost half the Scottish block.
  What we cannot have in local government is inadequate systems, inefficient management or an apparent lack of effective scrutiny. Those are cancers, and if they were to spread, they would do great damage to the whole fabric of local democracy. The Government are determined to put the mechanisms in place to ensure that they are rooted out. I am sure that I will carry the House with me when I say that this is an issue not between right and left but between right and wrong.
  At the heart of the problem may have been a culture of complacency in some areas, but that is something we can change. It does not lead to the conclusion that there is no
  208
  need for local democracy, or that we can in some way wipe out large parts of the remit and responsibilities of local government. However, it does put upon us a real and heavy responsibility to work with local authorities to put local government's house in order.
  As for the tendering process, I repeat that the overwhelming priority must be to get the best deal for those who use the services and for the council tax payer. The head count in the DLO is not necessarily the true test when considering such matters.
  Those are all important and serious questions, which go well beyond the immediate problems of two buildings and works departments in two Scottish local authority areas. Those represented very serious breakdowns in financial and management discipline, and I believe that I have taken the swiftest possible action to deal with them—action that I shall not hesitate to carry through.
  Those two examples point up a need, which the Government have always recognised, for a different and modernised local government in Scotland, marching alongside a new Scottish Parliament. We want a local government elected by more local people, properly accountable to them through new ways of doing council business, and attracting a different and wider range of members who demonstrate the highest possible standards of probity. Such authorities will lead their local communities through vision and influence, and will not automatically run all services as an extension of the municipal machine.
  We want a local government focused on performance and on improvement in quality and cost—in total, something of which Scotland can be proud. Despite the problems that we have seen, I believe that we are beginning to move in the right direction, and that many of the preliminary steps have been taken.
  We must learn the lessons of the unfortunate events in East Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire, and make the transformation. Those problems should be a challenge—a challenge for central Government certainly, a challenge for the new Scottish Parliament inevitably, but above all a challenge for local government itself. I am convinced of the importance of local government's place in our life in Scotland, and I believe that the transformation that is needed can certainly be achieved.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: I agreed with the Secretary of State when he expressed a view probably shared by the whole House—that there is a danger in such debates that the efforts of honest, decent, hard-working councillors will be undermined and tarnished because of problems that arise in a few councils. That is especially important as we move forwards towards a Scottish Parliament; one of the critical relationships that will have to be established is that between the Parliament and local government. Local government is concerned that the Scottish Parliament will attempt to suck powers into the centre. I know that that is not what any party in this House wishes to see, but it becomes easier to do that if local government has been undermined and given a bad name.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said that a prescription for valium might be required during the Scotland-Norway match this afternoon, but I wonder whether he needs a prescription to treat partial amnesia.

  209
  Reading the motion leads one to suspect that he has forgotten everything in local government for which the Conservative party was responsible. It is hard to believe that the words
  "Scotland requires financial stability and ethically sound local government"
  were written by the party that presided over Westminster council in the period when some of the greatest abuses ever in local government were perpetrated. The Conservative motion demands "an independent inquiry", but many of us argued that there should be such an inquiry before the unwanted Conservative reforms of local government went ahead.
  The hon. Gentleman admitted that perhaps it was too late now and that the independent inquiry should have taken place earlier—it is always welcome when a sinner repents. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) was right to point out that some of the problems facing local government arose from that reorganisation. The Conservative Government deliberately underestimated the costs of that reorganisation and today's local government and council tax payers are having to pick up that bill. In addition, I am informed that Strathclyde region left a debt of £79 million, which is also having to be paid by council tax payers. The Secretary of State has said that those responsible for running up the debt must accept that serious responsibility.
  It is undoubtedly true that there is a problem in local government. The Secretary of State was frank in saying that there was inefficient management and that there had been a lack of scrutiny; he even conceded that there had been complacency. He concentrated on two councils—East Ayrshire and North Lanarkshire—but never once acknowledged that they were councils on which the Labour majority was overwhelming. No doubt, Labour Members had been happy to go out campaigning for individual councillors in local elections and to claim great credit and triumph on the nights Labour swept to power in those councils. If there has been inefficient management, lack of scrutiny and complacency, it is Labour inefficient management, Labour lack of scrutiny and Labour complacency, because on councils with such overwhelming Labour majorities, there is no one else to blame.
  It is not just those two councils, as the hon. Member for Woodspring said. In Dunbartonshire, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities had to be called in to arbitrate; in Glasgow, there was the case of votes for trips in the cause of municipal tourism—"Glasgow's miles better", but Barcelona's miles further; and in Renfrewshire, as we heard, the police have to be on standby at council meetings. I sat with the Liberal Democrat candidate in the Paisley, South by-election, Mrs. Eileen McCartin, who is a councillor on Renfrewshire council, when she described some of the things that went on there; it was a real eye-opener to the journalists who heard the full extent of the trouble. The problems are not confined to two councils, but let me repeat: not every councillor should be tarred with that brush.
  Dr. Fox: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there is a fear that what the Secretary of State
  210
  wants—bad councillors brought to account—has been undermined by the fiasco of the Labour party's internal disciplinary action in Glasgow? That makes it hard to believe that the Labour party can tackle the problem effectively.
  Mr. Wallace: It is fair to say that a series of inquiries have been set up which never quite come to a conclusion. As long as that hiatus or state of limbo persists, the problems, the suspicions and the general undermining of local government will likewise persist. My own party got into serious trouble when there were allegations of racism in Tower Hamlets. We set up an inquiry under an independent chairman and we as a party were prepared to follow the recommendations in the report. The report was produced promptly and we responded decisively, but we received an awful lot of political flak—perhaps rightly so—into the bargain. However, we have not seen the same decisiveness when the Labour party has set up its inquiries.
  It is easy to use local government and direct labour organisations as scapegoats for what is, in fact, underfunding disguised as council inefficiency. The current Government must take some responsibility for the underfunding of services. It is also easy, when things go wrong, to say that the Secretary of State must act. The Secretary of State has, rightly, taken powers to act, but the tendency to centralise power must be guarded against. We recall that, not long ago, the Secretary of State was only too anxious to tell the Grampian police force what action to take in respect of its chief constable, and politicians and pundits on all sides were clamouring for the Secretary of State to be given more powers. It is easy to fall into the trap of centralisation, even in matters such as the democratic local control of police, which is strongly rooted in our traditions and should not be so easily given up. We must always be wary of the trap of wanting more power to be drawn to the centre, whether here at Westminster or, eventually, in the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood.
  Like the Secretary of State, I am greatly concerned about the increased cronyism of Cabinet-style local government and elected provosts, because it could lead to greater lack of accountability. It can be argued that a Cabinet style of government already exists on East Dunbartonshire council. The Labour administration there strives to conceal as much information as it can from opposition groups. Budgets have been allowed to escalate, without anyone keeping an objective eye on what is going on. The council set up a budget monitoring group—very laudable, one might think, until one discovers that it is comprised solely of Labour councillors. The efforts of opposition councillors to be involved in that group have been thwarted and cast aside by the ruling Labour group. Councillors have been able to take it for granted for too long that they will continue to be re-elected even if the affairs of the council do not run smoothly. The solutions must lie in setting up mechanisms for effective scrutiny, whereby councillors from all parties are involved in monitoring council performance, in addition to the sometimes highly effective external monitoring from the Accounts Commission.
  I make no apology for mentioning the importance of proportional representation. I do not object when a party that receives more than 50 per cent. of the vote gets a majority on the council, as happened in North

  211
  Lanarkshire, East Ayrshire and Glasgow; however, no party should have more than 90 per cent. of the seats on 60 per cent. of the votes, as happened in Glasgow. That makes accountability near impossible and makes extremely feeble the opposition's ability to keep the administration up to the mark. Under a system of proportional representation, there would be a greater opportunity for opposition councillors to hold the administration properly to account and to restore credibility.
  Without proportional representation for local government, there is a serious danger that a Scottish Parliament elected by proportional representation will not treat local government, if it is still elected under a distorting first-past-the-post system, with the respect that it should receive. Indeed, Scottish local government could be diminished vis-a-vis the Scottish Parliament if it does not change its electoral system. I also believe that, under a system of proportional representation in which there is voter choice, there will be no hiding place for the lazy and incompetent councillor, which is why we favour the single transferable vote system. Councillors who are simply not up to the job will soon find that the greatest indignity of all is to lose a seat to a member of their own party. At the last two sets of Scottish local elections, the Liberal Democrats have polled votes in roughly the same proportion that we have gained seats, so I can say without fear of being accused of seeking party advantage that the introduction of proportional representation would be to the advantage of democracy.
  It might seem strange when, in a debate that has focused on the mismanagement of local government finance, I say that local authorities and councillors should be given more responsibility for raising their own finance, but that will be essential if local government is to restore in any meaningful sense the concepts of local democracy and local accountability. The Secretary of State talked about low turnouts, which are of concern to us all, but I do not believe that the strength of local government or the re-creation of local democracy will be advanced by elected provosts or committees. What will be of considerable influence is the relationship between local government and central Government. If local authorities are dependent on central Government for 80 per cent. or more of their funding, the relation will always be unbalanced, so we must look for ways to shift that balance.
  That is why it is almost inconceivable that the independent committee set up under Neil McIntosh to consider the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and local government has specifically excluded from its remit the opportunity to consider the financial relationship between the Scottish Parliament and local government. If the Government do not change their minds about referral of the question of local government finance to the McIntosh committee between now and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, one of the first things that the Scottish Parliament should do is to ask the committee to consider that important financial relationship—indeed, it is almost inevitable that the Parliament will do so.
  212
  Without that, an important link will be missing from the effort to ensure that local government in Scotland becomes more robust than it is.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman's remarks reveal that he believes that a Scottish Parliament will inevitably intrude and meddle more and more in local government.
  Mr. Wallace: I have that suspicion, which is shared by many people in local government. I would want strongly to resist that trend. Devolution should not stop at Edinburgh. Where we can devolve more power to local authorities, we ought to do so, but that must mean that local authorities are established on a sound financial footing and on a proper democratic and accountable basis.
  Local government is the level at which most ordinary citizens have the opportunity to participate or influence decisions that affect their community. It is important that local government in Scotland is robust, democratic and accountable. There are many question marks hanging over local government at present, and some of the ideas that Liberal Democrats are putting forward would go a long way toward ensuring a regeneration of local democracy in Scotland.
  8.20 pm
  Ms Sandra Osborne: I speak from the perspective of someone who, until very recently, was a local councillor in South Ayrshire and who suffered the stresses and strains of local government reorganisation. Local government in Scotland cannot be discussed outwith that context or the culture of compulsory competitive tendering, which has existed for several years, and the constant attacks from previous Conservative Governments over 18 years.
  I am proud to have been a member of Kyle and Carrick district council and of South Ayrshire council. However, like many current councillors, I have recently felt exasperated, disappointed and stunned at the way in which local government and public service are brought into disrepute. I very much welcome the swift action that the Secretary of State has taken to investigate outstanding matters.
  I cannot remember a time in the past decade when local government was not in crisis, and the sustained attack over 18 years by previous Tory Governments is the root cause of that continuing crisis. I make no excuse, because there is none, for any failure to ensure that all duties are performed in compliance with the highest standards of probity and integrity. However, the Government have taken swift and immediate action to deal with problems and the Secretary of State has given an assurance this evening that he will not hesitate to use his powers, should that be appropriate, when the investigations are complete.
  Not for the first time, I have had cause to reflect and compare local government with activities in the House. Was the same swift action taken in the past to consider standards in public life as they affect the House, or was there considerable resistance to increasing public accountability through the disclosure of information on Members' financial affairs and activities? Members who have been here somewhat longer than I have may be able to answer that question. How many drinks on the house and free lunches do hon. Members obtain? Obviously, I accept that public servants, nationally or locally, should

  213
  behave appropriately, and I very much reject the macho bullying that has been reported in the press. However, machismo is the same whether it comes from the upper class or from the working class.
  In the Scottish Grand Committee earlier today, I heard described a scenario of local government out of touch with local communities. As a former local councillor, I do not recognise that scenario. Nor do I recognise the claim that local councils do not want to relinquish power to local communities. First, I take issue with that, because it is a sweeping generalisation. As a former community worker with Strathclyde regional council, I am well aware of the efforts made in the past to empower communities, particularly in the poorest areas. I am aware also of the work of voluntary organisations, funded by councils, to support voluntary provision of services and policy development. That wealth of experience is now being utilised under the new deal and policies on social exclusion.
  As a local councillor, I spent many evenings attending community groups in my council ward and initiating new groups to assist me in securing resources to meet the needs of my area. I was by no means unique. I know that many councillors work in a similar manner, which is why they have retained the trust of the people who elected them. Over the years, I have received much advice, wisdom and experience from many of the older generation of councillors, some of whom, sadly, are no longer with us. It grieves me a great deal to think that such sterling public service could be undermined in any way.
  One of the main problems that we face today is that many younger people gave up their involvement in local councils in the face of an increasingly centralised Government. People feel that local government has lost its influence; it has the power to raise only 15 per cent. of its revenue. The constant battleground that has existed for years between central and local government has taken its toll. Local government services became a political hot potato instead of a focus for community leadership, which they should be. Councillors and officials became more and more pressurised—but from an ideological onslaught, not from a genuine attempt to consider how councils could retain the important role of sustaining community pride and citizenship.
  The new Government are pointing the way ahead with partnerships that will give local government influence again—in particular, a partnership between the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government. I agree with the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) about increasing the powers of local government. Local government will in future reflect the wishes of the Scottish people, not impose Tory policies that nobody in Scotland wants, as happened in the past 18 years. I should like there to be a more constructive approach and wider involvement in politics at all levels. I have raised that matter in the House in relation to the Scottish Parliament, much to the disgust of some Conservative Members.
  It is my experience that, given the chance, most local councillors want to do what is best for the local community, regardless of their political affiliation. I have represented an area that has traditionally switched between Conservative and Labour support. I say with all
  214
  sincerity that, in my experience, councillors from all parties are very committed to the electorate whom they serve.
  I welcome the radical proposals from the Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament, which have been put out to consultation, to look at various voting systems and to consider how a wider range of people can become involved as councillors, including, of course, how more women can become involved.
  One of the major problems in recent years came with local government reorganisation. Many very experienced staff were lost to early retirement. There was chaos in the disaggregation process. Many of the new council areas are far too small to deal effectively with the strategic issues for which they are responsible. As I understand it, the decentralisation plans that all the new unitary authorities were asked to produce have sat on a shelf in the Scottish Office because they did not fit in with the Tories' plans and were only a paper exercise in the first place.
  In spite of all that, I can certainly vouch for the fact that in my area an incredible effort was made by councillors and officials to make the new unitary authorities work despite the difficulties. In South Ayrshire, a lean management structure was put in place and council departments such as housing and social work, and education and leisure were merged. Genuine attempts have been made to provide greater input by community councils, and a citizens' jury has been set up to examine council policy and debt.
  It is laudable to talk about empowering local communities, but those who have been involved, over the years, in making painful decisions know that with power comes responsibility. Democratic accountability is also a factor. If we are to involve local people in decision making, we must ensure that they have more than just a nodding acquaintance with all the facts.
  The citizens' jury is an interesting example. It recently began to examine the issue of drinking in public places. At first, the majority of the citizens' jury in South Ayrshire were in favour of a ban. However, after consideration and a realisation that many complex issues were involved, the jury has thought again and decided that a more in-depth inquiry is needed. That realisation quickly dawns on anyone who is involved in the privilege of representing others and exercising powers within constraints, only some of which are financial.
  I am very much in favour of widening involvement, and I am fearful of too much work— never mind too much power—being placed on the shoulders of one person. For that reason, I would be reticent about Cabinet-style local government. Councillors should be enabling, but not in the Tory definition of enabling, which meant washing one's hands of responsibility. The leader of East Ayrshire council has said that he will accept responsibility if the investigation shows any lack of responsible action and places it at his door. I commend him for that responsible attitude.
  I have every faith that the Secretary of State will ensure that any current difficulties are dealt with in no uncertain manner. The Labour party has an agenda for local government's future; I should like to hear more from

  215
  Opposition parties about that future. None of the Conservative Members present has any experience whatever—
  Mr. Dalyell: I hate to interrupt my hon. Friends truly excellent speech. She talked about the Tories washing their hands of responsibility. I place it on the record in her speech that, during the reorganisation of local government, some of us pleaded, begged and went on our proverbial knees to Ian Lang and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton to ask them to listen, and we were absolutely spurned.
  Ms Osborne: It comes as no surprise to me that that was happening in the House as well as in local government, where our words also fell on deaf ears. In South Ayrshire, the boundaries that we got were not the boundaries that the local area needed, but those that the Conservatives believed would gain them more seats. As it turned out, they got four seats out of 25, so it did not work—but they tried.
  It is notable that, by definition, none of the Conservative Members present has any experience of local government in Scotland. I find some of their attitude and some of their remarks about local councillors in Scotland very patronising and deeply offensive to those who do a very hard job on the community's behalf.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the comments of the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), arguing that there was a culture of corruption within Labour local authorities, were deeply offensive? I do not remember any of us saying, when some Conservative Members were accepting large amounts of cash in brown envelopes, that it was a Tory culture and they were all at it. Why, then, are the official Opposition launching this attack? It is deeply offensive to honest, decent, hard-working councillors, who have a majority.
  Ms Osborne: That is a well-made point, which will be noted by the people of Scotland as well as those present tonight.
  The Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament will report, and I believe that that will lead to radical change. For the sake of the Scottish people, it is vital that we go ahead on the basis of a revitalised local authority system, which has the credibility of civic pride—which has very much been enjoyed in Scotland—but in a way that reflects the needs of today's local government.
  8.32 pm
  Mr. Andrew Welsh: I support the plea made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) on behalf of the very many hard-working local councillors from all parties who—week in, week out—do tremendous work for local communities. On their behalf, we should all condemn anyone who lowers the standard and brings the system into disrepute. My background, also, is in local government and I know its value and worth. Due praise should be given to the hard-working, honest councillors who work for their community.
  The Tory motion smacks of hypocrisy. The Tories starved Scottish local government of resources. When they were in power, they placed extra statutory burdens
  216
  on local councils and forced through a root-and-branch reorganisation against the clearly expressed wishes of the Scottish people. The Tories started the process of movement toward enabling authorities, with the consequent destruction of service departments and the loss of tens of thousands of jobs that affected communities throughout Scotland.
  Since their total rejection by the electorate, the Tories have apologised for their treatment of local government. I suppose a death-bed confession is better than nothing, but it is no consolation to local authorities, the remaining staff or the communities they serve. It is an almighty insult for the Tory motion now to call for an investigation into all local government and every aspect of local government in Scotland when the problems of direct labour organisation incompetence relate to a limited number of very badly managed Labour one-party states. The efficient, professional, well-managed many should not be lumped in with the incompetent, corrupt few.
  The North Lanarkshire report—an internal document from the North Lanarkshire council management services section—condemns the Labour-run direct labour organisation for its appalling "runaway Bonus Scheme". Taxpayers poured millions of pounds into a gaping financial hole that Labour councillors chose to ignore for more than a year. That damning report shows that the Labour party in North Lanarkshire swept away even the checks, balances and accountability procedures of the old Monklands and Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district councils, replacing them with the worst elements of the discredited Strathclyde region.
  Under the system used by the district councils, the doomed bonus system could not have been created, nor could its effects have gone unnoticed. The report clearly states that no fewer than four elected members were aware of the situation; moreover, it refers to a report of March 1997 that levelled the same criticisms at the bonus incentive scheme.
  Why on earth did those Labour councillors turn a blind eye and allow a system to continue which they surely knew would cost taxpayers millions of pounds and seriously undermine confidence in local government throughout Scotland? It is a fair question, and they should answer it.
  Those Labour councillors are guilty of cheating the people in their local wards and of discrediting direct labour organisations throughout Scotland, which perform as best they can under new Labour's punitive financial regime.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Terms such as "cheating people" are not expected in a parliamentary context. The hon. Gentleman is free to say what he wants, but he should bear it in mind that those men and women have families and that they have their own integrity. I therefore appeal to the hon. Gentleman for moderate language in these matters.
  Mr. Welsh: Perhaps the strength of my feelings has led me to express them rather too strongly. However, these are serious matters that affect everyone and they lead to strong emotions. I should like strong action to match those emotions to solve the problem wherever it

  217
  exists. I certainly do not wish to attack individuals in such a way, but I do wish to attack the problem that has been created.
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman has used strong language. Would he say that a member of a political party who is found guilty of fraud and stealing from the public purse should be kicked out of that political party and never allowed back into it?
  Mr. Welsh: I think that if a person is guilty of fraud, a criminal prosecution should follow and they should be answerable for their own actions.
  The crisis in Scottish local government not only exists at local level, but has been inflicted and encouraged by central Government. The Conservative party began the attack on councils with compulsory competitive tendering and effective privatisation of council services; new Labour has done nothing to reverse that trend. Best value retains the worst of CCT and imposes a top-heavy, bureaucratic structure that weighs the whole system down. It used to be said of some departments that they used to go out and cut the grass; now they appear to go out and measure it.
  Councils must meet the demands of the Accounts Commission rather than those of the electorate and the community they serve. Unfair and inflexible comparisons are made between authorities in socially and geographically diverse areas. Crucially, best value is being implemented against a climate of severe local government budget cuts. The Labour party has clearly and unambiguously taken up the reins of local government cuts where the Tories left off.
  In the last two years of Tory rule, council finances were cut by some £300 million. In Labour's first year, they have cut budgets by a further £150 million. The burden of pay increases was shifted on to councils and numerous additional financial demands were placed on local authorities without the money to back them up. That is at the root of the present crisis in local government. In addition, increases in pension costs, the effects of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, the landfill tax and the true cost of local government reorganisation have hit local government. All that has come against a background of swingeing budget cuts.
  The inevitable result has been a reduction in staff and an increase in work load. Among the first casualties have been the checks and balances that existed to prevent financial irregularities. Coupled with some rather inadequate actions, that has created fiscal and democratic disaster in North Lanarkshire, and it is repeated in too many other Labour one-party states. North Lanarkshire is a mess of Labour's own making, but it is now being used as a stick with which to beat every other council in Scotland.
  In opposition the Labour party was quick to attack moves that stripped councils of their powers and of their ability to provide services. Since coming to power, the Labour Government have subscribed to the Tory idea that councils should be little more than enabling bodies or
  218
  local management companies. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), has said that
  "fewer services under the direct control of councils has to be the future".
  I utterly disagree. Aside from the fact that that is an erosion of local accountability and local control, the evidence shows that such wholesale destruction of direct service organisations and direct labour organisations will lead to greater bureaucracy and lower standards.
  DLOs, their employees and the communities they serve must be protected against being undermined in that way. DLOs must be allowed to work in a framework that is efficient and transparent. The review that the Secretary of State has commissioned into DLOs all over Scotland is nothing but a smokescreen designed to cover the trail of destruction left in the wake of several disastrous and incompetent Labour councils.
  It is the Labour party's responsibility to demand that its own councillors clean up their act where that is required. To hide the shame of what is going on, Labour and the Tories are calling into question every council in Scotland, as the motion shows. The accomplishment of the majority of DLOs and DSOs, which include many in Labour councils, in the face of severe pressure, is threatened by Labour's determination to erode local government from above and by inefficient management by certain Labour councillors.
  The Secretary of State should realise that the problem is not with the DSOs or DLOs, but with his own party's inability to manage its resources efficiently and effectively. Local government in Scotland has been plunged into crisis and, instead of pulling it out of the mire, the Labour party seems to want it to sink for good. Fortunately, the people of Scotland now have an alternative. These are serious matters that bring into question local government as a whole. I want a strong, effective, accountable local government system. The sooner the problems are cleaned up, the better for everybody.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Michael Connarty: The motion is a false attack on the Government. It attempts to smear anyone who happens to wear a Labour ticket in a local authority. As other hon. Members have said, by imputation, anyone who serves in local government is smeared by the Conservatives. That is entirely consistent.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) pointed out, the Conservatives attacked Scottish local government during debates on their Local Government Bill in an attempt to destroy the credibility of local government by making its structures ineffective. The result was that the people of Scotland rejected the Conservatives thoroughly at local government level, and then at national level.
  Now the Conservatives are picking on a difficulty in a local authority that should not have arisen, as we all agree. It should have been found out through the proper structures and controls, but it is not enough to sustain the Conservative motion, which calls for an independent inquiry. In our amendment we commend the actions of the Secretary of State.
  It was clear that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was using a hollow lance in his attack on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It was quickly

  219
  shattered because my right hon. Friend had taken an honest, open and pre-emptive approach to the problem and had shown Labour's willingness to innovate in local government in line with our ambitions and the built-in errors of past structures. I am happy to commend my right hon. Friend's speech and to support the amendment.
  People seem to think that every time a councillor travels or goes to a conference it is a junket. I spent 13 years in a local authority, 10 of those years as a leader. Much of the travelling that I did and many of the conferences and seminars that I attended during that period were for the purpose of disseminating best practice.
  I commend the work of ADLO—the Association of Direct Labour Organisations—which was formed to resist the attacks of the Conservatives who introduced an environment of compulsory competitive tendering in which it was impossible to take into account many factors that were relevant to the recipients of local authority services. Those factors could not be counted as part of a good service provided because of the method used, which focused on the bottom-line finances and the bidding. ADLO found ways of innovating and was a leader in the discussions on best value that will be used by the Government to provide better local authority services.
  Perhaps some of the trips taken by some councillors should be monitored and the councillors disabused of the notion that they can travel abroad for a jaunt, even when the trip has no great relevance to the local authority. However, that should not introduce an atmosphere of no conferences in the local authority. Councillors and officials must be encouraged to travel, to meet, to study and to learn from each other so that best practice travels across Scotland.
  Local government should be judged at many levels. There is a level of competence, a level of vigilance and a level of corruption. Those who know North Lanarkshire and the authorities that made up North Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire would say that there was a great deal of competence in many areas in those authorities and that they would stand up to scrutiny beside the best local authorities in the United Kingdom and in Scotland.
  The local authorities may have fallen down in vigilance. The explanation offered by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) for other parts of Scotland was that they adopted a system used by a local authority that was not a district authority. Perhaps that method was inappropriate and the local authority lacked the fine tuning and did not have the spy glass on the right indicators to show early enough that something was going wrong. That can be dealt with by increasing vigilance.
  There have been innuendos in the tabloids that corruption was going on. The example was given of a labourer who was employed as a crossing patrol man. I was amazed by the suggestion, offered by the Opposition Front Bench, that that person had earned the equivalent of £17,000. My understanding is that he was a labourer, and that if he worked all the hours he could work as a council official at his normal rate of pay he could have earned £17,000 on any job.
  It happened that the council could not get anyone to fill the position of a crossing patrol man and therefore allocated to the job those people who were available—labourers. Perhaps that was wrong, but that is the explanation—not that the person was employed for a year and earned £17,000 as a crossing patrol attendant. I was
  220
  amazed to learn that that man could take his family to Gran Canaria, buy a car and refurbish his house on £17,000 a year. I should like him to come and look after my finances, because I cannot do that on my salary. I do not believe that there is room for serious accusations of corruption in that case.
  I shall not go over what my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) said, but there are many excellent councils that are innovative, enterprising and efficient. If one examines local authorities in Scotland, in 90 per cent. or more of the service delivery areas, all three adjectives apply.
  In my local authority area the anti-exclusion policy in local authority schools is beginning to win back pupils from that dark area where they drop out of school and into other habits. The early intervention and early literacy schemes that I have visited at Inchyra nursery in Grangemouth were the best that I have seen, and I have looked at education throughout the UK and across the continent, especially in France. Those schemes are excellent and are making great inroads in Grangemouth.
  In special needs education and the attempt to raise educational achievement for all pupils at all levels, Scottish local authorities are leading the way. When there was a Tory Government for 18 years, English local authorities would not have got into some of the difficulties that they experienced if they had followed the example of the many innovative and enterprising local authorities in education in Scotland.
  There has been housing reinvigoration in the town of Grangemouth—a large overspill for Glasgow—which was probably built in a way that was not suitable for the long term when people's aspirations rose. The innovation of changing the tenure mix, top-downing flats and putting people into decent houses was commended by none other than Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, who was happy to be photographed with the tenants, local authorities and me during the last Government. There are many such examples. I am sure that there are examples in Angus and where the Liberal Democrats have influence.
  I agree totally with the point made by another former councillor—my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr—who said that most people from all political parties join local authorities to serve the public and to do a good job to the highest standard. That applies to all the Conservative councillors with whom I served when I was leader of Stirling council for 10 years. There were not any SNP councillors because we had taken them all out—which is why we controlled the council.
  Mr. Salmond: There are now.
  Mr. Connarty: Yes. In fact, the Conservatives created two seats in the north that were taken by the SNP, but the majority for Labour in the Stirling area is higher than it has ever been because people realise that public service drives the councillors. I do not think that we ever fell out over which party was best unless it was an election year and we wanted to be judged by the electorate. For most of the time, in the quadrennial cycle, we worked together for the benefit of the public.
  What did the Tories do? The last Government abandoned the use of housing plans. We sent detailed assessments of need to the Scottish Office, but they were

  221
  put on a shelf and the Government did not respond to them. That is why many of the things that went wrong in housing were allowed to go wrong.
  I mentioned corruption. I have a little local difficulty in that area. I find only one part of the Conservative motion interesting. It says that we require:
  "financial stability and ethically sound local government".
  I intervened on the hon. Member for Angus, but he did not take up my point. We have a little local difficulty in our area. We had a little difficulty when the SNP controlled Falkirk council and an SNP provost, Sandy Crawford, was sent to gaol. That is looking back in history, but we have local difficulties now.
  An ex-SNP councillor from my constituency, Jamie Rae, was involved from October 1990 to January 1995 in criminal acts for which he was sent to gaol. He faced 23 charges over that period. I have the evidence with me today, which has been returned by the police. Between 12 May 1993 and the end of March 1994, he defrauded the local authority of £2,545 in false claims for housing benefit for someone who was not resident at the house at 20 School road, Redding in my constituency.
  There are also fraudulent mortgages, including the sad story of Jamie Rae's own uncle who was defrauded out of his house at 20 School road. He thought that he had signed an application for a housing grant but he had actually signed a document that allowed Jamie Rae to take the money when his house was sold and a mortgage of £37,000 was raised. I have a letter from the lawyer, Graham McLachlan, which was returned by the police. It says quite clearly:
  "The writer's recollection however is that the proceeds of the sale of the above property were paid to Mr. James T. M. Rae".
  That is the same councillor. He was gaoled, and what did we find upon his release? On 28 May 1998, that person was accepted back into the Scottish National party. I would like the leader of the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), to stand up now and tell us that he will kick him out. He is the kind of person we do not want in local government. I would like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to do the honourable thing now and say that he will throw Mr. Rae out of the SNP.
  Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously seek to demean a debate about the conduct of the Labour party in North Lanarkshire, East Ayrshire, Glasgow and in many councils across west and central Scotland by talking about an individual case involving someone who transgressed and has paid his debt to society? Any party in the House would have members such as that. Is he saying that that is what the debate is about? If so, it shows the desperation of the Labour party in Scotland.
  Mr. Connarty: That intervention shows the paucity of the hon. Gentleman's argument about good local government. The money taken from the council has never been paid back. The money taken from my constituents, who paid the housing benefit charges, has never been returned by that individual. It is in a bank account somewhere. It is important to raise the matter here because the motion refers to ethical local government. We can deal with competence and vigilance, but the
  222
  leader of the SNP must deal with corruption and get that person out of his party. I contend that that person would never be allowed back into the Labour party; can the hon. Gentleman say the same about his party?
  In considering this debate, I would like the Secretary of State to look seriously at finding a way of stopping such individuals from standing for local government when they have clearly defrauded money from the public purse—from their own constituents—and not returned it. That matter is very important to my constituents.
  On the general approach to local government, I believe that this is a false and not very well-researched debate; it seems to have come from newspaper cuttings rather than from original ideas. I notice that the hon. Member for Woodspring, who led for the Opposition, has returned to the Chamber. I point out to him that police are called so often to Renfrewshire district council because SNP members put down motions that would never be accepted in the House—for example, "The provost is a liar—discuss." That is the sort of motion that they debate. When they are ruled out of order, they march up and down the council chamber banging on the table. In fact, they climb on the table in Renfrewshire district council chamber and refuse to leave when they are ordered out. That is why the police are called. That is what the SNP is offering the people of Scotland as an alternative at present. SNP Members should be ashamed of trying to use that in this debate.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman should sit down. If he cannot do the honourable thing, I shall not let him intervene. On the general approach to local government, it is important that we deal with the facts and the problems.
  Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should we not move the debate from individuals to subjects such as Ferguslie Community Business in Renfrewshire? Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard of that?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already appealed for temperate language in the Chamber. We must be careful. Hon. Members have protection in the House, but it is perhaps unfair in a debate such as this, when we are considering local government in general, to refer to individuals by name. We should try to keep to the terms of the motion. I think that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) has made his point and should move on. My ruling applies to every hon. Member: I ask that the debate remains at a certain standard.
  Mr. Connarty: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I made a point of using only evidence that was allowed in court and on the basis of which someone was found guilty in order to stress that we need ethical local government. That means that every party must deal with its members who break that ethic and the rule of no corruption in the harshest fashion or be judged unfit to put up candidates in local government elections.
  Dr. Fox: Far be it from me to defend the Scottish National party, but this debate is about the ethical conduct of the Labour party in local government in Scotland simply because it is by far the largest party. Throughout the debate, we have discussed the way local government

  223
  is being run. The hon. Gentleman referred to being able to take effective action. Does he honestly believe that what has happened to Pat Lally in Glasgow amounts to effective action?
  Mr. Connarty: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned another name and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have admonished us about for using individuals' names. I shall not be impolite to you by taking up the hon. Gentleman's point.
  The motion and its terms are quite clear: it is about ethically sound local government. I commend the fact that the hon. Gentleman has drafted the motion in such a way as to allow that subject to be discussed. It is important to say clearly that, while we can work on incompetence and deal with vigilance and the structures for vigilance, corruption is just not acceptable in any part of local government. That is why I made those points.
  In winding up, I move to the general approach to local government. I believe that local government has a very good record in Scotland—despite the fact that errors were made before I entered local government that people would quote to me as being reasons why it was not something in which one wanted to be involved. I am glad that I did not take that advice and instead became involved in local government. We found that Labour candidates were able to take Scottish nationalists out of the council because they were able to win their seats.
  I believe that I followed the hon. Member for Angus in that I represented the same seat in the council after taking it off his successor, who was an SNP councillor. We did not do what we did on the basis that we wanted to abuse them. We wanted to replace them and to do better than them, not necessarily to drag them down or attack them. That has been the basis on which most councillors have gone into councils.
  If things go wrong, one of the reasons is that because of their size and structure councils can suggest—even Government can suggest—that councillors should remove themselves by going into some sort of think tank, including general policy committees and strategic committees, leaving the council officers to get on with delivering services. If councillors get the structures right and if the reporting mechanisms are correct they can, possibly, take that course, but I would argue that the involvement of as many councillors as possible and as many individual contacts as possible between officers who deliver services and accountants to evaluate the quality of those services and the cost of them, along with the performance and quality of those who are responsible for the delivery of the services, can benefit local government.
  I would worry if we ever moved to a super-councillor concept—a few councillors to look after everything and the rest having no function. We must give local Government some dignity. That means that we must be more supportive as a Government. We must be more interrogative and there must be more scrutiny, but we must be more supportive. Our approach must be positive. We must try to correct errors and to give those involved good structures, good advice and good, firm rules setting out how councillors should go about things. We should then support and encourage them.
  I worry that people do not turn out to vote. I am involved in a by-election in my constituency. It is the first one this year. If 32 per cent. of the people turn out to
  224
  vote, I will be seriously disappointed. However, I believe that that was the average turnout in the English local government elections.
  Dr. Fox: It was lower.
  Mr. Connarty: So it was less than 32 per cent. That is even worse.
  Perhaps the problem is that the Government—previous Governments and even the present Government—have not given local government proper value and have not talked it up to make people realise that it is an important matter. It is public service. I was a teacher who worked on a half-time contract for 10 years so that I could be a councillor on a Thursday and Friday and on most evenings when I was not in school. That was my choice. I was lucky to have another salaried person in the house, which enabled me to do that. Many people are not in that position. I am not saying that I was necessarily of the calibre that we have been discussing, but people of high calibre should be attracted to give public service at local authority level.
  I think that the Government should seriously consider abolishing the Widdicombe rules, which is the United Kingdom equivalent of Berufsverbot. Individuals in certain positions in a local authority area cannot stand for any political position. They cannot offer to serve. It was an honourable tradition and not a much abused one where those who were professionals served. Often local government officers served in other local authorities. That is more difficult now because of the size of local authorities. However, I believe that offence was caused to those who were willing to give public service. We should consider ways of releasing professional talent and bringing it back into local authorities. We should kick out the motion and support the amendment.
  9.2 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: At one point, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) suggested that this was a false debate. Far from that being the case, we initiated the debate to put the spotlight on the behaviour of many Labour local authorities in Scotland and to introduce appropriate scrutiny, which is an important democratic function. The hon. Gentleman suggested two local authorities. I think that we might suggest one or two more than that.
  The debate has produced a particular and welcome advantage because we have given the people of Scotland a foretaste of what the Scottish Parliament may hold in some of the exchanges between Labour Members and Scottish nationalists in the Chamber this evening.
  Mr. Welsh: The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) will not be there.
  Mr. Brady: I did not mean to suggest that particular individuals in the Chamber may be participants in such exchanges in the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Salmond: Apparently the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) will not be going to the Scottish Parliament because he did not wear a tie for his interview in the Labour party and was turned down.
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pleaded with others to keep within the terms of the motion but he is now outwith its terms.
  Mr. Brady: It is welcome and important that the Labour party is at least prepared to set some standards in some things, if not in local government. I may actually welcome that, although I am sure it is a great loss to the local Scottish Parliament that the hon. Member for Falkirk, East will not be represented there.
  The hon. Gentleman defended the payment to a lollipop man of £17,000 a year. I would not wish to comment on that. I notice that he did not bother to defend the record of a plumber earning £54,000 a year. Perhaps he thought that there was nothing exceptional in that and that it was a typical income for someone in that profession. That may be true.
  The hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) referred properly to the many very good councillors. A number of hon. Members have referred to the many people who have given sterling service—no pun intended, and no credit intended to the Stirling local authority—to local authorities and to the people in Scotland, as in the rest of the country, over a number of years. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that.
  It is unfortunate that, whenever parties, hon. Members or people outside the House draw attention to the bad behaviour of a few people in public life, the reputations of others are tarnished, but that does not detract from the fact that it is essential to apply proper scrutiny to what is happening in local government in Scotland. It would be wrong to avoid debating subjects because they might detract from the good work that people do.
  The Secretary of State made a gracious speech, and fully and frankly admitted that something must be done about the state of local government in Scotland. He is absolutely right, but he did not go nearly far enough in his analysis of the problem or in examining ways in which it should be addressed. Uncomfortable as it may be, Labour Members must accept that their party, not the structures of local government or the systems with which they may want to tinker, is, in many ways, at the root of the problem.
  The new charge that the Secretary of State levelled at Scottish local authorities was most interesting. He suggested that they had systematically flouted the law on compulsory competitive tendering over a number of years—something that many of us had suspected at many junctures. It was interesting that he emphasised that, and appeared to admit and accept it.
  The debate brought from my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) an appalling litany of incompetence and corruption on the part of many local authorities in Scotland and many councillors. We have heard about the situation in North Lanarkshire at length, and I shall not dwell on the more ludicrous examples of conduct there. It was not brought out, however, that council employees owe more than £1 million in council tax. The appalling incompetence of a council that allows its employees to be in such a position beggars belief.
  We have heard that two Labour councillors in East Ayrshire threatened a council officer with the sack if he did not use his allowance or expenses to buy them drinks. The hon. Member for Ayr, rather disingenuously, suggested that that is comparable to hon. Members occasionally accepting free drinks or meals from outside bodies. I should imagine that all of us present in the Chamber have declined superficially attractive engagements involving free drinks or a meal, and had a
  226
  much more enjoyable and fulfilling time than we would have done had we succumbed to those temptations. What has happened has nothing in common with someone from outside the House offering hospitality to a Member of Parliament or to a councillor. The onus would be on such an hon. Member or councillor not to be influenced in any way by hospitality, but accepting such hospitality is simply not comparable to the rather disgraceful allegations that have been laid against those councillors. They abused their position in the most appalling way and, what is more, placed council officers—their employees—in a terrible position.
  We all know of the votes for trips allegations in Glasgow. I understand that not council employee but a councillor owes £3,748 in council tax arrears. That is another disgraceful disregard for office. Another Glasgow councillor, who is, I understand, in receipt of £40,000 a year of taxpayers' money through various allowances and urban development work, has bought a new house, but has not repaid £1,300 of rent arrears on a council house.
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman name the councillor to whom he is referring?
  Mr. Brady: I am relying on press reports. I cannot name the councillor.
  Mr. Dalyell: It is all very well to rely on press reports, but I know to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring. It is a poor press report that does not give the full story, if the right person has been identified. Members of the House of Commons should not make unspecified allegations about individuals of whom they know nothing.
  Mr. Brady: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. If the press reports are inaccurate, I apologise unreservedly to the individual concerned.
  Mr. Hayes: Before my hon. Friend continues his combination of a sermon and a travelogue, will he consider this point? The litany of misdeeds that he describes is part of a local government culture that is peculiar to parts of Scotland. It will damage the good name of local government in Scotland and, as a consequence, people will become disillusioned with the democratic process. The serious issue is not the individual cases, but the effect that they have on Scottish Labour local government culture.
  Mr. Brady: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful intervention. That is the point. If the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) knows that press reports have been misleading, he is right to correct any false impression. That does not alter the fact that the sheer volume and weight of the allegations in all parts of the Scotland that have appeared in the press for some time and that are frequently subject to investigation show a picture of incompetence and corruption. Given the large number of allegations, it would be reprehensible of us not to draw attention to them.
  In East Dunbartonshire, even Unison has attacked councillors as fat cats and suggested that they pay themselves too much money. The picture is one of arrogance and disdain in far too many parts of Scotland.

  227
  There is disdain for the public and for democracy. The Secretary of State was right to refer to a culture of complacency. It would be wrong to contemplate further relaxation of the ban on political office for senior employees, as the hon. Member for Falkirk, East suggested. One of the causes of this difficulty is the blurring of the distinction between councillors and officers: between public office and the services that councils control. The background to compulsory competitive tendering and the fact that some services did not go out of council control was unfortunate: it might have lessened the problem if they had.
  What has happened in Scotland is unfortunately reminiscent of what happened in other parts of the country over many years. I shall not dwell on the loony left in London, because you would rightly call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is an old Labour story of municipal sleaze. It occurs in many places. I am sympathetic to the many Labour Members who are properly ashamed of the bad conduct of members of their party.
  When one party is in control of a local authority, often with insufficient opposition from other parties—in effect, a one-party state—it can lead to abuse. We have seen that happen in many of the great cities of the north. Labour control of Liverpool has recently ended. Sadly, the electors in Liverpool moved only to the first stage: it is now under Liberal Democrat control, and it will not return to its former greatness until it is once again under Conservative control.
  In my city of Manchester, we are wary of what has happened in Scotland. Manchester city council wants to expand its boundaries to include parts of my constituency. My constituents tremble with fear at the prospect of being subsumed by the kind of one-party state that we see in local government in Scotland.
  Labour has had too much power for too long in too many town halls in Scotland. The only hope for democracy lies with the Scottish people. They can reduce the dominance of Labour in Scottish local government. That will happen over time. The only thing that concerns me greatly is that they may turn to the Scottish National party to remove Labour from office, as it seems they intend to do for the Scottish Parliament. That will give the impression that they want full independence for Scotland, and I hope and believe that that is a false impression. The only answer is for them to turn to other parties in Scotland that do believe in the Union. I firmly hope and believe that they will begin to return to the Conservative cause, which will start to redress some of the difficulties and imbalances that we have debated this evening.
  9.14 pm
  Ms Rachel Squire: I trust that, at some stage, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) will ask himself why, at the most recent local elections, the people of Scotland decided to get rid of the few Conservative-controlled councils that remained.
  I have mixed feelings about today's debate. Along with, I think, hon. Members on both sides of the House, I wish that it had not been necessary: I wish that there had been no sign of mismanagement in any Scottish local authority. Again along with hon. Members on both sides, I think,
  228
  I believe that any misconduct on the part of local government, or indeed central Government, should be dealt with appropriately and fully.
  Like others, I emphasise that the majority of elected representatives, whether they are Members of Parliament or councillors, are honest and hard working, and that it is in no one's interest for a cloud to hang over the conduct and credibility of elected representatives. Unlike one or two earlier speakers, I well remember how, in the last Parliament, many hon. Members felt that our reputation was being tarnished by sleaze and suspicion generated by the conduct of certain members of the then Government party, particularly their appalling practice of accepting cash for questions.
  I do not believe, and I do not think that the public believe, that there is anything to be gained from using the debate to score cheap party political points. If we are completely honest, we must say that every political party that is represented here tonight has had, at one time or another, to investigate allegations of misconduct among its own members and elected representatives—and rightly so. The public expect the highest standards of conduct from those who hold public office. It is important for us to demonstrate tonight that our common objective is to uphold those standards, and to praise and give credit to those who have conducted themselves so well for so many years.
  Mr. Hayes: I respect much of what the hon. Lady has said about ensuring that the highest standards are upheld, but what tangible proposals has she for putting that in place? The Secretary of State mentioned a commission for complaints and a new code of conduct, but what about other statutory measures?
  Ms Squire: I shall refer later to some of the actions that the Government have already proposed and, indeed, taken. First, however, let me praise the swift action taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in relation to North Lanarkshire and East Ayrshire councils.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that the present system of local government, and the present structure that controls it in this country, were set up by the Conservative party? During their 18 years in office, the Conservatives passed more local government Bills than any other Administration, and what exists now is a result of their Government.
  Ms Squire: My hon. Friend makes some relevant points.
  It demonstrates the determination of the Secretary of State that he has not only acted swiftly in respect of two councils, but taken the opportunity to review the operation of all direct labour organisations in Scottish local government. He has ensured that external auditors go through the books of each and every one of them to reveal whether there are any further causes for concern. In reply to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), let me say that this Government have already published a new ethical framework for Scottish councils and are endeavouring to ensure the highest standard of conduct.
  Opposition Members have said quite a lot about culture. I clearly remember some aspects of a culture where people were desperate to retain jobs in the public sector.

  229
  They were desperate as they saw tens of thousands of jobs in the mining industry, in the heavy engineering sector, in the steel industry and in manufacturing destroyed by the previous Government, who must accept some responsibility for making councils feel that the priority had to be to try to maintain some reasonable level of employment in local authorities.
  This Government have already demonstrated their commitment to ensuring that councils are efficient and provide quality and best value services. The Secretary of State has issued a notice to councils over concerns and instructed them to come back with a rationale. He will look at what they have to say and issue the necessary directions. Every council in Scotland will be required to introduce a new code of conduct for councillors and, as has been mentioned, the independent commission is already examining the future relationship between a Scottish Parliament and local government.
  Despite the impression that may have been given by some Opposition Members, I want to mention some of the excellent actions that have been taken by councils in Scotland, particularly the council that I deal with as a Member of Parliament, Fife council. To use the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), it has been innovative, enterprising and efficient in many respects.
  Let me cite one or two examples. In the budget-setting exercise for the financial year 1997-98, Fife council undertook the largest consultation exercise of any council in Scotland. It involved all of its council employees, hundreds of community groups and local residents. The council also held more than nine public meetings to discuss directly with the people of Fife how they thought that the council's expenditure could best be spent.
  The council decided not to wait for further action from central Government but immediately to take seriously the work of the Nolan committee; it has already adopted the national code of conduct for elected members. It has shown its determination to develop an integrated, one-stop approach to local services. I recently had the pleasure of opening the local services office in High Valleyfield in my constituency; the council had directed money there to provide such a local service.
  Fife council and other councils should be applauded for the action that they have taken on so many matters—such as providing education, especially pre-school education, and on domestic violence—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) scoffs. Perhaps she finds it difficult to accept that Labour-controlled councils can provide first-class services to the people whom they represent.
  I am looking forward to developing new ways of working—which could be one of the positive consequences of today's debate—in ensuring that we change the face of politics in both central and local government, in building a positive and constructive relationship between local government and the Scottish Parliament and in demonstrating the House's commitment to giving the people a voice that will be heard—in contrast to the way that the voices of the many were ignored, for 18 years, by the few in the previous Government.
  9.25 pm
  Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I am ashamed that today's debate is necessary and, from his eloquent speech, I rather suspect that the Secretary of State is also ashamed that such a debate is necessary. Although he was careful in dealing with the specifics of the motion on the Order Paper, he was also careful to distance himself from the culture of Labour in local government in Scotland.
  I am ashamed because the once good name of Renfrewshire and Paisley—which is my home—has been tarnished by the behaviour of some of the elected representatives. I care about what happens to the people of Paisley and Renfrewshire. Although I should like to say that they do not deserve their local government, I cannot say it. They deserve their local government because they persist in voting for Labour, and sometimes for the Scottish National party.
  I remember Paisley and the villages around it as a prosperous and proud area. The hon. Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) was wrong—although she had no way of knowing it—in saying that Conservative Members know nothing about local government in Scotland, because I do. My father was a member of Renfrewshire district council for almost 20 years—for the whole of my early life. However, those were very different days.
  Ms Osborne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, especially as I—as a Paisley buddy myself—seem to have something in common with her. If she will tell me her father's name, it may be that I knew him.
  Mrs. Laing: I must, because of time, make some progress.
  Those were very different days—I am talking about the 1960s and 1970s, so I very much doubt that the hon. Lady knew my father; but that is not really the point—when the object of seeking election was to serve the local community, not to line one's own pockets or to get jobs for one's friends and family.
  I am not suggesting—Labour Members will agree with me—that simply electing more Conservative councillors in Scotland will make the difference. I can think of several decent old-style Labour, SNP and independent councillors who, although I would not agree with their policies, were decent people doing their best for their own local community. Indeed, a member of my family was a prominent Glasgow Labour councillor for many years. Today, however, I would not embarrass him by asking him what he thinks about the necessity of this debate or the behaviour of his successors. He, too, must be ashamed of them.
  Many senior Labour Members must be ashamed of the way in which their supporters have been behaving for many years in Scotland. However, we are debating not old Labour—which, however wrong in its economic and social policy, had principles—but new Labour, which has no principles, no beliefs, no standards, no discipline and no decency. New Labour is only out for itself. The new Labour party in the west of Scotland is rotten to the core. Labour Members know that, which is why they are embarrassed. I do not know why the Secretary of State is laughing—it is not funny. It is certainly not funny for the people of the west of Scotland who have to live under the domination of Labour local government.

  231
  I have every sympathy, however, with the people who try to combat sleaze in the west of Scotland. I am thinking of the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams) and the late hon. Member for Paisley, South who, we should not forget, fought hard against the sleaze that he encountered daily in his constituency.
  How amusing it was to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) criticising my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for not having intimated to the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham) that he might mention his name in the House tonight. What difference would it have made? We have not seen the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire for nearly a year. The people of West Renfrewshire are not represented in the House because of Labour sleaze in the west of Scotland.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. No hon. Member should be associated with any type of sleaze. I hope that the hon. Lady was not making any particular comment about the hon. Member for West Renfrewshire (Mr. Graham). Whether or not the hon. Gentleman is absent, the hon. Lady should not make such a comment.
  Mrs. Laing: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for clarifying what I was saying. I make absolutely no allegation against any particular hon. Member. I am talking about the culture of the Labour party in the west of Scotland, not about any particular person.
  The Secretary of State was very swift this evening to blame the newspapers for spreading stories, but I did not have to read the newspapers—I heard directly how often the police have been called to meetings of Renfrewshire district council. Everyone in the area knows it. The Secretary of State knows that many of the reports in the newspapers are factually absolutely correct.
  Mrs. Irene Adams: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Laing: I beg the hon. Lady's pardon, but I cannot give way because of the lack of time.
  Mrs. Adams rose—
  Mrs. Laing: Oh, very well. I give way briefly to the hon. Lady as she represents Paisley, North.
  Mrs. Adams: The hon. Lady will be aware that when the police have been called, it has been by the Labour party with the support of the Conservatives on Renfrewshire council on account of the conduct of the Scottish National party in particular and of some independent members.
  Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Lady, but I am aware that Conservative councillors on Renfrewshire district council have been instrumental in calling the police time and again.
  The Secretary of State this evening simply swept aside many of the press reports. I shall not deal with them in detail because of the lack of time, but every hon. Member knows of the allegations concerning council officials, councillors and the people who are running the Labour party in the west of Scotland.
  232
  The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) were swift to defend direct labour organisations. I attack DLOs without reservation. They were even worse before the Conservative Government introduced compulsory competitive tendering. The reason why I condemn DLOs out of hand is that they unfairly undercut small local businesses. The Secretary of State defends the public sector. The Labour party pretends to be the party of business, but it is not. It is interested only in the public sector, certainly not in small businesses in the west of Scotland.
  Examination of local government in Scotland provides a tragic vision of what might happen in the future. It does not augur well for the new Scottish Parliament. I wonder whether Labour Members are aware that American companies planning to invest in Scotland are now taking out political risk insurance—that is how much confidence the Labour party inspires in the very people it wants to attract to improve the Scottish economy.
  The point of the debate is what we have learnt not about individuals but about the Labour party itself, and not only in Scotland. Its leadership, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have been careful to distance themselves from their party's activists. They are so concerned with their image that they want to cast aside the facts. What we have learnt tonight is not about old Labour or new Labour, but about real Labour. The people of Scotland should beware of real Labour.
  9.34 pm
  Mr. Desmond Browne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for giving up the opportunity to speak, to allow me a few minutes. I have a particular interest in the debate, because my constituency is wholly within the borders of East Ayrshire council. I share the concerns of all hon. Members about the serious deficit that my council has had to report in the accounts of the direct labour organisation. The figures reveal unacceptable management failure and inefficiency. That view is shared by the leader of the council and all its elected members, including the administration and the opposition.
  To prevent the House from relying on recycled press releases, misquoted and sometimes partially quoted by the hon. Members for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), I had intended to go into the history of the deficits at some length and explain the actions of the council and the councillors. I do not have time to do so, but I am sure that the House will accept that I have investigated the issues as far as I can, subject to the Accounts Commission's investigation, and am satisfied that we are not dealing with a story of sleaze, corruption or the abuse of a one-party state. It is a story of elected members who do a difficult job. In November last year, they realised for the first time that there were problems, and have organised and instructed proper investigations, which have revealed the deficits.
  The council leadership and chief executive have explained their decisions fully to the opposition Scottish National party councillors and have taken them with them. At no stage during the investigation has any opposition member on the council been kept in the dark about what was going on. Importantly, no opposition member has expressed any view contrary to the decisions of the administration.

  233
  The council prides itself on openness and accountability. To my understanding, it was the only council in Scotland to take its budgets out to public consultation in public meetings. I see some of my hon. Friends shaking their heads, so it may not be the only council, but it was certainly one of the first to do so. As soon as the extent of the problems came to light, the leader of the council issued a press release. I shall quote from it to show the responsibility that the council has taken for the issue. He said:
  "We instigated an investigation as soon as the deficit came to light, we called in the Accounts Commission when we realised it was growing, and we contacted the Scottish Office when the scale of the problem began to emerge.
  When the independent audit is complete and when all the information is available it will be made public. Further I have asked the officers of the Council if we can instruct an independent inquiry into the actions of all the elected members including myself."
  The leader of the council has since said publicly that if he is criticised, he will consider his position and act accordingly. He is a man of integrity. Finding themselves in a difficult position, East Ayrshire councillors have taken steps from day one to clear up the mess, inefficiency and mismanagement. They will accept the political responsibility required of their office. I commend their integrity to all hon. Members.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it be put on the record that several hon. Members would have wished to speak, so that anyone reading the debate will not draw the conclusion that there was a lack of interest? In no way do I criticise the choice of speakers.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair. Those who were not called will be remembered on a future occasion.
  9.39 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I share the misery of many colleagues on both sides of the House at the fact that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was unable to speak in the debate. He always has an interesting contribution to make.
  Given what might be the somewhat sore and battered nerves of Labour Members, I shall begin by warming the cockles of their hearts. There is a very beautiful kind of old rose which grows in many parts of the kingdom and goes by the name of New Dawn. At the election, many millions of our fellow countrymen thought, rightly or wrongly, that they would see a new dawn from the Labour rose. They were told by no less a figure than the Prime Minister in various utterances, and in the manifesto, that the Labour Government would be committed to open government, cleaning up politics and improving local government. Those claims were repeated and repeated. If those claims were real, they should clearly apply in every part of the kingdom—in Scotland and in Scottish local government. [HON. MEMBERS: "And in Westminster."] Indeed, in Westminster as well.
  In this debate, various very serious allegations have been raised about the conduct of local government in Scotland from every point of view. They have been raised from the point of view of financial mismanagement—admitted in great part by the Secretary of State—of
  234
  corruption, of cronyism and favouritism, and of the way in which the culture of local government, particularly Labour local government in Scotland, works. The accusations may be true or false; they may be partly true or partly false.
  Labour Members spent time explaining that the allegations were very restricted. They tried to minimise the scope of the allegations, saying that only one or two councils are affected. I have no doubt that some were telling the absolute truth when they explained that there are many excellent councillors—Labour councillors and others—in Scottish local government who are doing good work, and that many councils are doing good work. Labour Members did not answer the allegations point by point; they merely sought to minimise them.
  The Secretary of State took a different tack. He made a most interesting and, as always, a very eloquent speech. He posed as the magisterial figure, who has nothing to do with the mere squabbles of party politics. In all his awesome grandeur, he is to descend on the councils as an independent arbiter. He is to set matters right by putting in some accountants, and then by changing—or, at any rate, considering changing—structures.
  The accusations that have been raised by my hon. Friends and members of other parties are not trivial. They are serious accusations, which, if they were true, nobody could claim would not warrant serious investigation and remedying. In fact, I think that the Secretary of State admits as much.
  If this is the Government who are committed to open government, cleaning up politics and improving local government, is it so very much to ask them to conduct a full and open independent public inquiry into the allegations to discover how far the multitude of press reports is true, partly true or false? How can a party that proclaimed to the British public that it sought openness, purity and reform of local government not commission such an inquiry in the face of such a welter of accusations?
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: What reason does the hon. Gentleman have to suppose that the Accounts Commission is not an independent body?
  Mr. Letwin: I make no such accusation. The Accounts Commission is an independent body but it is restricted by statute. It can investigate only a narrow range of financial matters. The Secretary of State was at pains to point out that his objection to the motion, which he would otherwise have accepted, was precisely that we were seeking to widen the scope of the inquiry. I repeat the question: how can a Government and party devoted to openness and to cleaning up and improving local government resist an independent inquiry of wider scope?
  On 12 July 1997, a right hon. Gentleman who does not often appear in the House but is of more importance than we poor mortals who do, the Prime Minister, told a Labour party conference:
  "But we are on trial. Deliver our promises, repay the people's trust, and we will be rewarded with more of their confidence. Go back on those promises, return to old ways, and we will lose that trust."
  He was right. There is a sort of trial, but, alas, it closely resembles Kafka's trial. The Prime Minister, as Prime Minister, is judge. As leader of the Government, he is

  235
  foreman of the jury. Most important, as leader of the Labour party, he is the plaintiff. That is not open government.
  Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman's vocabulary is slightly wrong. The debate is about Scotland, where we say "accused", not "plaintiff".
  Mr. Letwin: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's credentials. He has explained to the Competition Bill Committee that he is not a lawyer but a notary. I do not regard either point as material to the debate.
  If we do not have an inquiry, it will do lasting damage not only to local government in Scotland and the Labour party but to the structure of democracy in this kingdom. It will do damage because the Labour party—I apologise to hon. Members who represent the Scottish National party—is likely, often if not immediately, to form the new Government of Scotland. I thought that the Secretary of State might appreciate those remarks. No doubt SNP Members are quietly fuming, but the people of Scotland may well elect Labour to the new Government of Scotland.
  Mr. Salmond: I do not mind the hon. Gentleman conceding defeat for the Conservative party, but can he leave us out?
  Mr. Letwin: The issue is not the frivolous debating point of whether Labour will win, but that it may win. It is therefore of the utmost importance to the electorate not only of Scotland but of the United Kingdom to know that the Labour party in Scotland has been cleared of what the Secretary of State claims are overblown allegations. He can do that only by commissioning a full, independent inquiry. At that point, the problem will disappear. Until then, we have what was accurately described by Kafka as
  "a blend of fog and smoke filling"
  the Chamber
  "with a faint smell of burning soot".
  Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his motion? is it for an independent inquiry into the allegations that have been made, or, as appears in the Order Paper, into the conduct of local government in Scotland, in which the whole of local government in Scotland is tarred with the same brush?
  Mr. Letwin: The sad fact is that the dominance of the Labour party in local government in Scotland, especially in the councils under discussion, is so nearly complete that the difference evaporates. It is a difference without a distinction.
  We are asking whether it is true, as is alleged in press report after press report, that the culture of the Labour party in dominating local government in Scotland has reached a point at which it needs investigation. That question can be answered only by such an investigation.
  Mr. Dewar: As the hon. Gentleman is talking, as many hon. Members have talked, about Renfrewshire council and its dominance by the Labour party, could he tell us what the political make-up of Renfrewshire council is?
  Mr. Letwin: I have no intention of spending the last half-minute of my speech doing that. I shall, as the Secretary of State himself would say, write to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter.
  236
  The question at issue is clear: will the Secretary of State open local government in Scotland to the kind of inquiry that it deserves and needs, following those allegations? If, in the winding-up speech, we are to be told that the answer to that question is no, we must be told why not. Why will those claims made by the Labour party before, during and after the general election not be applied in this case, by means of a full, independent and open inquiry?
  9.49 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): Despite its ups and downs, this has been a useful debate on the whole, and has made some things, at least, a wee bit clearer. First, there is agreement that, in two cases, direct labour organisations in Scottish local councils made unacceptably high losses, and revealed serious problems within management and control. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made plain, serious failure of that magnitude is not acceptable, and will not be tolerated.
  Secondly, as several hon. Members have said, it is clear that my right hon. Friend acted swiftly and promptly in response to the problems when they emerged. He instantly activated the statutory procedure, issued notices to the two councils, and called for reports from all councils on the financial status of their DLOs. He has also asked the Accounts Commission to prepare a high-level audit of all councils in July, not only on the operation of their DLOs but on the client side.
  It is important to point out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) has just suggested, that the Accounts Commission is independent. Its findings will be made public, and in the course of its investigations it can ascribe responsibility for the various things that have gone wrong.
  The action that my right hon. Friend has already taken is, I believe, unparalleled in its speed. He has made clear his intention to act effectively and swiftly in the statutory process that he has started. He has also made it clear that, if similar problems emerge in other Scottish councils, he will not hesitate to take similar action.
  The third factor that has emerged in the course of the debate is the paucity of constructive suggestions from the Conservatives to tackle the crisis that they affect to describe. It has become clear that it is the Government who have the constructive agenda for reform and modernisation of local government. The proposals for a new ethical framework, for the appointment of the McIntosh commission with a radical and far-ranging brief, and for the development of a new system of best value to replace the discredited policy of compulsory competitive tendering, are all evidence of the Government's drive to improve and modernise.
  To pick up some of the specific points that have been made in the debate—
  Dr. Fox: Did not the failings of the two councils whose DLOs gave rise to the problem occur within what the Government have described as best value practice?
  Mr. Macdonald: The contracts that the DLOs now have were secured by competitive tendering. The competitive tendering was not compulsory, but it was entered into voluntarily by the local authorities, which followed the exact procedures that the Conservative

  237
  Government laid down. Those are the procedures that produced the contracts that led to the problems for the local authorities.
  During the debate, some hon. Members advanced constructive proposals for reform and improvement in local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) mentioned the value of systems of decentralisation, and of the establishment by various local authorities of citizens' juries. Local authorities have pioneered several different decentralisation schemes, which have been submitted to the Scottish Office. While they are not actually gathering dust, the Government have no power to dictate to local authorities how to operate such schemes, which is right, because there must be space for local flexibility. The existence and experience of those schemes will be a valuable resource for the McIntosh commission.
  The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) turned to his favourite remedy for all ills—proportional representation. We have asked the McIntosh commission to take a fundamental look at how to enhance accountability within local government, including asking questions about why people do not turn out to vote and how best to elect councillors.
  I concede that there is a case for some form of proportional representation in local government elections, albeit not an unanswerable case, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recognised that case in his recent Richard Stewart memorial lecture. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I am not opposed in principle to proportional representation, and nor are the Government; we have introduced it for European elections and for elections to the Scottish Parliament, but we remain agnostic about its suitability for local government.
  Mr. Wallace: I did not say that proportional representation was necessarily a panacea for all problems—in fact, an important aspect of the relationship between central Government and local government, which influences the strength of local government, is the financial relationship between the two. Will the Minister explain why the financial relationship between the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local government is not within the remit of the McIntosh commission?
  Mr. Macdonald: There are two reasons: first, it would make the work of the McIntosh commission too unwieldy if it had to investigate those financial systems in detail; and, secondly, we are reviewing the financial arrangements for local government as part of the comprehensive spending review, and we shall publish a consultation paper on that subject in the summer. The McIntosh commission has said that it would want to look generally at the financial relationship between the Scottish Parliament and local government, which we accept is a proper and legitimate thing to do.
  The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Welsh) was rather critical of recent Accounts Commission reports, and implied that they were rather inflexible, but he is quite wrong. I would argue that those reports are an important starting point for the best value process, because they allow an increasingly sophisticated system of benchmarking and competitive comparisons between various local authorities
  238
  to be developed. A couple of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty), raised the question of the Widdicombe rules. Those are being reviewed, although I would not anticipate the dramatic change for which my hon. Friend argued.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) mentioned council tax collection. I can tell him that we expect councils to improve their collection rates, and that the Government have made special funds available to achieve that end. We expect councils to ensure that their own employees in particular pay their debts to the council. That must be an important priority for councils, as it is vital to public confidence.
  Scottish local government faces a very important challenge, as it has in future to exist alongside a democratically elected Scottish Parliament. Over the past 20 years, Scottish local government has provided an important democratic protection for the people of Scotland, and the public services on which they depend, against a hostile and interfering centre in Whitehall. That is changing. Local government will now have to form a new, constructive partnership with the Scottish Parliament, which will have its own strong democratic mandate. That is why the Government have set up the McIntosh commission, and its report will be delivered to the First Minister in the Scottish Parliament.
  I have no doubt that the Labour party will lead the development of new and imaginative ways of ensuring that, in future, local government makes as important a contribution to Scottish public life as it has in the past, despite the problems that we have discussed today.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 322.

  Division No. 306]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisely N)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ainger, Nick

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Browne, Desmond

  Allen, Graham

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Burden, Richard

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Burgon, Colin

  Ashton, Joe

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Byers, Stephen

  Bank, Tony

  Caborn, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cann, Jamie

  Best, Harold

  Casale, Roger

  Betts, Clive

  Caston, Martin

  Blackman, Liz

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Chaytor, David

  Borrow, David

  Chasholm, Malcolm

  242

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncastwer N)

  Clelland, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hurst, Alan

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hutton, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Colman, Tony

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jamieson, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jenkins, Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Cousins, Jim

  (Welwyn Hatfied)

  Cox, Tom

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Cranston, Ross

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jones Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cummings, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Dalyell, Tam

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Darvill, Keith

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kenndy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Davies Geraint (Croydon C)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Denham, John

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Donohoe, Brain H

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Doran, Frank

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dowd, Jim

  Levitt, Tom

  Drew, David

  Linton, Martin

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Livingstone, Ken

  Edwards, Huw

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Lock, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Love, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  McAllion, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Flynn, Paul

  Macdonald, Calum

  Follett, Barbara

  McDonnell, John

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Fyfe, Maria

  McIsaac, Shona

  Galbraith, Sam

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Galloway, George

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gapes, Mike

  McLeish, Henry

  Gardiner, Barry

  McNamara, Kevin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McNulty, Tony

  Gerrard, Neil

  MacShane, Denis

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Godsiff, Roger

  McWalter, Tony

  Goggins, Paul

  McWilliam, John

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Grant, Bernie

  Mallaber, Judy

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Grogan, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hain, Peter

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hanson, David

  Maxton, John

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Meale, Alan

  Healey, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michael, Alun

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heppell, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Hesford, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hill, Keith

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hoey, Kate

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Home Roberttson, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Morley, Elliot

  Hope, Phil

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mudie, George

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Mullin, Chris

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  243

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Soley, Clive

  Norris, Dan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Speller, John

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Olner, Bill

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  O'Neill, Martin

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pearson, Ian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pendry, Tom

  Stinchombe, Paul

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Stott, Roger

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stringer, Graham

  Pike, Peter L

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Pollard, Kerry

  (Dewsbury)

  Pond, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Pope, Greg

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pound, Stephen

  Timms, Stephen

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Tipping, Paddy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Todd, Mark

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Touhig, Don

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Truswell, Paul

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Turner, Dr Desmond (kemptown)

  Radice, Giles

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Robertson, Rt Hon George

  Walley, Ms Joan

  (Hamilton S)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rooker, Jeff

  Watts, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Roy, Frank

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Ruane, Chris

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  (Swansea W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Sawford, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Woolas, Phil

  Skinner, Dennis

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  wyatt, Derek

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Mr. John McFall and

  Snape, Peter

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Moore, Michael

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Oaten, Mark

  Baker, Norman

  Rendel, David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Salmond, Aelx

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Fearn, Ronnie

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

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Tyler, Paul

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Wallace, James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Webb, Steve

  Keetch, Paul

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Wills, Phil

  Llvsey, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Mr. Donald Gorrie and

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Mr. Andrew Welsh.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, Put forthwith, Pursuant to standing Order No.31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 274, Notes 31.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House notes with concern losses in a number of direct labour organisations within Scottish councils; and commends the swift action taken by the Secretary of State for Scotland to deal with them.

  Council Tax (Derbyshire)
  10.25 pm
  The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move,
  That the draft Council Tax Limitation (Derbyshire County Council) (Maximum Amount) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
  It will be useful if I set out how we hope to reinvigorate local government and what our future approach to capping will be. This year marks a watershed in our approach to local government finance, as it will be the last year of crude and universal capping. We are making changes because we believe that the current system has the balance between central Government and local government wrong. The turnout figures in the local elections in May underline the need for change. Under the current arrangements, local accountability is simply not strong enough, and the use of central Government's powers is disproportionate to achieving their objectives.
  Our plans are a key to the future decisions of councils such as Derbyshire and reflect our desire to develop strong, effective and accountable local government. That is essential, because local government is responsible for so many of our most important services, such as schools, transport and care of the elderly. It is also essential to our aim to work with local government to lay the foundations for stable economic growth and to improve people's quality of life.
  Many hon. Members will know that we have published a series of consultation papers aimed at establishing modern, accountable local government based on simple and stable finance systems that reflect the leadership role of councils and their partnerships with local communities. Our proposals include replacing crude and universal capping; making it easier for people to understand the link between their council's spending decisions and the council tax bills that they receive; giving people a greater say in local decisions; and helping councils to act more strategically and corporately, and to achieve better value for money. Detailed proposals on those matters will be published in a White Paper in the summer.
  Although we are determined to improve local accountability, central Government still have an interest in the level of local government spending, because local authorities are responsible for a significant proportion of overall public spending and deliver a number of key services.
  Mr. John Gummer: We are discussing Derbyshire local government. Would the Minister have supported the previous Government in capping at the lowest level ever, as she is proposing, or will she come to that in her speech?
  Ms Armstrong: I shall explain why the Government have made these decisions.
  The Government will retain a reserved power to control excessive increases in local council spending. However, with a more accountable system of local government in place, we hope that reserved powers to intervene in local budgetary decisions will be used rarely, if at all.
  We are committed to a fair distribution of Government grant to local authorities. This year's settlement was a start in achieving that goal. It is better in cash terms than

  245
  many authorities expected based on last year's plans. We have allowed a 3.8 per cent. increase in provision for local government revenue spending nationally, which is double what the previous Government planned.
  The amount available for local authorities includes an additional £835 million for education nationally, which has been fully funded by matching grant to authorities. That shows our commitment to improving standards. We have been able to increase resources for social services nationally by £447 million, which is almost £100 million more than was envisaged by the previous Government. We have also provided an extra £70 million for children's services, which is the first substantial increase for three years.
  Mr. Eric Pickles: If the hon. Lady has given extra resources—figures supplied by the Library show that an extra £1 million was provided for education in Derbyshire schools—why is she proposing to take away £1 million?
  Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman has got his figures confused. I am dealing with the local government settlement, whereas he is referring to education money under the new deal, which is for capital spending outside the local government settlement. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not understand that.
  The capping principles for 1998-99 allowed all authorities budgeting up to 12.5 per cent. above their standard spending assessment to passport the increases for all non-police service blocks in the spending assessments. If an authority's SSA increased by more than its class permitted increase, its cap reflected that greater amount—so the money could be spent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are discussing Derbyshire. The hon. Lady is entitled to a lead-in, but she must restrict her comments to the issue of Derbyshire.
  Ms Armstrong: I am aware of that, which is why I have been hesitant about taking interventions. I know that you want me to deal with the Derbyshire issue, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, it is important to put the Derbyshire decision in context.
  It is the first time that increases in highway maintenance, other services and capital financing blocks have been passported. Those were important changes in the capping regime, and they gave greater discretion to local authorities.
  In the past seven years of crude and universal capping, 49 authorities exceeded their caps. This year, only one authority—Derbyshire—has set a budget above its capping limit. As a result, when we announced our decision on the capping principles on 7 April, we designated Derbyshire for council tax capping. It challenged its cap—as the legislation allows it to do—and proposed that it should be permitted to budget at the level that it originally set.
  In reaching a view on the final capping limit for Derbyshire, we had to take account of its specific circumstances. We have considered those carefully, and I have met a delegation from Derbyshire to hear its case in
  246
  detail. I am sure that, during this debate, we shall hear of the efficiencies that Derbyshire has achieved. It is extremely important that authorities pursue efficiency gains, as that will help and enable them to provide the best services at lowest cost.
  Capping is about whether the cap proposed for that authority is reasonable, achievable and appropriate. The fact that an authority claims to be efficient is not, of itself, a justification for it to take a larger slice of the cake of general Government expenditure. The demands of individual authorities must be examined in the context of the demands of all authorities, and those of the economy as a whole. That is why I felt it appropriate to explain the background of the debate.
  Derbyshire county council has set a budget of nearly £473 million, £3.9 million above its proposed cap. As I said, I met members of the council, and a number of Derbyshire Members of Parliament, so that they could explain their reasons. Among the Members of Parliament was my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). I am delighted to hear that he is now out of hospital. I pay tribute to his diligent attention to the needs of his constituents, and to the fact that he has put their case so strongly. Several of my other hon. Friends have been to see me, and have also pursued the interests of their constituents with incredible diligence.
  The Deputy Prime Minister and I have carefully considered all the relevant information available to us, and have decided that we should permit Derbyshire to increase its budget relative to its provisional cap by £2.9 million, rather than the full £3.9 million proposed by the authority. There are a number of factors which I believe make Derbyshire a special case, and which therefore warrant the increase.
  Derbyshire has had the eighth smallest capping increase of any county in 1998–99, at 3.1 per cent.—compared with the average of 3.7 per cent. Since 1989–90, it has had a smaller cumulative increase in its cap than any other county. The increase in Derbyshire's education standard spending assessment represents nearly all its total capping head room. In short, if it passported all its increase in education SSA through to schools, it would have only a 0.25 per cent. increase for all other services. Derbyshire has no significant reserves with which to support its budget.
  I stress that it is the combination of those factors, rather than any one in isolation, that makes Derbyshire's position unique. We decided against allowing the county to increase its budget against its provisional cap by the full amount of its actual budget. Among other things, its budget is above SSA by more than the county average. That suggests that there is scope for the council, within existing resources, to give more to education by reordering its priorities. The overall effect should be to allow Derbyshire to passport the full increase in its education SSA, and to increase its take-up of the education standards fund. We have carefully considered the points raised by Derbyshire in the capping process to ensure that the cap that we have proposed is reasonable, appropriate and achievable.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Minister tell us when she first learned that the estimated

  247
  cost of rebilling had gone down from £550,000 to £320,000? When was her Department first made aware of that?
  Ms Armstrong: I do not know when the Department was first made aware of it, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman to let him know.
  I have highlighted the particular combination of factors that, in our view, make Derbyshire a special case this year. We believe that those factors justify this treatment. However, it is clear to the Government that Derbyshire now needs to take more determined steps to address its budget. Over the coming months, we expect it to put in place a firm medium-term strategy to manage its finances in a way that will avoid excessive council tax increases in the future. That will clearly mean making some tough decisions to reorder priorities, as well as setting challenging targets for efficiency gains. The county will need to do more to manage its expenditure from year to year if its council tax payers are not to face unreasonable increases. Were that the case, the Government would step in to limit increases in budgets that were, in their view, excessive. We will also want to consider whether to use our powers to treat authorities that were designated in the preceding year differently from other authorities within the same class.
  More generally, the Government will continue to take a rigorous approach to all sectors of public spending, including local authority expenditure. It will be essential that local authorities also take a responsible approach to their spending budgets. Next year, the Secretary of State will have in reserve powers to limit council tax within the current legislation. He will not hesitate to use those powers where he believes that authorities have set excessive budgets.
  If the order is approved, we shall serve a statutory notice on Derbyshire formally setting its cap. It will have 21 days to reduce its budget in line with its cap and to set a lower precept. That will lead to the issue of new lower council tax bills by the Derbyshire billing authorities. I commend the order to the House.
  10.40 pm
  Mr. David Curry: I am sure that we would all wish to join the Minister in wishing the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) a rapid recovery.
  It was with some nostalgia that I listened to those marvellous words "reasonable", "appropriate" and "achievable", having used them so often and knowing that they have a ritualistic character in this debate; they save the Minister from judicial challenge at a later stage. I was interested that she began with a debate on the six, I think, Green Papers on local government as, up to now, we have been denied a debate on those in the House, despite their enormous importance. Not one was introduced by a statement in the House, but I hope that her words are in earnest of the good intention to give us a proper opportunity in Government time to debate crucial proposals affecting local government. I note simply that the largest Green Paper was on ethical behaviour in local government, which was six times the size of the paper on capital finance and a future financing system.
  The Minister gave the particular reasons why she thought that Derbyshire is a special case, but, with all due respect to her, those were mechanical reasons that flow
  248
  from her decisions on standard spending assessments; there was nothing unusual about them. Had she taken different decisions on SSAs and made different changes to them, that would have affected Derbyshire's position. It is not an exceptional condition. It flows automatically from the decisions that she has taken.
  Of course, I do not ideologically object to capping; that would be somewhat curious as I have, as it were, been there and got the tee-shirt for doing it myself. The arguments about public expenditure are real enough. The chapter on it in the relevant Green Paper has a familiar ring. Indeed, I suspect that I frequently said the same words. Even in the little document that is snappily called "A Plain English Guide to the Local Government Finance Settlement", under the heading "Capping" we find the words:
  "Local government spending is part of the total of general Government expenditure, so the Government need to limit how much local authorities spend."
  Local authorities will be interested in the Minister's words. The last few pages of her speech were devoted to a fairly fearsome warning about how the Government intend to apply capping if local governments do not behave according to her definition. Of course, she would use the legislation that the previous Government put in place to do that because capping is not a duty; it is facultative. The legislation remains on the statute book. The Government have the option simply of not applying it—of not setting capping criteria—but, of course, if they really wished to send a signal to local government that they want to get away from the old system, they would repeal our legislation. They clearly do not intend to do so.
  Therefore, when Labour says that it will end crude and universal capping, one wonders where the sophisticated and particular capping will arise. When the Minister talks about the cap relating to excessive spending, we wonder whether this is excessive spending. Is £1 million in a budget of £471.7 million an excessive increase? It seems curious for the people of Derbyshire to be told that there are particular circumstances—with which I do not agree, but which she has adumbrated—and that this is peculiar to Derbyshire.
  Derbyshire is now permitted to spend £2.9 million over the budget that Ministers initially thought was necessary for it to meet its statutory obligations. However, its budget is being capped to prevent a mere £1 million of £471 million of expenditure. In other words, if my calculations are correct—I was never in the Treasury, so I may be corrected on them—its budget will be cut by 0.21 per cent., which is the smallest amount that has ever been caught by a cap.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) said, a couple of months ago, Derbyshire received an extra £1.1 million to reduce class sizes. Although of course that was part of the education budget, and of course it was capital, verily it is said that "the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away".
  So what happens now? There will be rebilling, which is done by the districts—which, initially, send out the bills. I am told that, by some mysterious alchemy, the cost of rebilling will be reduced from £500,000 to £300,000. That £300,000 would have paid many teachers' salaries, and paid for many local authority activities, school meals and many other things that are probably regarded as important by the people of Derbyshire.

  249
  Nevertheless, there will be a bonus: local people will have money handed back to them. Undoubtedly, they will rejoice mightily at that bonus.
  The county of Derbyshire has many band A properties. According to my research, 66 per cent. of properties in Bolsover are band A, as are 56.7 per cent. of properties in Chesterfield, 43.7 per cent. in North-East Derbyshire and 40.4 per cent. in Amber Valley. Even in the Derbyshire dales—which I suppose must be regarded as the most propertied part of Derbyshire, as it has the fewest properties at the bottom end—bands A to C still account comfortably for more than 50 per cent. of properties. It is therefore worth asking quite what will be the big bonus that is handed back.
  My calculations—on which, again, I stand to be corrected—show that the consequence of the Government's action for band A property holders in Bolsover—where, we have agreed, two thirds of property holders hold band A properties—will be the great bonus of a £2.87 rebate. I have been told that that sum will buy an inexpensive packet of 20 cigarettes. In the House of Commons Bar, one can buy two pints of beer for that sum—but, as we all know, beer is relatively cheap in the House of Commons Bar.
  The objective of all that paraphernalia and rigamarole—£300,000 or £500,000 will be spent on rebilling—is to rebate £2.87 to the citizens of Bolsover, Chesterfield and the other districts. That is the cost of financial probity, and the reward for the Government's actions.
  The capping order is not the important issue. The Government could have changed the system—they have been in power now for well over a year. Although they have made perhaps only one local authority settlement in their own right, they are now on their second settlement. The Government have had control of the standard spending assessment system. Local government is almost universally under Labour control, and, for the moment, the Local Government Association does not say boo to a goose. Ministers could have altered the system, but they have stayed with it.
  In the future, we will have the "brand new system". However, anyone who reads the Government's documents on the matter will wonder where the new dawn is, and when it will arrive. We have heard that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has rejected the idea of changing the definitions of public expenditure. Now we have old-fashioned rigorous capping, although I suspect that it is only a gesture, as Ministers could not allow anyone to get away with it completely. The cap is the iron Chancellor's little gesture towards local government, warning it about what might come. He is perhaps thinking, "Gosh, £1 million off Derbyshire's budget of £471 million won't half make them wonder. That will really get them bothered."
  The cap is only a precursor of what is to come. The Minister for Local Government and Housing talked about the new system which we will be getting, and about getting away from all that terrible old capping problem and entering a new world. If one reads about what that new world will comprise, it quickly becomes clear that it will not include repatriation of business rates, as that would of course have implications for public expenditure.
  250
  Nor will it include giving everyone—lock, stock and barrel—the power to raise taxation locally, as that, too, would have implications for public expenditure.
  There has been an awful lot of talk about, "Let's have annual elections. No one can sleep easily in their beds at night, or feel that they have had a good run at delivering what local people perhaps want them to deliver."
  The Labour Government still deeply distrust local government. They believe fundamentally that they must keep control in their own hands. What we are asked to consider tonight is merely an aperitif, an amuse-gueule before the feast that is to come—the feast of continued Government control.
  10.49 pm
  Judy Mallaber: I am rather confused by the previous contribution, as I was by the remarks and questions of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), who I understand is summing up tonight, since the announcement was made last week. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether the Opposition are now saying that the Government have not given enough to Derbyshire. If they are, why were they previously arguing that Derbyshire should not ask for anything more? That is the question that the Opposition now need to answer.
  Does the hon. Member for West Derbyshire support the potential loss of 440 jobs—including those of 70 teachers—the closure of homes, and the threatened closure of the Lea centre in his constituency? If he does not, does he support the Government's allowing us to get off the horrible hook on which we found ourselves? Perhaps he will also tell us what proposals his Conservative colleagues on Derbyshire county council had to enable the council to operate within its budget within the cap, without causing the horrendous consequences for education and other services that we have been seeking to avoid.
  During business questions last week, the interesting suggestion was made that the Members of Parliament for Derbyshire would not welcome this debate. I have to say that that is completely wrong, just as the current Conservative Tory Member of Parliament with a Derbyshire constituency and our Conservative predecessors who lost their seats were wrong to denigrate the county over the years and to encourage the Conservative Government to do us down and act against the interests of their constituents.
  We welcome the chance to be positive tonight, as we have spent some time in doom and gloom. We have a beautiful county, and the county council has undertaken many excellent initiatives, in spite of the difficulties and in spite of the denigration that it faced.
  I apologise to those hon. Members who have had to stay late tonight and who might not have wanted to do so. We might owe them an explanation. I also apologise to Ministers who have had to spend a long time talking to us and considering the arguments. We are grateful that they have listened to us with care and have gone some considerable way to meeting our concerns.
  Reference was made to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for North—East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) is not here. We are sorry that he is not here, but a recent question of his summarises one of the problems. He asked

  251
  what percentage of UK taxpayers pay the higher rate of taxation. The answer is that, overall, 8.1 per cent. of UK taxpayers do, whereas only 5 per cent. of Derbyshire's taxpayers are in the higher tax bracket. In Hertfordshire, the figure is 15.2 per cent., or three times higher, yet Hertfordshire gets central Government grants that allow it to spend £76 more per head on its residents than Derbyshire can. That goes to the heart of the problem that we face.
  Considered since 1989, Derbyshire's capped spending is now 18 per cent. less than the average for all counties, and its increase was more than 6 per cent. below the next lowest increase. There have been cuts of £200 million in its budgets, and 4,500 employees have lost their jobs over that period. That has led to an annual cost of £4.2 million in redundancy and retirement payments. Our pupil-teacher ratio has declined from being one of the best in the country to being one of the worst. The same has happened to our home help ratios.
  I was interested to read in The Times Educational Supplement a couple of weeks ago about the threat to school music services. Those discretionary services went in Derbyshire in 1991. We have been left with no reserves, so we are in a unique position.
  Mr. John Hayes rose—
  Judy Mallaber: I shall not give way. Many hon. Members wish to speak, and I am keen to make progress.
  Over that period, Tory Members have gloated, as we saw in the debate on local government finances. There were many good changes in that settlement, but the changes that have started to redress some of the unfairness in the local government system did not help us in Derbyshire. We faced difficult cuts that would have been impossible to meet.
  Some positive schemes were under threat as a result of the budget that we were set. The head teacher of one school in my constituency who lobbied us came from Hampshire. If he had still been there, he would have had £300,000 more for his school and fewer statemented children. The Employment Sub-Committee, of which I am a member, is looking at pathways to work for women. We shall say that education and training are as important as child care in enabling lone parents, for example, to make the jump from welfare to work. Peverel house in Codnor has 130 women on computer and keyboard skills courses that will enable them to get back to work. It also has other facilities, including nursery facilities and youth facilities, used in the evenings by 80 young people a week. It was under threat of closure. We hope that that will be reversed.
  My Select Committee is also responsible for investigating the new deal. I have been told by the new deal adviser at Heanor job centre, which is in a pathfinder area, that many people with basic skills problems are still presenting themselves. One of the nearby secondary schools has an excellent literacy and numeracy programme, for which it has gained national plaudits. I found it heartening to see a 13-year-old who had had difficulties with reading being able to read the announcement about the award and talk about it. That was thanks to the special programme. Such programmes are vital if we are to make advances.
  In some cases, parts of the Government's programme would have been jeopardised by the cuts that Derbyshire is facing. The Government have recognised our class size
  252
  problem and given us a substantial sum to cut infant class sizes. Last January, 13,000 infants in Derbyshire were in school classes of more than 30. From next January, we shall have only 1,000. That is thanks to the first stage of the Government's recognition of our problems. If we had not been allowed the extra money, we would have added teachers to help five to seven-year-olds, but taken them away for seven to 11-year-olds, which would have been nonsense.
  Derbyshire is an efficient authority. Council staff use 20 per cent. less than the county council average. We spend £23 per pupil on education and central support services for schools, which is 30 per cent. below the county council average.
  We needed the additioal money to put ourselves on a proper footing for the future. We can go forward to make our arguments in the review of local government finance to ensure that we do not get into the same position again. The council can address the issues in conjunction with the review.
  Sir Paul Beresford: When the hon. Lady talks about extra money, does she mean the £2.9 million or the £3.9 million that she campaigned for?
  Judy Mallaber: We are grateful for the £2.9 million. We hope to be able to access some of the other money.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire will talk about rebilling. We should remember that he voted for that ridiculous system. We are landed with Tory legislation. I did not vote for it and neither did my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman), for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and for High Peak (Mr. Levitt), but our predecessors did and they lost their seats. We would prefer not to have such legislation, but we do.
  Mr. McLoughlin rose—
  Judy Mallaber: The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to reply. He voted for a £1 million rebilling charge in 1990. That will cost £1 per household.
  Will the hon. Gentleman name a single school in his constituency that does not welcome Derbyshire's decision to go through the cap? Let him name a single school that does not welcome the Government's decision. I recently met the chairman of education on Derbyshire county council, who told me that he would happily visit such a school or talk to any parents in west Derbyshire who do not welcome the decision. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's answers will tell us whether the residents of Derbyshire agree that the Government and the county council have done the right thing.
  Does the hon. Member for West Derbyshire support the loss of 440 jobs, the loss of 70 teachers, the closure of centres? Are the Opposition saying that the Government should have spent more or that the county council should not have asked for anything? I am very confused about their position and would welcome some clarification. If they are opposing the order, is it because we have not been given enough or because we have been given something?
  In Derbyshire, we are grateful that Ministers have listened to our arguments. Obviously, we are disappointed that we did not get the full amount. Although there are

  253
  still difficult decisions to take, the settlement fends off the worse of the disasters and gives us a base on which to build. The Government have recognised our case in providing money for reducing infant class sizes and for school buildings. They have recognised our case in allowing us to go through the cap. We can now talk about how to get a fair settlement for the future, which will resolve the problems and not leave Derbyshire lagging behind other authorities in such a difficult position.
  Parents and others in the county know whom to blame for the difficulties that the county council has had over the years. They now know whom to thank for the recent decisions and the ability to enter into discussions in future. Although I am disappointed that Derbyshire did not receive the full amount, I shall happily support the Government in the Lobby.
  11 pm
  Mr. Adrian Sanders: I associate the Liberal Democrats with the best wishes that have been sent to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). We look forward to his return.
  It is extremely regrettable that we must discuss the capping of Derbyshire county council's revenue budget. The fact that we are shows how far this Labour Government are prepared to go to implement a Conservative agenda; how much they are prepared to say one thing in opposition and do exactly the opposite in power.
  In opposition, the Labour party consistently opposed capping of local authority budgets. In 1993, the then hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said:
  "The Labour party is wholly and unequivocally opposed to the capping of a council's budget. It is an abuse of central power, it demeans democracy, it undermines the right of local people to decide what services they are ready and willing to pay for … it serves no economic purpose, and it has not worked in its own terms."—[Official Report, 9 June 1993; Vol. 226, c. 385.]
  I could not put the arguments against capping more eloquently.
  In 1995, a Labour party policy statement on local government said:
  "The present capping arrangements suggest that some civil servants or Minister in Whitehall knows better than local people and local councillors about the depth, degree and urgency of the needs of each and every local community and its capacity to pay for what it needs. This can't be right in principle or practice."
  Just two years later, we find ourselves with a Government formed by the Labour party which, in its election manifesto, said:
  "Although crude and universal council tax capping should go, we will retain reserve powers to control excessive council tax rises".
  In office, they implement exactly the crude and universal capping that they promised to end.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to intervene—unlike the Minister, who would not. Like you, I share the sentiment that an overwhelming majority in the House support the views exposed by the then hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). What do you think—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Member has been in the House long enough to know whom to address.
  Mr. Hancock: I apologise. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) is as curious
  254
  as I am to find out what impediment stood in the way of the large Government majority doing something about the unfortunate capping regime.
  Mr. Sanders: I am sure that the Minister, who is a believer in open government, will comprehensively answer that later.
  I find it even more regrettable that the Government are imposing a cap on Derbyshire's budget only two weeks after the end of their consultation on reform of local government finance.
  In the Green Paper, "Modernising Local Government—improving local financial accountability", the Government state that modernising local government is dependent on radically changing the relationship between councils and their communities and between councils and the Government. They suggest that one way to achieve that is
  "to enhance local accountability, and reduce central government's involvement in local tax and spending decisions."
  Can the Minister explain how she thinks that she is achieving that by interfering in Derbyshire's tax and spending decisions?
  Even those of us who remain opposed to capping might have understood the Government's action if Derbyshire had set a budget £10 million or £20 million above cap, but it was set only £3.9 million above cap, and the Government appear to have agreed that £2.9 million of that was needed. We are here tonight because the Government cannot allow Derbyshire county council an extra £1 million, less than 0.25 per cent. of Derbyshire's total revenue budget. If that is not central Government prescription and control run riot, I do not know what is. It is also regrettable that the Government think that spending an extra £1 million on public services is unacceptable when they have just announced £3.6 million for spin doctors in Whitehall—a strange sense of priorities by any standard.
  The Liberal Democrat group on Derbyshire county council did not support the controlling Labour group's decision to set a budget above cap. It agrees that capping, crude or sophisticated, should go but believes that there were ways in which the council could have achieved savings and stayed in budget. It has no wish to inflict the cost of rebilling on council tax payers. Out of the £2.9 million gained by Derbyshire, £320,000 will have to be spent on rebilling every household. One could argue that the council is still £2.5 million better off so perhaps it is worth it. If that gamble had not paid off, the council would have had to cut services even further and the local community would have suffered.
  The case that Derbyshire county council made in arguing for extra Government grants tells an all-too-familiar story in local government. Over the past nine years in Derbyshire, central Government have reduced the council's revenue budget by £214 million. Service closures include the school music service, the only local home for disabled people, a toy library and five homes for the elderly. Discretionary and clothing grants were abolished in 1996. Those cuts will hurt the most vulnerable, reinforce deprivation and perpetuate social exclusion.
  Liberal Democrats have spent many years campaigning against the incompetence and inefficiency of Labour-run councils and we have no wish to become apologists for them. However, the fact that Derbyshire requested only

  255
  an extra £3.9 million, of which the Government concede that it needs £2.9 million, suggests that there may be a case. We intend to vote against the imposition of a cap on Derbyshire's budget because capping is an abuse of central power, demeans democracy and undermines the right of local people to decide what services they are willing to pay for.
  In 2001, the people of Derbyshire will be able to pass judgment on the track record of their council. They could choose to pass a vote of no confidence in the council because of higher spending or to endorse its decision to fight for more money for its communities. More likely, most voters will not vote at all, confused about who is really responsible for spending decisions and concerned that, however they vote, central Government will set priorities and dictate community needs. People will not bother to make the detour to the polling booth on local election day. The Local Government Association recently conducted a MORI poll that showed that more than one third of people do not believe that voting in local elections makes a difference to local taxes or services. Will the Minister admit that her actions reinforce that view?
  I hope that this is the last time that we are called to the Chamber to debate the capping of a local authority's budget. We should like the Minister's assurance that that is the case. The Government cannot continue their practice of promoting democratic renewal while constantly interfering in local spending decisions without rightly being accused of hypocrisy.
  The Government have promised to provide greater freedoms for "well behaved" councils in their local government Bill. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House when we might expect to see that Bill. If they really believe in local democracy, they should give councils the freedom to raise taxes and to work with local communities to agree local service and spending priorities. If the local government Bill offers only more sophisticated versions of central Government control of local councils, the House will know that the promise of democratic renewal was all spin and no substance.
  11.9 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: We have just heard from the representative of the Liberal Democrat party, the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), about the plight of my constituents, and it is a strange tale that he has told. When the controlling Labour group in Derbyshire decided, with my support and that of other Derbyshire Labour Members, to go through the cap because we felt that the county had been treated unfairly, what did the little band of Liberal Democrats on the council do? The Liberal Democrat representative has now informed us that they did not have the guts to challenge the Government to try to get more money.
  Now that, through our efforts, we have an extra £2.9 million for the Derbyshire ratepayers, for more schools and all the other services, the hon. Gentleman has the cheek to come here and say that the Liberal Democrats are now complaining that that is not enough—although they did not want any more money in the first place. I like to challenge the Tories about hypocrisy, but that takes some beating.
  It is not as if the Liberal Democrats do not usually find a way of saying, "Raise taxes." That is their usual ploy, but the Liberal Democrats in Derbyshire did not have the guts to say it, so we need no lectures from their Members of Parliament.
  256
  When the whole saga began, many years ago, we had the awesome experience of seeing a Tory Government come to the House with their revenue support grant settlement and Tory Members of Parliament from Derbyshire stand up in the Chamber and demand that the Minister should not give Derbyshire too much money. In all my years of experience, I had never before heard Members of Parliament saying, "Don't give us money for our schools and our kids, or for our welfare services." Yet the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and his colleagues who represented Amber Valley and South Derbyshire at the time all used to jump up and condemn Derbyshire for asking for too much money. Today, however, the Tories are coming along to say the opposite.
  On one such occasion I wanted to put Derbyshire county council's case in an Adjournment debate, to explain how the Tories had robbed it of £214 million—actually it was a bit less than that at the time, because they still had a few more years left in which to take away even more money. I thought that it was high time that someone put the county's case, which was a good one.
  I got my Adjournment debate, and stood up to speak—I was on the Opposition Benches in those days—but I had got only one sentence out of my mouth before a Derbyshire Tory Member, who later became Government Deputy Chief Whip, demanded to intervene and stop the debate on a point of order. A Member gets only a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes to speak in an Adjournment debate anyway, but all that I managed was another couple of sentences before the Derbyshire Tories raised several more points of order. I still carried on, but I was not getting very far.
  The Tories talk about wrecking things in the House of Commons, but what happened then was that one of the Tories called, "I spy Strangers," and called a Division in the middle of my Adjournment debate. It took them 20 minutes to vote and my whole debate was lost—and now they have the cheek to talk about democracy. All that I was trying to do—
  Mr. Paul Tyler rose—
  Mr. Skinner: Sit down.
  Mr. Tyler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Skinner: No, sit down, I have not got time. Other people want to speak.
  Mr. Tyler: Does the hon. Gentleman not want to hear the truth?
  Mr. Skinner: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House when that took place—
  Mr. Tyler rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have two Members on their feet at the same time. Mr. Skinner.
  Mr. Skinner: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the House when that took place. He is one of those little Liberal Democrats; I do not know where he was at the time.

  257
  The Tories talk about democracy, but that night they destroyed my opportunity to put the case for Derbyshire. The case has persisted ever since. Then, we get a Labour Government: we demand more money from the settlement, we meet the various Ministers and Derbyshire county council sets a rate £3.9 million above the original settlement. I wanted £3.9 million and I made that clear to all the Ministers I met, but 1 have to take into account what my constituents are saying, and every single one—teachers and all the rest—has made it clear to me that half a loaf is better than no bread at all.
  I have also had assurances from the county council that there will be no compulsory redundancies, which I had feared. I remember last year, when Somerset and Oxford were complaining about rate capping. I know that the reason for their complaints was that they knew that they would have to sack people if the cap went through, but that is not the case with Derbyshire. I have had assurances from the county council leadership and others, who have explained to me precisely how they have managed to find a little extra money here and there—I shall not go into the whys and wherefores—to enable them to manage the budget and to make it up to about £3.9 million.
  I have to take into account the fact that, if I am a general complaining about what the Labour Government are doing, I have to have an army behind me in Bolsover, Amber Valley and West Derbyshire in order to be able to demand of the Government, "What are you going to do about it?" However, I have to tell hon. Members that what the people are telling me is that £2.9 million is not as much as they wanted, but it is the first time in the history of Derbyshire county council since 1981 that it has finished up with more money than was promised in the first place. They are telling me that, in 1981 under the Tories, in 1982 and on and on down the years, they failed to get the money, so I have to say that the settlement being debated tonight is not as good as I wanted, but it is better than a poke in the eye with a big stick. With a little shuffling of the pack, we shall be able to manage to run the budget.
  To my hon. Friend the Minister I say, this is only part of the settlement—the rest has to come later. We have lost £214 million in the past 12 years under the Tories. We are having a job keeping our heads above water, which is one of the reasons why the council went through the cap. I say to my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench and to the Treasury Ministers who are not here tonight, but who are the most important people in these matters: I know that there is to be a three-year settlement, but the next time there is a settlement I do not want to have to go through the galling experience of having meeting after meeting with Ministers to get the additional money. I do not welcome the fact that we are here tonight. I want a better settlement for Derbyshire next time.
  I hope that because, at long last, we are weaning ourselves away from the Tory spending plans and because the next Budget will be the most important in this Parliament, the Derbyshire settlement will take account of the fact that the Tories closed every single pit in the whole county. That has reduced our ability to find work for people and reduced the spending power of people in Derbyshire. The whole area was devastated by those pit closures, and we cannot afford to sustain the results of that for much longer. The social fabric is breaking down
  258
  in every town and village in the county, and the only way to put that right is to make sure that, next time, we get sufficient money to repair the social fabric and to start to provide employment again. The county council can play a role in that, which is why the next rate settlement will be important, not only for the other parts of the country that have suffered from this year's settlement, but for Derbyshire.
  11.18 pm
  Mr. John Gummer: I wonder whether the House would have imagined the comments by the Minister for Local Government and Housing being made if the previous Government had proposed so narrow a cap in such circumstances. It is wrong in the House to talk about hypocrisy—
  Ms Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not because I have only a very short time to speak. The hon. Lady did not answer the question that I directly asked her because she was unable to do so. She was not able to come to the real point, which is that this is the narrowest cap that we have had, and it is not a cap that she, in opposition—
  Ms Armstrong: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No, I have only four minutes in which to speak, so that the hon. Lady may have time to sum up the debate.
  The Minister did not get on to the Derbyshire settlement until she had told us a great deal about what could happen and should happen, but would not happen now. Are the Government in power or not? They have been in power for over a year. They could perfectly well have changed the system if they did not like it. Not only have they not changed it; they have introduced a cap that would not have been introduced under any previous Government. The Minister therefore wanted to avoid the question of the cap on Derbyshire for as long as she could, which is why we heard a lot of generalities before she got on to the question of Derbyshire. Indeed, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had to intervene to tell her that it was time that she got back to the question of Derbyshire. You were being polite—she had not started to talk about Derbyshire at that point.
  I exculpate the Minister for her speech, having heard that of the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber). I hope that every person in Amber Valley reads that speech, because it was an example of what happens when a Government remove all independence from their Back Benchers. I cannot remember a single occasion on which I introduced a capping measure and a Member of Parliament for an area that I was capping made so toadying a speech. I used to get—to use a special word—hell from my colleagues when I introduced such capping measures. The hon. Lady takes the biscuit. I hope that people in every single home in her constituency read her speech—indeed, if I can manage it, I shall arrange that—because she will never win that seat again.
  It is remarkable and sad that the hon. Lady did not mention that we are having this debate only because of the Opposition's pressure on the Government.

  259
  The Government wanted to have a private word upstairs. The hon. Lady would not then have had a chance to reveal herself to the House and the public as being totally uninterested in what happens in Derbyshire and deeply interested in what might happen to her in the future.
  Mr. Tyler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government wanted not only to take the matter in Committee, but to pack that Committee with hon. Members who have no connection whatever with Derbyshire, and that when it was suggested that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should be added to that Committee, the Government resisted the idea?
  Mr. Gummer: I am aware of that, which is why I could not understand the speech by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Can the House imagine the speech that the hon. Gentleman would have made if this had been a Conservative capping proposal? Can one imagine how he would have torn it apart? His rant would hardly have stopped by now. He would have said that to have so small a cap was intolerable; to have insisted that the money be spent not on schoolteachers but on demanding new bills was unacceptable, and that he and his friends in Derbyshire knew that this was a Tory plot. But did we hear a word of that?
  Mr. Tom Levitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: No; I will not.
  The Minister would not have allowed me to get away with it, and I will not allow her to get away with it. I asked her a direct question—whether she would have supported my proposal of such a capping measure. She did not answer—because she would have opposed it root and branch. She would have voted against it, and it is a disgrace that she asks the House to vote for it, and an even greater disgrace that she had to be dragged to the House to discuss it at all. She wanted to get away with a little speech in a little Committee, packed with little Back Benchers who would not raise a voice against her. She is frightened of the House, as she has shown once again, because she cannot make her case and has not made her case—she deserves to be voted against.
  11.24 pm
  Mr. Mark Todd: We have just heard a speech that hardly mentioned the capping order in question, and instead focused on abusing the Minister. I give the order a qualified welcome, because I oppose capping on principle; I have never supported it, and I find considerable difficulty in accepting its application this time around.
  Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, two thirds of a loaf—as, roughly, it is—is rather better than none. I acknowledge that Ministers have done their best to respond to concerns of hon. Members, and of contingents from Derbyshire, pressing the county's case. It will be a test of the county's ingenuity to implement, within the budget, the full effect of the standard spending assessment increase given to the education service in Derbyshire. Nevertheless, I am confident, because of the record of Derbyshire county
  260
  council, that it will achieve that. It has shown originality and innovation in much worse circumstances, and I believe that it can respond to the challenge.
  Mr. Levitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that £2.9 million is being given to Derbyshire in the context of £1.16 million under the standard spending assessment to address class size, £1,000 per school for books, money for capital spending in education and so on? That would never have existed under the Conservatives.
  Mr. Todd: Indeed. Since the general election, there has been considerable Government largesse for Derbyshire, and that is welcome as a small step in redressing the legacy of 18 years of Conservative government. Tory malice toward Derbyshire was effectively admitted by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) in the previous debate on this subject, and it was conceded by the Deputy Prime Minister in responding to that debate.
  Evidence of consistent attempts to find ways to tinker with the SSA to achieve a lower settlement for Derbyshire is obvious to all concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has drawn out one implication of that—that this is a first stage in responding to Derbyshire's concerns. It is a welcome first stage, which I shall support in the Lobby tonight, but it means, together with the Minister's strictures, which I accept, that the county must settle for managing within its budget this year and looking for ways of finding economies, which is always a duty on a local authority. It will also be a duty of that local authority to present, with hon. Members, a coherent argument for new ways of looking at the mechanism that provides resources to local government. It is clear to me that Derbyshire has faced settlements that are inappropriate in comparison with those for the leafy suburbs of the south-east—an imbalance that we should do our best to redress in future.
  Without the extra space within the cap, libraries and a family support unit would have been closed. I was fortunate enough to spend most of last week in my constituency, when I visited, among other places, a family support unit. It provided detailed help for individual young people who were estranged from their family, and tried to support them through the education process in the worst circumstances. If one of those units closed, the young people would never be able to advance their education and might be in jeopardy. Such are the terrible choices that would be faced by the county.
  I also spent time visiting youth centres across my constituency. Again, there would have been massive cuts in the youth service across Derbyshire to stay within the original cap. That service provides critical support for young people in our community, to keep them out of trouble and to provide them with pathways into education. Such services would have been lost, too.
  There is much to celebrate in our record. The Audit Commission showed that Derbyshire's record in helping elderly people to stay in their own homes was second to none. That is one further steer on how the standard spending assessment should be reconsidered. I do not believe that that goal of the county, which is well met, is properly recognised in the current spending assessment.
  Just think what we could do as a county with a proper and fair settlement that would bear comparison with the settlements of some of the authorities represented by Opposition Members. My optimistic message for the

  261
  future is that Derbyshire can beat the rest with a fair deal, and we shall continue to fight for it, but tonight we shall support the order.
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I begin by wishing the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) a speedy recovery. Although I have disagreed with him on many occasions, I respect the fact that he always had the best interests of Derbyshire at heart when he spoke in the Chamber.
  It is refreshing to hear Labour Members say how much they wanted this debate to take place. Only last week, for the first time ever, the Government were trying to get a capping motion through in Committee. Never before has a capping order been taken in Committee.
  Ms Armstrong: Never before has there been one authority involved.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I wish that the hon. Lady would check. There have been several occasions on which only one authority has been capped. She comes to the House badly briefed if that is what she thinks.
  Every previous capping order has been taken on the Floor of the House. If the Government are so proud of what they are doing, why was the first question on the matter tabled by a Sunderland Member, and why was a question about the final decision tabled by a Kent Member? Are no Derbyshire Labour Members ever in the Chamber? Are they always in their constituency?
  We have heard the excuses from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd), who said that he was in his constituency last week, so he was not available to table the questions. Sometimes it is not necessary to be physically present in the House to table questions. Hon. Members can table written questions.
  Mr. Skinner: I do not put down planted questions.
  Mr. McLoughlin: What about the other six Derbyshire Members?
  We are here to discuss the Government's proposals. It is worth quoting from the Labour party manifesto, which states:
  "We will retain reserve powers to control excessive council tax rises."
  I assume that the Government regarded what Derbyshire wanted to do as an excessive council tax rise. If Derbyshire Members support the Government tonight, they will be confirming that.
  Judy Mallaber: No.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Lady says no, but how can she vote for the cap? The Government are introducing the cap because they believe that it is an excessive council tax rise. If they did not believe that, they would not try to cap Derbyshire county council. Perhaps Labour has some new logic. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) made clear, capping is a power of the Secretary of State, not a duty. The Government have assumed that duty.
  262
  The Government initially proposed to cap Derbyshire by £3.9 million. They have now changed their mind and will cap Derbyshire by £1 million, allowing it break through its cap by £2.9 million. I am wholly critical of the cynical way in which the Government are dealing with this issue. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said, in order to stop Derbyshire spending £1 million out of a £470 million budget, the Government propose to reduce Derbyshire's spending by 0.21 per cent. That is what the Government are considering capping; that is an excessive council rise in new Labour speak. Let every council be aware of that for next year.
  The cap will cost Derbyshire council tax payers some £320,000 according to the latest estimates. The first estimate submitted was £550,000. The Minister could not confirm when the Department was told that the figure had changed; I am surprised that no note has come from the Box. The figure that the county council has in its papers for tomorrow is £550,000. That would be sufficient to build extra classrooms at St John's school in Belper, which is grossly overcrowded, or it could go some way towards building a new school in Belper, which is desperately needed. It could be used to fund a study of the Ashbourne bypass or possibly to build a new primary school in Tansley.
  Mr. Levitt rose—
  Mr. McLoughlin: I shall give way in a moment. Yesterday a group of parents from Wirksworth Church infants school delivered a petition to No. 10 Downing street protesting that the school is threatened with the loss of a teacher. That £320,000 could have paid for a teacher for the next 20 years.
  Mr. Levitt: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that all the serious underfunding issues that he has listed have emerged in the past 12 months? Do they not relate to the period when the previous Government capped Derbyshire to the tune of £214 million over several years? Is he saying that he would have allowed Derbyshire to break through the cap completely to the level that it had planned?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I shall come to that point shortly. I want to address the whole issue of capping in Derbyshire.
  In its publicity, which it releases at regular intervals, the county council says that rebilling is the fault of the previous Government. This capping decision is the fault of this Government. It was said that we did not change the law. That is correct, but the Government do not have to use it. I reiterate that it is a power of the Secretary of the State, not a duty. The county council is being capped for only 0.21 per cent.—the smallest cap ever introduced.
  The last time we debated capping in the House, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the right hon. Members for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and, I suppose, the Minister—although I have not checked the record—voted against the cap. That made a difference of £112 to the average household. We were talking then of a reduction for each person of about £56 and, therefore, an average reduction for households of £112. This cap will make a difference,

  263
  on average, for the vast majority of households, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon said, of £2.87. In Amber Valley, 40 per cent of houses are in band A, as are 19 per cent. in High Peak and 30.9 per cent. in South Derbyshire. Those are facts in terms of reductions in those council areas. The proposed cap does not stand up to justification.
  The way in which the Government wanted to take the matter through Committee was deplorable. It was clear that not one Labour Member representing a Derbyshire constituency would be a member of the Committee. None of them would have the chance.
  Mr. Levitt: I would have been able to speak.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman says that he would have been able to speak, but he would not have been able to vote. Of what were the Government afraid?
  Mr. Levitt: The argument was so persuasive.
  Mr. McLoughlin: The argument was so persuasive!
  Mr. Gummer: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will tell me what the Government would have been afraid of, given that when we heard Derbyshire Labour Members speak they supported the Government. They damned their county and supported the Government. Why did not the Government herd them in?
  Mr. McLoughlin: I have to say—[Interruption.] It seems that the Minister is in favour of reforming the House of Commons. The Government are not content with reforming the other place; they want also to reform the House. Will their reform of this place mean depriving constituency Members of their votes? That is exactly what they tried to do last week. Is that what the Minister means by reforming the House of Commons? We shall watch these matters with interest.
  The simple fact is that the motion is of the Government's making. There will be huge extra billing and all the Minister can do is laugh. That sums up the Government.
  Mr. Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLoughlin: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall intervene extremely briefly. I find it extraordinary that a Conservative Member from Derbyshire, rather than a majority of Derbyshire Members on the Labour Benches, should have to speak in support of the council tax payers of Derbyshire. Why does my hon. Friend have to be doing this rather than Labour Members, who should be opposing their Government?
  Mr. McLoughlin: Labour Members will have to answer for themselves.
  Mr. Levitt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McLoughlin: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. I want to deal with the points that he has made and other points. I know that the Minister wants time to respond to the debate. Therefore, I would like to make some progress.
  264
  It is a simple fact that £320,000 will be incurred in rebilling. That is about 32 per cent. of the sum by which the council is being ordered to reduce its expenditure. That would not have been so bad, but just a few weeks before the local elections we had an announcement from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment giving Derbyshire just over £1 million—the county rather than the city, which received a similar amount—yet we are discussing an order which would require the county council to reduce its expenditure by £1 million. That will cost £320,000 in rebilling. That money could be used—[Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that I have said that five times. I might say it six or seven times, because we regard the £320,000 as a gross waste of public money resulting from a decision made by the Government.
  The simple fact is that—[Interruption.] If the Minister for London and Construction wants to speak, I am sure that he will be able to catch your eye in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He should let hon. Members make their speeches, because he gets the chance to make his speeches. I realise that he is part of the bootleg tendency of the Government, unlike the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who reminded me of Boxer in "Animal Farm"—stick with it all the way, it is sure to get better. Even if the tune changes dramatically, he can be relied on to change his tune according to the music that is being played from the Government Front Bench. He was one of the people who refused to support a capping order of £112, but tonight he will support a capping order that will benefit most of his constituents to the tune of £2.87.
  Mr. Skinner: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats on the county council refused to ask for more money from the Labour Government. The Labour people on the county council said, "Dennis, will you try to get more money from the Government?" We put in for £3.9 million and we have got £2.9 million. I said to the county council, "What do you think about that?" The council said, "It's not a bad deal—accept it."
  Mr. McLoughlin: Excuses, excuses, excuses—the hon. Gentleman will support a proposal which will give £2.87 to 66 per cent. of households in his constituency. I have respect for the hon. Gentleman, but if he supports the Government he will be agreeing with them that the original budget set by the county council was excessive, because that is where council tax capping comes into being. That is what we are discussing—the Government's decision that the budget is excessive. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that I am over my time. I am conscious of the time, but I have been interrupted a number of times and eight of the first 15 minutes of her speech did not relate to Derbyshire. We should have had a statement, rather than some of the—[Interruption.] The Minister should just calm down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will determine the equity of the debate.
  Mr. McLoughlin: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but before the Minister was brought to order by the Chair to address the motion, she did not speak about Derbyshire for eight of the first 15 minutes of her speech.

  265
  In 18 years of Conservative government, Derbyshire county council was capped once. It will he capped once in one year of the new Labour Government—they have matched our record. At the general election, Labour Members representing Derbyshire constituencies and Labour candidates were not going around saying, "In one year, we will cap the county council as often as the Tories did in 18 years." That is why I shall not support the motion.
  11.48 pm
  Ms Armstrong: We have had an interesting debate, but we do not know why the Opposition have taken their position—we still do not know their view on the budget for Derbyshire. The speech of the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) was something like a leadership bid—we know that the Tories are in trouble on their leader—and he certainly talked a great deal.
  I must say to Conservative Members that we now know why debates after 10 pm frequently do not do the House any good. Debates are often conducted in a rabble-rousing manner. That characterises the Opposition this evening.
  I shall answer some of the questions raised in the debate, even though the Opposition refused to answer any of the questions put to them. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) is clearly missing the job. Indeed, he writes so many articles about what I am up to I can hardly keep up with them. He said that Derbyshire's predicament arose from decisions that we had made. That is not so. I made it clear that one of the critical elements was the previous Administration's decision to reduce Derbyshire's increases year after year. That had a cumulative effect and it led to the position that we are in now. That problem was caused by the Conservative Government, not by us.
  We are used to hearing the speeches of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but he has clearly never read any of them. He showed us how he got into such trouble as Secretary of State. I hate to tell him this, but he got his facts wrong. The previous Administration capped eight authorities at less than £1 million—two of them were capped at £0.5 million.
  The hon. Member for West Derbyshire exhibited the mentality that we have seen among the pathetic hooligans in France this week. [Interruption.] Being macho is all, and Conservative Members are at it again. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman took four minutes more than the allocated time. He accused me of being frightened of debating with hon. Members. I am not frightened: I want the opportunity to do so. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal and the hon. Member for West Derbyshire exhibited the behaviour and the mentality that bring this country into disrepute. They should grow up and learn how to debate effectively.
  Labour Members did not use macho arguments, but dealt with the problems faced by schools, by folk who need community care and by others. They were prepared to discuss those issues, but no Conservative Member said a word about the people of Derbyshire and the problems that they face. We have had no apology from Conservative Members for the way in which they tried to sort out Derbyshire. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire has admitted that the previous Government focused on Derbyshire. We are having to deal with the problems that they created. We cannot resolve all of them in one year.
  266
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman does not realise that a manifesto covers five years, not one year. We shall be held to account at the end of five years.
  The Liberal Democrats do not understand the concept of accountability. It means that people in the locality feel that it is worth while getting involved. Current and past local elections have shown that that is not happening, which is why we must change the relationship between central and local government. We must ensure that many more local people feel that the council is accountable to them.
  We have had—as they say—an interesting debate. I believe that the Derbyshire Members who are concerned about the future of the county have made the case for it, but recognise the real problems that we face because of the way in which the previous Government dealt with public finances. I therefore do not hesitate to ask hon. Members to behave responsibly and to vote with the Government.
  It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Community Documents)?:—
  The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 152.

  Division No. 307]

  [11.55 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Ainger, Nick

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Alexander, Douglas

  Doran, Frank

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Dowd, Jim

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Drew, David

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Barron, Kevin

  Edwards, Huw

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Beard, Nigel

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Best, Harold

  Flynn, Paul

  Blackman, Liz

  Follett, Barbara

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Galloway, George

  Browne, Desmond

  Gapes, Mike

  Burden, Richard

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gerrard, Neil

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Canavan, Dennis

  Goggins, Paul

  Cann, Jamie

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Casale, Roger

  Grant, Bernie

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Grogan, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hesford, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Connarty, Michael

  Hill, Keith

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Home Robertson, John

  Cox, Tom

  Hope, Phil

  Cranston, Ross

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  267

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hurst, Alan

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Jamieson, David

  Pope, Greg

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pound, Stephen

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Rooney, Terry

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Roy, Frank

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Sawford, Phil

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Sheerman, Barry

  Lawerence, Ms Jackie

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Skinner, Dennis

  Levitt, Tom

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Lock, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAllion, John

  Snape, Peter

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Soley, Clive

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  McDonnell, John

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McFall, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  McNamara, Kevin

  Stott, Roger

  McNulty, Tony

  Stringer, Graham

  MacShane, Denis

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  McWalter, Tony

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  McWilliam, John

  Timms, Stephen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mallaber, Judy

  Todd, Mark

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Touhig, Don

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Truswell, Paul

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Maxton, John

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Merron, Gillian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Michael, Alun

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Milburn, Alan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Miller, Andrew

  Wareing, Robert N

  Mitchell, Austin

  Watts, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Mudie, George

  Winnick, David

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Norris, Dan

  Woolas, Phil

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Pearson, Ian

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Bercow, John

  Amess, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Blunt, Crispin

  Arbuthnot, James

  Body, Sir Richard

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Boswell, Tim

  Baker, Norman

  Brady, Graham

  Baldry, Tony

  Brazier, Julian

  Ballard, Jackie

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Roy, Frank Ruddock, Ms Joan

  268

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Burnett, John

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Burns, Simon

  Loughton, Tim

  Butterfill, John

  Luff, Peter

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  MacKay, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chope, Christopher

  Maples, John

  Clappison, James

  Mates, Michael

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Collins, Tim

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Moore, Michael

  Cran, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Norman, Archie

  Day, Stephen

  Oaten, Mark

  Duncan, Alan

  Ottaway, Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Page, Richard

  Evans, Nigel

  Paice, James

  Faber, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Fabricant, Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Fallon, Michael

  Prior, David

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Randall, John

  Flight, Howard

  Rendel, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Fraser, Christopher

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gale, Roger

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ruffley, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gibb, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gill, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Shepherd, Richard

  Garrie, Donald

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gray, James

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

  Green, Damian

  Soames, Nicholas

  Greenway, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Grieve, Dominic

  Spring, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Streeter, Gary

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Stunell, Andrew

  Hammond, Philip

  Swayne, Desmond

  Hancock, Mike

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Harvey, Nick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hayes, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Heald, Oliver

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Trend, Michael

  Horam, John

  Tyler, Paul

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Wallace, James

  Hughes, Sirnon (Southwark N)

  Wardle, Charles

  Hunter, Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Webb, Steve

  Johnson Smith,

  Wells, Bowen

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Whittingdale, John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Keetch, Paul

  Willetts, David

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Willis, Phil

  Key, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Woodward, Shaun

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Yeo, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Letwin, Oliver

  Sir David Madel and

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Council Tax Limitation (Derbyshire County Council) (Maximum Amount) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.

  Council Tax (Derbyshire)
    DEREGULATION
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
    DEREGULATION

      METHYLATED SPIRITS SALE (SCOTLAND)
      That the draft Deregulation (Methylated Spirits Sale by Retail) (Scotland) Order 1998 be approved. —[Mr. Jamieson.]
      Question agreed to.

    CRIME AND DISORDER BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
    Ordered,
    That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords].

    CRIME AND DISORDER BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

      Report and Third Reading
      1. (1) Proceedings on consideration and Third Reading shall be completed at two sittings and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after commencement of proceedings at the second sitting.
      (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings for any part of the period of six and half hours after commencement which falls after Ten o'clock.

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

      Conclusion of proceedings
      4. (I) For the purpose of concluding any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by or under this Order, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
      270

      (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

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

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

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

      (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour.
      (3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
      (4) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

      Miscellaneous
      5. If at any sitting a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over from an earlier day or to Seven o'clock—

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

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

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

  A27 (Sompting to Shoreham)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  12.6 am
  Mr. Tim Loughton: As the mass exodus of hon. Members from the Chamber will demonstrate, the subject of safety of children on the stretch of the A27 between Shoreham and Sompting is not necessarily of universal interest—although the wider implications of road safety, especially for children, certainly are of interest to all hon. Members. In my constituency, for my constituents, the subject of road safety is literally a matter of life and death.
  I am grateful to the Minister for Transport in London, who cannot attend this debate, as she has taken an active interest in the subject, and recently visited my constituency to investigate our problem at first hand. I am grateful also for the input provided by Lady Hayman. My sympathies perhaps go to the Minister for London and Construction for having to stand in for his colleague in this debate. I shall therefore not start my speech by saying, "The Minister is undoubtedly aware of the problems on that particular stretch of the A27." Moreover—for once in dealing with the A27—I shall not be majoring on the issue of the Worthing bypass, which, although it is a very large issue, is another matter entirely.
  As the south coast corridor, the A27 intersects my constituency, dividing the downs from the sea. It is the main trunk road between Folkestone and Honiton, and takes a great deal of through freight. It has also become much busier since completion of the Southwick tunnel a couple of years ago, and traffic is increasing. The road divides the villages of Sompting and Lancing—which has the distinction of being the largest village in England.
  The problem is that, right on the edge of the A27 is the Boundstone community college, which is the secondary school serving Sompting, Lancing and beyond. Frankly, it is a pretty bad place to site a major school such as this. The problem is that, on the eastern approach to the school, the road hits a blind bend. From the western approach, the school is situated just beneath the brow of a hill.
  A child starting at Boundstone community college who lives in the north of Lancing or Sompting is likely to cross the road no fewer than 3,000 times in his school career, just to get to school and home again. The chances of any child having an accident are therefore quite high. Today, one can drive on motorway or fast, motorway-standard road virtually all the way from Newcastle to within just a mile of the school. Then, in the area immediately before the school, the speed limit becomes, officially, 40 mph. The problem is that that limit is not adhered to.
  Over the past 11 or so years, there have been as many deaths on this stretch of road—an average of one fatality a year. In February 1997, Scott Purdie, a 13-year-old pupil of Boundstone community college, was killed on the pelican crossing outside the school while going to or from home for lunch. A few months later, a grown man from Lancing was knocked down and killed in broad daylight crossing the stretch of road just along from the school.
  On 14 January this year, a public meeting was held at Boundstone community college. At that meeting, which I attended, we heard moving accounts from the mothers of two children who had been killed on that road, including
  272
  the mother of Scott Purdie. That meeting was the culmination of much hard work and campaigning over many years by the school and the community.
  In the community, many petitions have been completed, and parents have recently staged many demonstrations. Much hard work has been done by Adur council—especially by the council leader whose ward borders the school—by Sompting parish council, by Adur youth council, by the police and emergency services and by West Sussex county council. I must praise the county council for its excellent recent publication—the road casualty reduction plan—which contains some very interesting proposals.
  As with most of the A27, the stretch of the road in question is now the responsibility of the Highways Agency. There is a feeling in my constituency that the Highways Agency is a rather remote body, as the office that has responsibility for this stretch of the road is in Dorking. To give the agency its due, a representative turned up at the public meeting, but since then the agency has, alas, declined my invitations to make a site visit, despite the promise of a meeting by one of the Ministers who has taken an interest.
  The agency has instituted several minor measures, such as improving some of the road markings and providing a few extra school signs, but as I drove past the school this weekend, I noticed that some of the new signs are obscured by bushes that overhang the road. A little work has also been done on the crash barriers along the road.
  Within weeks of the public meeting in January, a 12-year-old girl was knocked down near the pelican crossing and taken to hospital. Fortunately, she was not that seriously hurt, and she survived. Still, the road is an accident waiting to happen. Statistically, I fear that we are now due for another serious accident.
  In Sussex, we like to think that we are untypical, a cut above other shire counties. Alas, the traffic accident figures in our county are not untypical. In 1997, there were more than 600 casualties in the county, an increase of 5 per cent. over the previous year despite the increased congestion on our roads. Of that 600, 360 were pedestrian casualties, including 101 people who were killed or seriously injured. Some 34 per cent. of those cases involved children under the age of 16, and 89 per cent. of pedestrian accidents were on roads where the speed limit was 40 mph or less. A third of the fatalities occurred on bends, and 22 per cent. of the accidents involved cars being driven at excessive speed for the prevailing conditions.
  The figures have remained fairly constant for some years. It is difficult to understand how the traffic accident levels will reach the Government's target in 2000, which is based on the average for 1981–85, particularly given that road activity in the county over the past 16 years has increased by 54 per cent. All the dangerous elements that I have mentioned are pertinent to that stretch of the A27, combining to make it one of the most dangerous accident black spots in the county, if not the country.
  What can be done? The Highways Agency has just tinkered and talked about safety surveys. We urgently need substantive action. Suggestions made at the public meeting included an overhead walkway or an underpass. Those are well-intentioned ideas, but they will take a lot of time and money, and there will be problems with siting

  273
  them and in deciding what land should be used. Moreover, children cannot be forced to use an underpass or overhead walkway.
  I have mentioned road markings, anti-skid surfaces and crash barriers, but they are not enough. There is also the possibility of moving the traffic lights, but that would make it even less likely that the children would use them.
  The key is education of the children. I welcome the work of the local education authority and the health authority on that. However, I favour the easy and quick option of accident black spot signs, which should be alarming and striking. We could have flashing signs, such as those used in France, which have been tested in the west country. We need more advanced signs that are not obscured by bushes. We could also change the timing on the traffic lights to make them respond more quickly, provided that they do not constantly stop the traffic.
  The most important proposal that I should like the Minister to take up is speed cameras. We have just one red-light-jumping camera, which rarely operates. I am not calling for a change in the speed limit on this important stretch of trunk road. I want motorists to abide by the 40 mph limit. Speed cameras are the most effective way to induce drivers to slow down. In surveys, 80 per cent. of drivers freely admit to speeding. The public rank it as a minor indiscretion, just above illegal parking offences. Research shows that speed cameras can cut accidents by up to 70 per cent. The trouble is that four out of five are switched off or empty of working film. It is essential that they should work and be seen to work.
  Only one in 10 people photographed by the cameras are prosecuted. The 750,000 fixed-penalty tickets issued have raised £30 million, but the cameras cost between £9,000 and £16,000 a year to maintain. I welcome the Government's proposals to reinvest some of the revenue to install new cameras and maintain the existing ones properly. The hypothecation of motoring revenue for safety and environmental improvement, flagged by the Deputy Prime Minister, is also welcome. Only six new cameras were installed in West Sussex last year. Tests by the Sussex police show that computerised cameras that read number plates automatically can work. We have the necessary infrastructure and expertise.
  I have made some practical and affordable proposals that could be instituted quickly and with minimal upheaval. I urge the Minister to ask the Highways Agency to institute such substantive measures.
  I cannot leave the subject without mentioning the Worthing bypass, which remains the highest priority for my constituency, particularly Lancing, Sompting and north Worthing, which is rapidly becoming a pilot scheme for integrated gridlock. I am pleased that discussions between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Government office for the south-east continue to identify the A27 Worthing bypass as a high priority.
  I urge the Minister urgently to progress the scheme. I hope that we shall hear good news in the trunk road review later in the year. Although the bypass would certainly ease the amount of traffic using the A27 between Sompting and Shoreham, it would not necessarily solve the problem, because the traffic that remained would be induced to travel even faster. Even if the bypass is built, as I certainly hope, safety measures on the A27 would have to accompany it.
  274
  The Shoreham flyover is a mile or so down the road from the Sompting-to-Shoreham stretch. The A27 throughout my constituency is littered with accident black spots. The Shoreham flyover has been the subject of 12 personal injury accidents over the past few years. The number of accidents over the past three years has been increasing. They typically occur after dark, and at about the same spot: on the Shoreham slip road. Due to problems of light pollution of guidance systems at nearby Shoreham airport, the area of road is poorly lit. More discreet lighting, such as light guidance tubes, or more reflective chevrons could be used to improve the safety of the hazardous zone.
  There was a most horrific accident in the new year on that very stretch of road. A young firewoman, Sarah Cotton, went to rescue two passengers who were trapped in a car that had crashed. The barrier had been smashed away, and the firewoman fell 34 ft on to hard ground below the flyover. She is remarkably lucky to be alive; she has only recently come out of hospital. She will need much treatment over many years to come, and her career in the fire service is obviously severely in doubt.
  Alas, the Highways Agency has appeared reluctant to do anything about the black spot. Despite my constant letters and requests, it sees no reason to replace any of the 20-year-old barriers, which have been regularly weakened by crashes. Nor does it see a reason for improving the lighting, even just of the signs, or on the slip road, which I believe is the real cause of problem. That belief is certainly shared by members of the emergency services, who so tragically saw the problems at first hand.
  It has been calculated that a fatal accident costs £800,000. A serious injury accident on the roads costs £90,000. The cost to the community—personally and psychologically to the families, schools and classmates of the victims I have mentioned—is immeasurable. For the cost of one fatality, we could install serious safety measures that might just defy the law of statistics and prevent another fatality or serious injury for many years to come. I therefore urge the Minister to press the Highways Agency to revisit the problem, and to come up with more substantial solutions as a matter of urgency.
  The clock is ticking until the next inevitable tragic accident. The clock is ticking louder and louder the longer we leave it. I do not want to attend another public meeting next year and hear the tragic testimony of another parent whose child has been snatched from her by a needless accident at an accident black spot about which we all knew, which any responsible person could have seen coming. Accidents happen; accidents waiting to happen, as is so in this case, can and should be prevented. I therefore urge the Minister to facilitate some serious proposals in order to help my constituents.
  12.22 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) on having secured this debate, and on using it to highlight a matter which is obviously of very real concern to his constituents. He has highlighted the particular problems on the stretch of the A27 that runs through his constituency—a road with which I am not entirely unfamiliar, although I have not given it the same detailed

  275
  attention as my colleagues the Minister for Transport in London and Baroness Hayman, to whom he kindly referred.
  The A27 forms part of the strategically important south coast route, linking the channel ports and the channel tunnel with Brighton and Worthing, and, westwards, with Portsmouth, Southampton and beyond. The five-mile length of the A27 to which the hon. Gentleman has referred goes through the urban area of Lancing, and acts as a boundary to the residential area at Shoreham. Most of the length is dual carriageway, with the exception of half a mile in Lancing.
  Traffic flows are between 40,000 and 50,000 vehicles a day. The length west of the River Adur is lighted, and the speed limits vary from 70 mph on the dual-carriageway sections to 40 or 30 mph on the single-carriageway sections.
  In the east, the new Brighton bypass, with the Southwick tunnel, was completed in spring 1996 and links with the existing dual carriageway north of Shoreham. Continuing westwards, the A27, including the River Adur viaduct, was completed in 1970, when the dual carriageway around Sompting was extended. Most of the dual carriageway is to a reasonable standard, but the road has side road accesses, particularly on to the existing single carriageway at Lancing. If I may be allowed a personal observation, it is not the most attractive example of motorway construction, because it makes a substantial impact on one of the most attractive parts of the Sussex countryside.
  Towards the end of his speech, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the provision of more major improvements to the A27 between Sompting and Shoreham. The A27 Worthing-Lancing improvement scheme, which was designed to improve the flow and safety of traffic using the road and to improve the urban environment by removing through traffic from unsuitable roads, was withdrawn from the trunk road programme by the previous Administration in November 1996. The reasons were numerous.
  First, the scheme was very expensive and the economic case for it was weakened when induced traffic was taken into account. Secondly, its cost meant that it could not have been constructed for many years. Thirdly, it would have had a serious adverse effect on the surrounding area. Finally, there was a lack of broad consensus on the appropriate route.
  Following the withdrawal of the major improvement scheme in 1996, the then Secretary of State for Transport agreed to set out terms of reference for a study to consider what could be done to identify alternative, smaller-scale improvements to the existing A27, and to explore ways in which discussions could be taken forward with local authorities and the business community. However, no action was taken before the general election, and it has been overtaken by this Government's launch of our fundamental review of the roads programme and the role that trunk roads should play in an integrated transport strategy.
  One output from that review will be a programme of studies to consider the most urgent problems for which schemes in the inherited programme are either inappropriate in the light of the integrated transport policy or not available. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that 1 cannot give any commitment to
  276
  including the A27 in his constituency in the list of highest-priority studies in advance of the publication of the review. Nevertheless, he made a forceful case for measures on the route.
  West Sussex county council already receives funding from my Department for a transport package for Worthing, through the transport policies and programmes system. The county council has already drawn attention to the difficulties caused by the withdrawal of the Worthing-Lancing improvement proposal which make it necessary to review the package objectives.
  Once the roads review is completed and the position concerning this section of the A27 is known, officials in the Government office for the south-east will be looking to work with West Sussex county council, Worthing borough council and the Highways Agency further to develop measures such as park and ride, improvements in public transport, and improved facilities for cyclists and pedestrians, aimed principally at encouraging the use of alternative transport to the motor car and so reducing congestion and improving the environment.
  The personal accidents, injuries and fatalities along this stretch of the A27 are an obvious cause for concern. The hon. Gentleman drew attention to several harrowing accidents. The accident rate over three years there is higher than the national average, and I understand his wish for urgent action. The Highways Agency assures me that it is well aware of the problem over this section of road, and is doing all it can to improve safety for pedestrians and road users. It has taken some significant steps over the past few years to improve safety.
  To take the various sections in turn, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the number of accidents over the past few years at the River Adur-Shoreham flyover, in particular where the eastbound and westbound slip roads join from the A283, which goes under the viaduct. I am told that, since the opening of the Brighton bypass in the spring of 1996, the number of accidents has fallen, probably because some of them were associated with the disruption caused by the building of the new road.
  None the less, the agency has carried out an accident investigation of the junction, and has agreed to carry out some minor works to reduce the likelihood of accidents. Those include adding chevrons and painting the existing safety fence with reflective paint at the exits and entrances to the A27 junction, which should help to address some of the problems that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in connection with accidents at night. There are other measures that the agency may implement if accidents continue—for example, additional road studs, improving the white lining, and signing.
  The chief executive of the Highways Agency wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 9 March in response to queries about the strength of the parapets across the Adur viaduct and other issues. He confirmed that the broken parapets had been replaced with a new section. The parapets provided when the bridge was built continue to be safe, although, if the bridge were built today, the barriers would be stronger. He pointed out that the agency could not replace that short length of broken parapet with the latest design, as the joint between the old and the new would be difficult, the fixings to the bridge would not be in the same position, and the sections would not match visually. The alternative would be to replace all the parapets, which could not be justified on cost grounds.

  277
  In response to the hon. Gentleman's query about the lack of direction signs and his request that lighting should be provided over the viaduct, the chief executive replied that it was not the agency's policy to light signs on unlighted stretches of road, and that to do so on the Shoreham flyover would set a costly precedent for the whole of the road network. In addition, there is a problem with the provision of lighting in that exposed location, partly because of the environmental context, but also because of the proximity of the airport—a point to which the hon. Gentleman alluded.
  There have been a number of accidents around the Sussex Pad junction, several of which have involved students from Lancing college crossing the road to Shoreham airport, the Ricardos area and Shoreham town centre. The Worthing-Lancing improvement scheme would have overcome that problem with a grade-separated junction, but now that that has been dropped from the trunk road programme, the agency proposes to install improved traffic signals at that location, together with better crossing facilities. It will also keep the situation under review.
  The hon. Gentleman drew particular attention to the Boundstone college area. There have been a number of serious accidents, including fatalities, at the pelican crossing near the college, which is situated immediately adjacent to the trunk road, and there has been a substantial campaign for action to improve the situation.
  Representatives of the Highways Agency have had regular meetings with West Sussex county council, have attended a public meeting at Boundstone college, and have discussed what can be done with many parties, including the police, local councillors, and the headmistress of the school. The agency has recently implemented a low-cost safety scheme at the pelican crossing, comprising improved signing, new anti-skid surfacing and the relocation of stop lines further back from the crossing.
  There is pressure to reduce the speed limit in the vicinity of the crossing from the present 40 mph, but the police do not favour that option. They prefer instead to reduce the overall speed of traffic by enforcement on a regular basis, and to assist that policy, the 40 mph repeater signs have been increased in size to help to get the message across.
  Consideration has been given to the erection of speed cameras, not only in the vicinity of Boundstone college but elsewhere along the A27 between Sompting and Shoreham. The hon. Gentleman pressed that point, but I must tell him that the police have pointed out that cameras would be difficult to justify because of the high installation and administration costs, especially at a site
  278
  such as the Boundstone college crossing, where the statistics suggest—I cannot comment personally on the situation; I am simply giving the figures—that none of the casualties resulted from accidents in which speed was a primary factor.
  To reduce the possibility of vehicles jumping the lights at the Boundstone crossing, which may be a more serious factor in causing accidents, a "red light" camera has been installed on the eastbound carriageway.
  The Highways Agency will continue to liaise closely with the police about speed limits and enforcement over this length of road, and it will take forward any measures that are considered to be appropriate. The agency hopes that, in the longer term, it will be possible to provide a segregated crossing, with either a footbridge or a subway. That option is being considered, but it would be extremely expensive, as it would probably involve the relocation of complex services and road closures, which would almost certainly involve a public inquiry.
  The Highways Agency is also looking at other measures to improve the safety of that section of the A27 road by the provision of pedestrian refuges and other low-cost options. In addition, the agency hopes to initiate the study of options to improve traffic management and enhance junction capacity through Worthing and Lancing. That will include consideration of bus priority measures and any other worthwhile schemes, which will be taken forward as and when funds permit.
  The hon. Gentleman expressed some concern about the extent to which the Highways Agency is aware of and sensitive to the problems he has highlighted. I understand that the Highways Agency's chief executive, Lawrie Haynes, has agreed to meet the hon. Gentleman on site to discuss the various issues.
  Mr. Loughton indicated dissent.
  Mr. Raynsford: That is what I have been told. I hope that, if the hon. Gentleman has not yet received the message, it will reach him shortly. The meeting will give him an opportunity to impress on Mr. Haynes the issues that he has raised tonight.
  The matter is a serious one, and the Government do take it seriously. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that, although there are constraints—not least financial constraints—the Highways Agency wants to do what it can within those constraints to improve the safety of his constituents and of road users and pedestrians in the area. I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting these issues tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to One o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Junior Barristers
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received concerning the rights of junior barristers to share the silk's bench in court; and if he will make a statement. [45147]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have received no representations on this subject. Where different types of authorised advocate sit in court is merely a matter of tradition and courtesy, rather than of law. It would be for the judiciary and for the legal profession, rather than for the Government, to consider whether any change is desirable.

WALES

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the powers of the National Assembly for Wales in regard to the restructuring of health trusts in Wales. [45156]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Subject to the forthcoming consultation, the present restructuring will be completed when the new trusts assume their full responsibilities on 1 April 1999, prior to the first elections to the National Assembly for Wales. The powers under which trusts are being reconfigured are among those that I propose to transfer to the National Assembly. It will, therefore, be open to the Assembly to make further changes at a later date, if necessary.

  School Vandalism
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with LEAs about vandalism to school buildings. [45952]

  Mr. Hain
  Following the issue of the Report of the Working Group on School Security to all local education authorities in June 1996, the Welsh Office has consulted LEAs on a wide range of school security issues resulting in the publication of the following guidance:Directory of Local Authority Practice on School Security
  School Security: Dealing with Troublemakers
  Improving Security in School.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to reduce vandalism in schools. [45951]
  118
  Mr. Hain
  School security measures are a priority category for funding under the New Deal for Schools capital funding initiative. £654,000 was made available for such measures in 1997–98; we are currently evaluating local authorities' bids for 1998–99.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the cost of vandalism to school buildings in the last year for which figures are available. [45950]

  Mr. Hain
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he has taken to facilitate the co-ordination of the Mid Wales Development and the Welsh Development Agency; and if he will make a statement. [45891]

  Mr. Hain
  The Government of Wales Bill makes provision for the amalgamation later this year of the Development Board for Rural Wales with the Welsh Development Agency and the Land Authority for Wales, and the appropriate statutory and administrative arrangements are being made to effect this amalgamation.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the consequences for the Welsh Development Agency of the setting up of regional development agencies in England; and if he will make a statement. [45881]

  Mr. Hain
  The new Regional Development Agencies in England will enable the English regions to deploy expertise and resources to secure improvements in economic and social development, and their establishment is welcomed.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the members of the board of the Welsh Development Agency. [45883]

  Mr. Hain
  The members of the board of the Welsh Development Agency are:

  Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe—Chairman

  Mr. Robin Lewis OBE—Deputy Chairman

  Professor Garel Rhys OBE

  Mrs. Rhiannon Chapman

  Mr. George Wright MBE

  Mrs. Patricia Woodward

  Mr. Graham Hawker

  Mr. Trefor Glyn Jones OBE DL

  Mr. William Legge-Bourke DL

  Councillor T. P. Noel Crowley

  Mr. Brian Willott CB—Chief Executive.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General when he was first informed of the Sandline operation in Sierra Leone. [45806]
  119
  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to my written answer to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) on 20 May 1998,Official Report, columns 40– 01. That represented my first involvement with the Sandline case.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Accident Rates
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evaluation he has made of the accident rates on the(a) A69 and (b) A66 in each of the last 10 years. [44895]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Accident rates cannot be calculated as traffic data are not readily available. The number of accidents is shown in the following table:

  Accidents on the A69 and A66: 1988–1996

  Year

  A69

  A66

  1988

  204

  249

  1989

  174

  255

  1990

  189

  282

  1991

  98

  233

  1992

  115

  199

  1993

  84

  229

  1994

  99

  227

  1995

  80

  205

  1996

  115

  178

  1997

  106

  175

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evaluation he has made of the accident rates on the section of the M6 between junction 44 and the Scottish border in each of the last 10 years. [44841]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Accident rates cannot be calculated as traffic data are not readily available. The number of accidents is shown in the following table:

  Accidents on the road (A74) between junction 44 on the M6 and the Scottish border

  Year

  Number

  1988

  21

  1989

  15

  1990

  15

  1991

  22

  1992

  14

  1993

  15

  1994

  10

  1995

  19

  1996

  15

  1997

  14

  Driver Test Centre, Stafford
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will halt the closure of the Driver Test Centre in Stafford. [44976]
  120
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The landlord of the premises where the current test centre is located has the normal contractual freedom whether or not to grant the Agency a replacement lease and has refused to accede to the Agency's request to do so in this case.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require the Driving Standards Agency to make provision for an alternative test centre in Stafford before closing the existing test centre. [44977]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Driving Standards Agency is keen to retain a testing presence within Stafford and is searching for suitable accommodation in the town. Since receiving notice from the Ordinance Survey of their intention to end the lease on the premises in Wolverhampton Road, ten properties have been considered but none was suitable. The Agency has been unable to renegotiate a short-term lease for the current centre whilst alternative premises are sought.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors determined the length of notice the Ordnance Survey gave the Driving Standards Agency of its intention to vacate its premises on Wolverhampton Road, Stafford. [44975]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Ordnance Survey first notified the Driving Standards Agency of their decision to vacate the offices of Wolverhampton Road, Stafford, in November 1996, in accordance with Government guidelines that require a minimum of 12 months notice to be given. Ordnance Survey no longer need this office, which they vacated on 12 December 1997, and have arranged to terminate their lease on 23 June 1998.

  Driver Test Centres (Closure)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department has issued to the Driving Standards Agency on the minimum notice period required before closure of a driver test centre. [44974]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No specific guidance has been given to the Driving Standards Agency about periods of notice for test centre closures but, wherever possible, the Agency consults with the driver training industry, local authorities, the local MP and local driving instructors.

  Minister for the Environment
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the travel arrangements for the Minister for the Environment's visit to the Waste Management Conference in Torbay on 9 June; and what was the cost to public funds. [45431]

  Mr. Meacher
  I travelled by helicopter; there was no cost to public funds.

  Properties (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statistics his Department collates on the number of properties in the
  121
  county of Derbyshire, excluding the city of Derby, in each of the council tax bands A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H; and what are the latest figures. [45537]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Department collects the following data, for each Council Tax band, from billing authorities each year:Total number of dwellings on the valuation list
  Number of Class A to W exempt dwellings on the valuation list
  Number of demolished dwellings and dwellings outside area of authority
  Number of chargeable dwellings
  Number of chargeable dwellings eligible for disabled relief
  Number of dwellings effectively subject to Council Tax for a band by virtue of disabled relief
  Number of chargeable dwellings adjusted in accordance with the above figures for disabled relief
  Number of dwellings entitled to a 25 per cent. discount
  Number of dwellings entitled to a 50 per cent. discount
  Number of other dwellings (assumed to be entitled to no discounts)
  Total equivalent number of dwellings after discounts, exemptions and disabled relief
  Number of Band D equivalents
  Number of Band D equivalents of contributions in lieu of council tax (in respect of Class 0 dwellings)
  Taxbase for Revenue Support Grant purposes.

  I have today placed in the Library of the House tables showing the above information for district councils in Derbyshire, excluding the city of Derby. The data refer to the number of dwellings on the valuation list at 16 October 1997 and the position on exemptions and discounts as at 3 November 1997, which are the reference dates for the calculation of the taxbase for Revenue Support Grant purposes for 1998–99.

  West Coast Main Line
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the fast lines on the West Coast Mainline will be devoted to Virgin Rail Services following the upgrading agreed by the Rail Regulator. [45321]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. The upgrade proposal initially submitted to the Regulator reserved the fast lines on the WCML south of Rugby for high speed services. The Regulator's decision was that such rights to exclusivity were inappropriate, and this aspect of the proposal has been withdrawn.

  Roads (Winter Maintenance)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will rank each local authority in England in terms of the amount spent on winter road maintenance per mile for(a) trunk and (b) other roads for the latest year for which figures are available. [45327]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Data on local authority winter road maintenance are collected by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA). The most recent data on spending on winter maintenance on local authority-owned roads by English local highway authorities are for 1995–96. In that year, 84 authorities provided non-zero returns for their spending on winter 122
  maintenance. A further 16 authorities returned zero spending on winter maintenance. The remaining 34 authorities did not separate out spending on winter maintenance from other maintenance spending.

  Winter maintenance expenditure depends on local weather conditions and will therefore vary widely. It will also vary from year to year, so that a single year's results are of limited utility. Data for 1996–97 will be available later in the year.

  Data on the 84 authorities providing non-zero returns are set out in the table. It is derived from data collected and published by CIPFA as Highways and Transportation Statistics 1997, CIS 14.97, November 1997.

  Local authority

  Winter maintenance actual expenditure £ per km

  Cornwall

  69

  Sutton

  96

  Camden

  121

  Isle of Wight

  173

  Somerset

  178

  Devon

  207

  Lincolnshire

  215

  Norfolk

  248

  Oxfordshire

  261

  Essex

  287

  Cambridgeshire

  295

  Suffolk

  300

  St. Helens

  318

  Redbridge

  326

  Dorset

  332

  Liverpool

  337

  Wirral

  344

  Shropshire

  344

  Bexley

  356

  Sefton

  360

  Warwickshire

  364

  Wakefield

  369

  Wigan

  374

  Cumbria

  374

  Croydon

  376

  Cheshire

  378

  Gloucestershire

  382

  Havering

  388

  East Sussex

  389

  Stockport

  396

  Solihull

  402

  Enfield

  407

  Hampshire

  410

  West Sussex

  415

  Hounslow

  432

  Knowsley

  442

  North Yorkshire

  450

  Doncaster

  451

  Trafford

  453

  Nottinghamshire

  458

  Manchester

  476

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  479

  Hertfordshire

  489

  Hereford & Worcester

  497

  Rotherham

  497

  Barking & Dagenham

  502

  Northamptonshire

  503

  Coventry

  506

  Staffordshire

  509

  Kent

  529

  Bromley

  535

  Westminster

  539

  Hackney

  546

  Bury

  547

  South Tyneside

  549

  123

  Local authority

  Winter maintenance actual expenditure £ per km

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  563

  Salford

  581

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  588

  Rochdale

  607

  Wiltshire

  613

  Newham

  638

  Hillingdon

  643

  Northumberland

  683

  Leeds

  685

  Lancashire

  686

  Bolton

  745

  Barnet

  761

  Dudley

  772

  Derbyshire

  799

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  803

  Wandsworth

  804

  Bradford

  819

  Buckinghamshire

  822

  Kirklees

  862

  Barnsley

  865

  Surrey

  874

  Durham

  875

  Bedfordshire

  902

  Harrow

  966

  Birmingham

  1,060

  Gateshead

  1,075

  Calderdale

  1,185

  Oldham

  1,208

  Ealing

  1,705

  In 1995–96, £21.6 million was allocated for winter maintenance on trunk roads by the Highways Agency to its maintenance agents, not all of whom are local authorities.

  M5
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects work on the M5 around the Avon Bridge to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [45163]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Adrian Sanders, dated 16 June 1998:
  The Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the roadworks on the M5 at Avonmouth.
  The strengthening of the M5 Avonmouth Bridge to comply with new loading standards, including 40 tonne lorries, will take longer than anticipated to complete due to the bridge being in a much worse condition than expected. Some traffic management will have to remain in place whilst the strengthening is completed. All parties to the contract are working in a partnering arrangement with the aim of completing the strengthening work by the end of the year 2000.
  However, the actual widening of the M5 Motorway between Junctions 18 and 19 to dual four lanes, and the associated improvements to the junctions, is expected to be completed in August this year. This will allow more than half of the existing contraflow to be removed.

  Great Western Trains
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent 124
  representations he has received about the performance of Great Western trains on the Penzance to Paddington route; and if he will make a statement. [45516]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising have received some 90 representation about the performance of Great Western's train services generally since the beginning of 1998.

  Great Western has experienced a number of operational and infrastructure problems in recent months which have resulted in an unacceptable quality of service to passengers. OPRAF monitors performance and has agreed with the company an action plan to address the causes of the problems, involving Railtrack as appropriate. To provide further incentive to improve, a performance regime was introduced on 1 April under which Great Western pays a penalty to the Franchising Director of £250 in the event of a train being 20 minutes late, £500 if 30 minutes late or if it does not operate the full journey, and £1,000 if cancelled altogether. This is the first time that such a performance regime has been applied to an InterCity train operator.

  Public Inquiries
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision is available to compensate parties whose legal costs become nugatory when a planning public inquiry has to be recommenced with a new inspector due to the long-term illness of the original planning inspector; and if he will make a statement. [45438]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There is no provision for reimbursing parties for expenses incurred in participating in a planning inquiry which is not completed due to the illness of the Inspector. The Planning Inspectorate normally agrees to meet the cost of any reasonable additional or wasted expenses where the Inspectorate accepts that it has been at fault. However, the Inspectorate is not prepared to entertain claims relating to circumstances beyond its control.

  Green Belt (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the area of Green Belt in Worcestershire in each of the years 1979 to 1997.[45620]

  Mr. Caborn
  The current estimate of the size of Worcestershire's Green Belt is 40,400 hectares. It is not possible to estimate the size at earlier dates as, during the period 1979–1997, many small detailed changes took place as part of the preparation and adoption of local plans in the area by the local authorities.

  Urban Areas (Green Spaces)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to safeguard the development of new open space in urban areas following recent guidance relating to housing development on brownfield sites. [45714]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Our planning policy guidance already recognises the value of urban open space and advises that planning policies should seek to achieve a reasonable
  125
  balance between the need to make adequate provision for development and the need to protect open land from development. We will be considering whether we need to strengthen existing guidance in the revising Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 on Housing. In doing this, we will take into account research, which we hope to publish shortly, on the effectiveness of Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 on Sport and Recreation. We are also tightening up planning controls in respect of development of local authority owned playing fields where the English Sports Council advises against the proposals.

  Electoral Boundaries (Cumbria)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the Boundary Commission's review of electoral boundaries in Cumbria; and when he will announce his decision on the boundaries. [45690]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have received 20 representations on the Local Government Commission's final recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Cumbria. We are currently considering these representations and intend to announce our preliminary response to the recommendations shortly. At present, it is intended that the new arrangements will be established in time for the 1999 elections.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the guarantees which(a) the Government and (b) LCR have given to Railtrack for the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [45624]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government have not given to Railtrack any direct guarantees in relation to the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister explained in his statement to the House on 3 June 1998,Official Report, columns 367–70, the Government have agreed to assist the capacity of Eurostar (UK) Ltd. to meet its commitments, including to Railtrack; this support is forecast to amount to not more than £140 million, none of which would fall due before 2010, and which would be more than offset by the Government's 35 per cent. share in LCR pretax cashflow after 2020.

  LCR has agreed to give Railtrack an exclusive option to commit to purchase the second phase of construction provided that option is exercised no later than 1 July 2003.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much of Eurostar's management company will be controlled by French and Belgian railways; and what percentage shareholdings they currently have in the Eurostar trilateral partnership.[45627]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The SNCF and SNCB initial shareholding in the Eurostar management company is proposed to be 35 per cent. and 15 per cent. respectively. This will reduce to 21.7 per cent. and 8.7 per cent. respectively if British Airways exercise an option to increase its shareholding. The Eurostar trilateral 126
  partnership has no formal shareholding structure. Each company is responsible for operations and physical assets within its own territory.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's recent decision to write off the cost of Eurostar sleeper trains. [45533]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The rolling stock for this service was ordered from Metro Cammel in 1992 by European Night Services Ltd. (ENS) using a lease purchase facility. ENS is a joint venture company owned by Eurostar (UK) Ltd. along with the national railways of France, Germany and Holland. The liabilities of Eurostar (UK) Ltd. under the lease purchase facility were the subject of a Government Guarantee agreed by the previous Government which was notified to Parliament in 1996. Following the decision by ENS not to run night services, the lease on the partially built rolling stock was terminated. Eurostar (UK) Ltd. were unable to meet their portion of the termination of the termination costs so in order to avoid the collapse of the CTRL project, the Government consented to call on their Guarantee being made. The Government made payments to the lessors totalling £109,477,725.33 inc. VAT on 1 June 1998 but have arranged a provision so that there would be an opportunity of a return to the taxpayer in the event that the rolling stock were sold on by the manufacturer.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the modes of transport the Minister of the Environment used in his official capacity on 9 June, specifying the amount of time spent and distance travelled in each mode. [45747]

  Mr. Meacher
  I travelled to and from my engagements on 9 June by whatever means were most convenient to enable me to conduct Government business most efficiently. (This included walking, car, bicycle and helicopter).

  Trans-urban Heavy Rail Scheme
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the role of trans-urban heavy rail schemes in an integrated transport strategy. [45523]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We will shortly publish a White Paper which will deliver our commitment to introduce an integrated transport policy. Meanwhile, last November we approved the Franchising Director's interim planning criteria, which provide a framework for developing and implementing worthwhile rail investment.

  Accidents (Colchester)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evaluation he has made of the accident rates in Colchester High Street in each of the last 10 years. [45547]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Records of personal injury accidents are kept by Essex County Council and their agents Colchester Borough Council as highway authorities for local roads in Colchester. Evaluation of these accidents is for these authorities.
  127
  However, I am able to tell the hon. Member that the accidents in Colchester High Street since 1984 were as follows:

  Colchester High Street—Accident Summary

  Before works

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1 January 1984–31 December 1984

  0

  4

  15

  19

  1 January 1985–31 December 1985

  0

  3

  8

  11

  1 January 1986–31 December 1986

  1

  0

  9

  10

  1 January 1987–31 December 1987

  0

  4

  9

  13

  1 January 1988–31 December 1988

  0

  6

  9

  15

  1 January 1989–31 December 1989

  0

  3

  7

  10

  1 January 1990–31 December 1990

  0

  2

  9

  11

  1 January 1991–31 December 1991

  0

  2

  13

  15

  1 January 1992–31 December 1992

  0

  3

  6

  9

  1 January 1993–31 December 1993

  0

  3

  6

  9

  Total

  1

  27

  91

  119

  Note:

  Annual average = 11·9

  Experimental works started in early February 1994

  After works

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  24 April 1994–23 April 1995

  0

  0

  7

  7

  24 April 1995–23 April 1996

  0

  1

  4

  5

  24 April 1996–23 April 1997

  0

  1

  6

  7

  24 April 1997–31 March 1998

  0

  3

  3

  6

  Total

  0

  5

  20

  25

  Note:

  Annual average=6·38

  Traffic calming and other measures in the High Street were commenced in February 1994. The annual accident rate since then has reduced by 46 per cent.

  Private Tenancies (Licensing Schemes)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has received from the Association of Residential Letting Agents for a national private housing tenancy licensing scheme; and what response he gave to them. [45435]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I met the Chairman of the Association of Residential Letting Agents on 8 December 1997 to discuss their proposals for compulsory registration of all landlords and their properties in the private rented sector. I confirmed in my letter to him of 3 February that the Government are not persuaded that this would be either feasible or desirable because of the huge burden it would place on local authorities and the risk of discouraging sideline landlords from letting property. However, I reaffirmed our commitment to develop proposals for licensing Houses in Multiple Occupation where the risks to health and safety tend to be the greatest.

  Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled People)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the operation of section 35 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 with particular reference to problems faced by blind people with guide dogs in obtaining access to private hire taxis. [45550]
  128
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. Section 37 of the Disability Discrimination Act will require drivers of licensed taxis to carry passengers and their guide or hearing dogs and to do so without additional charge. The taxi provisions of the Act do not apply to private hire vehicles.

  Section 37 will be brought into force after we have consulted on procedures for medical exemptions later this year.

  Biodiversity
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the conference of the Parties to the Biodiversity Convention Meeting in Bratislava. [46420]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Fourth Meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity was held in Bratislava from 4 to 15 May. The United Kingdom led active participation by the European Union, which helped ensure that many of our objectives for this meeting, as agreed at the March Environment Council, were achieved.

  A range of further work was agreed on measures to safeguard biodiversity in inland water, forest, agriculture, and coastal and marine ecosystems. Arrangements were agreed for the conclusion of the negotiation of a Biosafety Protocol to the Convention by early next year, and to hold an inter-sessional working group to consider further the implementation of the Convention's provisions on traditional knowledge. The meeting commissioned further work to analyse the first round of national reports from Parties, and the preparation of guidance on the nature and timing of the next round. Attention will also be given inter-sessionally to access to genetic resources and benefit-sharing.

  The UK laid particular emphasis on the need to improve the operations of the Convention and the Conference of the Parties, and while some progress was made on this in Bratislava, further consideration will take place at an inter-sessional meeting next year. The UK will continue to press for improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the Convention's operations, in order to maximise delivery of the Convention's objectives.

  Cyclists (Injuries)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cyclists suffered minor injuries on roads in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [45798]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Slight cyclist casualties: UK 1993–97

  Year

  Total

  1993

  20,495

  1994

  21,056

  1995

  21,260

  1996

  21,049

  1997

  21,274

  Rail Services (Matlock to Buxton)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans have been put to his Department for the re-establishment of passenger rail services from Matlock to Buxton; and if he will make a statement. [45349]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: We are aware of the proposal to re-establish passenger rail services from Matlock to Buxton as part of a wider strategy for the area. Any decision to re-establish services will be a matter for the promoters of the scheme, together with Railtrack, the local authorities and the relevant train operating companies.

  Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place in the Library copies of the correspondence his Department has received in the last six months concerning the implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive as it affects the offshore oil and gas industry. [46009]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) as it applies to the offshore oil and gas industry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. However, my Department has taken the lead in the initial public consultation on the implementation generally of the amended EIA Directive (97/11/EC) which must be done by 14 March 1999, and I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend, the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, gave on 12 May 1998,Official Report, column 66.

  Public Toilets
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of public toilets per 10,000 population in each local authority in England. [46083]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None. The Audit Commission, however, publish annually the number of public conveniences provided by each authority. Their latest report "Local Authority Performance Indicators 96–97" is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Taxi Vouchers
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of taxi vouchers, pursuant to the recently announced Rural Transport initiative. [45640]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: The main aim of the new finance for rural transport, announced in the Budget, is to promote additional services; it is not available for concessionary fares,
  130
  including taxi vouchers. Concessionary fare schemes remain a matter for individual local authorities, who will doubtless wish to consider whether taxi vouchers could provide useful flexibility in rural areas.

  Transport White Paper
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reasons underlie the delays in publishing the White Paper on Transport; and on what date it will be published. [46216]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has said that the White Paper will be published soon after the Comprehensive Spending Review. On the day of publication, a statement will be made to the House in the normal way.

  Rail Infrastructure
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy in respect of the direct use of public funds for construction of new rail infrastructure. [46144]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Resources are available from a number of budgets within the Department. Schemes are considered on their own merits in terms of the value for money that they provide.

  Cars (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what schemes are being evaluated by his Department to reduce private car use in London; and if he will make a statement. [45568]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have said that we wish to see fewer private cars in cities, with more people walking, cycling and using public transport. Our proposals for achieving these aims will be published in the Integrated Transport White Paper. The responsibility for implementing them in London will rest with the new Greater London Authority.

  We have of course already made additional money available to London Transport over two years to improve the Underground. We have issued revised Traffic Management and Parking Guidance with greater emphasis on measures to assist buses, cyclists, and pedestrians in London, and we are working with the boroughs and transport operators on a number of initiatives to open up a wider set of transport choices for all and reduce dependency on the car, over the next two years.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many car parking places have been approved in developments in inner London in the past year; and what data his Department has collated on previous years. [45567]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department does not hold this information.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many developments in London(a) he has called in and (b) have been referred to him due to the number of car parking spaces that are included in them. [45569]
  131
  Mr. Caborn
  In the last twelve months, four planning applications in London have been called in where the Secretary of State has indicated that parking is one of the issues about which he specifically wishes to be informed in reaching his decision. No planning applications have been referred to him solely because of the number of car parking spaces provide.

  Sewerage
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the extent to which the draft water industry specifications for plastic sewage pipes are in line with Part H of the Building Regulations covering household drainage. [45207]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Only one draft water industry specification for plastic sewage pipes is currently under development and this is for thermoplastic structured pipes for the construction of gravity sewers. These pipes are larger than those generally used in household drainage. The guidance in the Approved Document to Part H of the Building Regulations lists pipe materials and the relevant British Standards, but does not specifically address the type of pipe in the water industry specification.

  However, the references in Approved Documents are not exclusive and other materials or products may be suitable in the particular circumstance. Given this, pipes and fittings which comply with the draft water industry specification for plastic sewage pipes should be acceptable for use in drainage systems which need to meet the requirements of Part H of the Building Regulations.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when Part H of the Building Regulations will be reviewed. [45208]

  General Government Expenditure by function in real terms–1978–79 to 1981–82

  £ billion

  1978–79 outturn

  1979–80 outturn

  1980–81 outturn

  1981–82 outturn

  Defence1

  23·4

  24·8

  25·6

  26·1

  International development assistance and other international services

  3·3

  3·2

  3·0

  3·0

  Agriculture, fisheries, food and forestry

  3·2

  3·4

  3·7

  3·4

  Trade, industry, energy, employment and training

  12·8

  11·1

  10·8

  12·9

  Transport

  9·2

  9·6

  9·6

  9·7

  Housing

  13·9

  14·7

  12·6

  8·5

  Other environmental services

  8·2

  8·6

  8·5

  8·0

  Law, order and protective services

  7·9

  8·6

  8·9

  9·5

  Education2

  28·1

  27·8

  28·6

  28·4

  Memo: Education excluding the sale of student loans portfolio

  28·1

  27·8

  28·6

  28·4

  Culture, media and sport

  2·2

  2·2

  2·3

  2·4

  Health and personal social services3

  28·1

  28·9

  31·2

  31·9

  of which: Health3

  23·8

  24·4

  26·4

  27·1

  Social security

  52·2

  52·8

  53·9

  59·9

  Central administration and associated expenditure4

  8·5

  8·4

  6·7

  6·7

  Total expenditure on services

  201·1

  204·1

  205·2

  210·1

  General Government net debt interest

  13·6

  15·9

  16·3

  17·5

  Other accounting adjustments5

  6·8

  9·2

  11·8

  8·6

  Allowance for shortfall6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General Government expenditure (X)

  221·5

  229·2

  233·4

  236·2

  General Government interest and dividend receipts

  9·2

  9·0

  9·1

  9·6

  National Lottery Privatisation proceeds

  0·0

  –1·0

  –0·5

  –1·0

  General Government expenditure

  230·7

  237·2

  242·0

  244·8

  132
  Mr. Raynsford
  The need to review the Approved Document to Part H of the Building Regulations was discussed by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee on 19 February 1998. It was decided to consider what would be addressed in the review at the Committee's meeting in October 1998 when the outcome of some supporting research should be available. The review of the Approved Document should commence shortly afterwards.

TREASURY

  General Government Expenditure
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the amount in billions of pounds at 1997–98 prices accounted for by General Government Expenditure on Services from 1979–80 to 1997–98, broken down by the current classification of sponsor department. [45425]

  Mr. Darling
  A series for General Government Expenditure on Services from 1982–83 to 1997–98, broken down by function and presented in 1996–97 prices, is published in Table 3.3 of Public Expenditure: Statistical Analyses 1998–99 (Cm 3901). Equivalent figures for the period 1978–79 to 1981–82 are presented in the following table. The footnotes are identical to those of Table 3.3.

  The figures are presented in 1996–97 prices since GDP outturn for 1997–98 is not yet available. An indication of how these figures would look in 1997–98 prices can be obtained by inflating them using the forecast GDP deflator for 1997–98 of 2¾ per cent. as published in Table B1 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report, March 1998 (HC 620).

  A similar series for this period broken down by present sponsoring departments is not available.

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the full year cost of giving two-parent families an additional working families tax credit of £48.80; and if he will publish a table which shows what, if that were done, would be the equivalised net income of a single-earner married couple with two children aged four and six years as a percentage of a single adult's net income if in each case the gross pre-tax income was (i) £150, (ii) £200, (iii) £250, (iv) £300, (v) £350 and (vi) £400 respectively. [44512]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: It is estimated that the additional cost of giving two-parent families an additional credit of £48.80 within the WFTC is around £3 billion (1998–99 prices).

  The following table shows the net income (after income tax, including WFTC, NICs and child benefit), and equivalised net income, of a single earner married couple with two young children, at different levels of gross income, with an additional £48.80 of basic WFTC.

  Single earner married couple (2 children aged 4 and 6)

  Gross income

  Net income (after taxes and benefits)

  Equivalised net income

  150

  269·88

  194·16

  200

  285·14

  205·14

  250

  300·22

  215·98

  300

  315·29

  226·83

  350

  330·37

  237·67

  400

  345·44

  248·52

  For comparison, the following table shows the net income of a single person.

  Single person, no children

  Gross income

  Net income (after taxes and benefits)

  Equivalised net income

  150

  127·53

  209·07

  200

  161·44

  264·65

  250

  194·94

  319·57

  300

  228·44

  374·48

  350

  261·94

  429·40

  400

  295·44

  484·32

  Equivalised net income of a single earner married couple with two children, as a percentage of a single adult's net equivalised income, is as shown:

  Gross income

  Percentage

  150

  92

  200

  78

  250

  68

  300

  61

  350

  55

  400

  51

  The figures include the effect of Budget measures taking effect in 1999–2000, although at 1998–99 levels of tax and benefits.
  134
  The data assume that the earner in the household is working over 30 hours a week for Working Families Tax Credit purposes; that earnings are from employment; and that there are no other sources of income.

  The standard McClements scales have been used to determine equivalised income. This is the same process that is used in the DSS's Households Below Average Income publication.

  At some levels of earnings, this family may also be entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit. However, as this will depend upon the composition of the housing costs (between mortgage payments, council tax, and rent) housing benefit and council tax benefit have been left out of these figures.

  National Debt
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the degree to which the present debt to national income ratio is consistent with his fiscal rules. [45491]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the Statement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in the House on 11 June 1998, Official Report, columns 1195–201.

  Contingent Liabilities
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the actual and contingent liabilities of the Consolidated Fund on(a) 31 March and (b) 30 April, excluding cases (i) involving £100,000 or less and (ii) arising in the normal course of a department's business. [45180]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: Amounts outstanding for individual actual and contingent liabilities as at 31 March 1997 (the latest figures available) were published in Table B15 of the Supplementary Statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts for 1996–97 (House of Commons Paper No. 378 of 1996–97). This statement excludes (a) cases involving £100,000 or less; (b) cases arising in the normal course of departments' business; and (c) a small number of other cases, of which details have been supplied to the National Audit Office, where there are considerations of national security, or commercial confidentiality, or where public knowledge of a guarantee could prompt claims from third parties.

  The figures for actual and contingent liabilities are collected only for one date each year–31 March, which is the end of the financial year. As usual, details of the amounts outstanding as at 31 March 1998 will be published in the Supplementary Statements to the Consolidated Fund and the National Loans Fund Accounts for 1997–98 which will be laid before the House in mid to late December 1998.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list contingent liabilities accepted by the Government since 1 May 1997. [45179]

  Mr. Darling
  [holding answer 11 June 1998): Details of the amounts outstanding as at 31 March 1998 will be published in the usual way in the Supplementary

  135
  Statements to the Consolidated Fund and National Loans Fund Accounts for 1997–98 which will be laid before the House in mid to late December 1998.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met his European Union counterparts to discuss the political implications of Economic and Monetary Union. [44548]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer meets his counterparts on a regular basis to discuss a range of matters relating to Economic and Monetary Union. The last meeting of the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers was on 5 June 1998.

  Low PAY
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how many(a) men and (b) women working (i) part-time and (ii) full-time in (1) Tamworth and (2) Staffordshire earn less than (x) £3 per hour, (y) £3.60 per hour and (z) £4 per hour; and, in each case, what is the percentage of the total number employed.[45534]

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

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated June 1998:
  In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on earnings in Tamworth and Staffordshire.
  I can give estimates of the percentage of employees in Tamworth and Staffordshire earning less than the hourly rates you mention, but not the number.
  The latest information, from the New Earnings Survey 1997, is contained in the attached table.

  Employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey pay-period was unaffected by absence—New Earnings Survey—April 1997

  Percentage of employees with hourly earnings (excluding overtime) less than:

  £3·00

  £3·60

  £4·00

  Tamworth1

  Full-time men

  0·0

  3·1

  6·2

  Part-time men

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Full-time women

  0·0

  0·0

  9·6

  Part-time women

  5·7

  34·3

  45·7

  All employees

  1·1

  7·9

  15·3

  Staffordshire

  Full-time men

  0·8

  2·7

  5·2

  Part-time men

  4·2

  29·2

  41·7

  Full-time women

  2·7

  9·0

  14·9

  Part-time women

  5·4

  21·9

  35·9

  All employees

  2·3

  8·9

  14·8

  1Parliamentary constituency

  2 Estimate which is unavailable because the sample size is too small

  Debt Recovery
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to regulate the activities of those engaged in debt recovery. [44440]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I have been asked to reply.
  136
  The Consumer Credit Act 1974 regulates the activities of those engaged in debt collection by requiring them to hold consumer credit licences. The Director General of Fair Trading, who is responsible for enforcement, has taken vigorous action against holders of consumer credit licences who misbehave, including revoking their licences.

  The activities of bailiffs are governed by the County Court Rules, including the County Courts Act 1984. These are the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department.

SCOTLAND

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the status of Crown Production 16 in respect of the right to collect the Skye bridge tolls on the part of the second concessionaire, Miller Civil Engineering; and if he will make a statement. [43194]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 10 June 1998]: The hon. Member's description of Miller Civil Engineering Ltd. as the second concessionaire is incorrect in terms of the relevant statutory provisions in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the contractual arrangements relating to the procurement of the bridge. There is only one concessionaire, namely Skye Bridge Ltd., formerly known as Skye Bridge Tolls Ltd. The then Secretary of State assigned to Skye Bridge Tolls Ltd. his right to charge and collect tolls on Skye Bridge in accordance with section 28 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the relevant toll order. Miller Civil Engineering Ltd. are not a concessionaire since they have not been assigned the Secretary of State's rights to charge and collect tolls.

  I understand Crown Production 16 to be a document produced in the context of criminal proceedings in Dingwall Sheriff Court. The production is part of the Memorandum of Agreement made among the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Skye Bridge Tolls Ltd., The Miller Group Ltd., Miller Civil Engineering Ltd., Dyckerhoff & Widmann AG and Miller-Dywidag Joint Venture in relation to documents identified in Appendix 1 to that Memorandum. The documents include the Operation and Maintenance Agreement, in terms of which Skye Bridge Tolls Ltd., the concessionaire, entered into arrangements with Miller-Dywidag Joint Venture relating to the operation and maintenance of the bridge by Miller & Dywidag in joint venture including the collection of tolls on behalf of Skye Bridge Tolls Ltd. The Memorandum represents the then Secretary of State's written consent to those arrangements. This is set out in the Answers which I have lodged as an interested party in response to the Petition by Robbie the Pict seeking to interdict Miller Civil Engineering Ltd. from collecting tolls from him in respect of his use of Skye Bridge. That matter is currently before the Court of Session.

  Reviews
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list, for each of the last four years, the departmental inquiries and reviews instigated by Ministers
  137
  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. [44363]

  Committee/Review

  Date established

  Chairman/Review Body

  Review of Food Related Scientific Services in Scotland

  May 1998

  Professor Morag C. Timbury

  Advisory Committee on the Co-ordination and Provision of Education for Severe Low Incidence Disabilities

  April 1998

  Professor Sheila Riddell

  The Beattie Committee—review improvement of skills and employability for young people with special needs

  April 1998

  Mr. Robert Beattie MBE

  Expert Panel on Sex Offending

  March 1998

  Lady Cosgrove

  Review of GPs Out of House Service

  March 1998

  Mrs. Deirdre Hutton

  Waiting List Support Force

  March 1998

  Mr. Tom Divers

  Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament

  January 1998

  Mr. Neil McIntosh CBE

  Investigation into Complaints by Members of Parliament against the Scottish Ambulance Service

  December 1997

  Mr. Owen Clarke

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Inquiry (appointed by MAFF)

  December 1997

  Lord Justice Phillips

  National Review of Resource Allocation

  December 1997

  Professor Sir John Arbuthnott

  Review of aspects of Gaelic Broadcasting

  December 1997

  Mr. Neil Fraser

  Inquiry into Diesel Spill at Burncrooks Water Treatment Works

  December 1997

  Mr. Robert Fraser OBE

  Review of an Eye Transplantation/CJD incident in 1997

  November 1997

  Sir William Stewart FRS

  Mental Welfare Commission Investigation into the Care and Treatment received by Philip McFadden

  October 1997

  Dr. J. A. T. Dyer

  Time Intervals Working Group—To consider improvements in the workings of the children's hearings system

  July 1997

  Mrs. Sally Kuenssberg

  Report on Dispute between Argyll and Bute Council and West Dunbartonshire Council over Disaggregated 1995–96 Notional Budget following Local Government Reorganisation

  February 1997

  Mr. Sam Craig

  Sports Ambassadors Scheme

  January 1997

  Mr. David Sole

  The Pennington Group—report on the circumstances leading to the 1996 outbreak of infection with E.coli 0157 in Central Scotland, the implications of food safety and the lessons to be learned

  November 1996

  Professor Hugh Pennington

  Children's Safeguard Review

  July 1996

  Mr. Roger Kent

  National Committee of Inquiry into Further Education (Jointly appointed by DfEE, WO, NIO and SO)

  May 1996

  Lord Dearing

  The Public Inquiry into the Shootings at Dunblane Primary School on 12 March 1996 (Tribunal of Inquiry)

  March 1996

  Lord Cullen

  Task Force on Underachievement in Scottish Schools

  March 1996

  Mr. Hamish Robertson CB MBE

  Inquiry into the Appointment of Chief Officers in North Lanarkshire Council

  December 1995

  Mr. D. I. K. MacLeod WS

  Study of the Development of the Film and Television Industry in Scotland

  November 1995

  Hydra Associates

  Study of Film Finance in Scotland

  November 1995

  Hydra Associates

  Scottish Salmon Strategy Task Force

  November 1995

  Lord Nickson

  Inquiry into the Appointment Practices of Monklands District Council

  July 1995

  Mr. W. A. Nimmo Smith QC

  External Review of State Hospital Inquiry Report into Incident in December 1994 involving patient at the State Hospital

  May 1995

  Dr. Rosemary Cope

  Scottish Avalanche Information System Review

  May 1995

  Mr. Andrew T. F. Gibb

  Prisoners (Television)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) of 2 June 1998,Official Report, column 196, what was the basis of his calculation that a prisoner paying £1 per week covered the costs of an in-cell television set. [45721]

  Mr. McLeish
  The sum of around £1.00 per week was arrived at by dividing the likely cost of installing a television in a prisoner's cell by the period of 3 years over which that cost is to be recovered. The cost of installing a television, including purchase, warranty, electrical health and safety checking, and installation, is estimated to be around £150.00. Over 3 years, this gives a figure of around £1.00 per week.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the communications from Langdon's, cost consultants, on the costs of a Scottish Parliament.[46027]
  138
  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: The information is set out in the table:

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: Davis Langdon Everest have been retained by the Scottish Office as cost consultants for the Scottish Parliament Building. Their current advice relates to the estimated construction costs of the different design approaches to the building and is commercially confidential since the construction of the preferred design for the building will in due course be the subject of a competitive tendering exercise. In these circumstances, it would be inappropriate to make details of that advice available in the Library.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what representations he has received regarding the extent of the powers of the Scottish Parliament to give policy and direction to National Lottery distributors in Scotland; [45842]

  (2) what consultation he is undertaking in relation to the scope the Scottish Parliament will have to set policy and direction for National Lottery distributors in Scotland; [45981]
  139
  (3) to which National Lottery distributors in Scotland the Scottish Parliament will have powers to give policy and financial direction. [45982]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Scottish Office has received one representation on this subject, which was also discussed during the Committee Stage of the National Lottery Bill in the House of Lords. The powers of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of the Scottish Arts Council and the Scottish Sports Council will transfer to Scottish Ministers on devolution. The Government also recognise that the Scottish Executive will have a strong interest in the activities in Scotland of the National Lottery Charities Board, the National Heritage Memorial Fund and the New Opportunities Fund, and intend to provide mechanisms for the Scottish Executive to exercise appropriate powers of direction over these bodies' activities in Scotland. These proposals were set out in a letter of 4 March from Lord McIntosh of Haringey to Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, of which I am sending a copy to the hon. Member. Detailed implementation of the proposals is under discussion: they will be put in place by subordinate legislation to be made under the Scotland Bill.

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he intends to cap any Scottish local authorities this year. [46453]

  Mr. Dewar
  No. All Scottish local authorities have set budgets for 1998–99 at or below the expenditure limits implied by the provisional capping principles which I announced on 3 December 1997,Official Report, columns 215–18, as part of the 1998–99 local government finance settlement.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the expected administrative costs of introducing tuition fees in Scotland in 1998–99. [45860]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Student Awards Agency for Scotland will be responsible for assessing applications for assistance towards the cost of tuition from Scottish domiciled students. The work is analogous to the Agency's existing functions and we do not expect the administrative costs to be materially different.

  Any costs incurred by the educational institutions in relation to the collection of students' own contributions to tuition costs is a matter for the institutions themselves.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the expected savings are to his Department arising from(a) the abolition of maintenance grants and (b) the introduction of tuition fees; and what is the expected additional expenditure from the Scottish Office to finance student loans in each of the financial years 1998–99 to 2003–04. [45841]

  Mr. Wilson
  In financial year 1998–99, the overall effect of the changes will be broadly neutral in expenditure terms. Estimates for future years will depend on a number of factors and have yet to be finalised, but in the longer term we expect the changes to raise about £140 million in Scotland.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Hereford and Worcester Education Authority
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the additional funding made available to Hereford and Worcester local education authority in 1997–98 and to Worcestershire local education authority in 1998–99. [43730]

  Mr. Byers
  The following table shows the funding provided to Hereford and Worcester under the original Grants for Education Support and Training Programme (GEST) for 1997–98, its Education Standard Spending Assessment (SSA) for 1997–98 (after adjusting for the abolition of the nursery voucher scheme), and Supplementary Credit Approvals (SCAs) awarded for 1997–98. It also shows the additional funds subsequently made available under phase one of the New Deal for Schools (NDS1), and under the "Books for Schools" initiative. The table shows the corresponding allocations made so far for 1998–99 to Herefordshire and to Worcestershire, the Standards Fund having replaced GEST.

  Hereford and Worcester, 1997–98

  £ million

  SSA

  234·810

  Supplementary credit approvals

  1·375

  Original GEST allocation

  3·947

  NDS1 capital allocation

  0·734

  "Books for Schools"

  0·360

  Note:
  Standard Spending Assessment adjusted to reflect abolition of nursery vouchers

  £ million

  1998–99 Allocations

  Worcestershire

  Herefordshire

  Total

  SSA

  187·843

  57·159

  245·002

  SCAs

  —

  —

  —

  Standards Fund

  3·796

  1·644

  5·440

  NDS2 Capital allocation

  1·260

  0·282

  1·542

  Note:
  Standards Fund and GEST figures include both the LEA and central government grant contributions

  Further Education
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many further education colleges currently use franchising arrangements to secure increased student numbers. [44694]

  Dr. Howells
  It is estimated that, in the 1997–98 teaching year, 292 out of 444 further education colleges are delivering some of their provision through franchising arrangements.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current average class size in further education colleges. [44690]

  Dr. Howells
  Data on this are not collected on a systematic basis by the Department. Information from the Further Education Funding Council Inspectorate suggests that the average number of students on the class register in FE colleges in England in 1996–97 was 14.
  141
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the increase in the number of further education students by the year 2002. [44691]

  Dr. Howells
  Such an estimate cannot be made until the completion of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the national increase over the years 1993–94 to 1997–98 in numbers and percentage terms of further education(a) full-time students, (b) part-time students, (c) full-time lecturers, (d) fractional lecturers and (e) part-time lecturers. [44692]

  Dr. Howells
  The information is not available in respect of all the years mentioned. Figures for 1993–94 are not comparable. For students the figures (on a "whole year" basis) are available only up to 1996–97.

  Increase in students 1994–95 to 1995–96 and 1994–95 to 1996–97

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Increase

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Numbers

  +111,600

  +156,000

  +352,300

  +698,900

  Percentage

  +12·6

  +17·6

  +16·4

  +32·5

  For lecturers figures are available only up to 1995–96.

  Increase in lecturers 1994–95 to 1995–96

  Increase

  Full-time lecturers

  Part-time lectures1

  Numbers

  -1,000

  +8,300

  Percentage

  -1·9

  +10·7

  1Includes fractional lecturers

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will publish his response to the Education and Employment Committee's Sixth report of session 1997–98 on Further Education (HC 264). [44794]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government will respond to this report within two months of its publication.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many colleges have been subject to financial clawback by the Further Education Funding Council as a result of inaccuracies in their individual student record systems during each of the last three years. [45048]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sixth Form Education
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students currently attend sixth forms in comprehensive schools; and what is his estimate of the annual cost to public funds of educating them in 1998–99. [44801]

  Dr. Howells
  The current number of students in school sixth forms is not available. In January 1997, the most recent month for which figures are available, the number of sixth form students in comprehensive schools was 254,532. The amount within the Standard Spending Assessment allocated to schools' post-16 provision is 142
  £1,137.7m for 1998–99. These figures can give only a broad indication of the actual cost of educating students in comprehensive school sixth forms because (i) the spending allocation covers all post-16 state school provision, not just comprehensive schools; (ii) spending is a matter for local authorities' own discretion; and (iii) schools' budgets are unhypothecated.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students currently attend sixth form colleges; and what is his Department's estimate of the cost of educating them in 1998–99. [44802]

  Dr. Howells
  Provisional figures show that there were 160,300 students studying on 1 November 1997 in sixth form colleges in England. The Further Education Funding Council's overall allocation for 1998–99 to sixth form colleges is £326.1 million.

  School Computers (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been provided to Leicestershire Local Education Authority for computers in the classroom as part of the National Grid for Learning Initiative. [44943]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department is supporting £997,900 of ICT-related expenditure in Leicestershire in 1998–99 through Standards Fund Grant for the National Grid for Learning. The grant is funded equally by the Department and the relevant local education authority.

  Vocational Training Tax Relief
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding the administration of the vocational training tax relief scheme and the possible introduction of a composite form for use by training providers. [44912]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received no representations about the administration of vocational training relief, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Local Authority Youth Services
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to place the youth services provided by local authorities on a statutory footing. [45169]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 11 May 1998,Official Report, column 5.

  UK Presidency (Young People)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the initiatives planned or undertaken to promote among the young awareness of the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Union. [45310]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department of Education and Employment undertook two initiatives to promote the awareness of the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Union among the young. In January, in conjunction with the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland education departments, we issued the "Partners in
  143
  Europe" information and resource pack, which was sent to all UK schools. We also ran a "Celebrating Europe" competition for schools, FE colleges, vocational training organisations and youth groups, which culminated in an awards ceremony for the 10 major award winners on 11 May 1998.

  Jean Monnet Awards
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the Jean Monnet awards for 1998 in the United Kingdom. [45304]

  Dr. Howells
  Jean Monnet European Centres of Excellence have been created at:

  University of Bath

  Queen's University Belfast

  University of Birmingham

  University of Sussex

  University of Leeds

  Jean Monnet Chairs have been created at:

  University of Bristol

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  University of Exeter

  John Moores University

  School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London

  University of Manchester

  Manchester Metropolitan University

  University of Southampton

  University of Oxford

  University of Plymouth

  Permanent courses have been created at:

  University of Ulster

  University of Derby

  King's College London

  University College of Wales, Newport

  University of Plymouth

  University of Glamorgan

  University of Central Lancashire

  University of Reading

  University of Sheffield

  University of Southampton

  European modules have been created at:

  University of the West of England

  University of Kent at Canterbury

  University of Abertay

  Leeds Metropolitan University

  De Montfort University

  University of North London

  Middlesex University

  London Guildhall

  University University of East Anglia

  University of Oxford

  Ruskin College, Oxford

  Oxford Brookes University

  University of Plymouth

  University of Portsmouth

  University of Salford

  University of St. Andrews

  North East Wales Institute of Higher Education.

  Internet
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the optional themes for 1997 Netd@ys projects; how many United Kingdom institutions submitted entries; and what were the final projects submitted by the UK. [45295]

  Dr. Howells
  The main aims of the 1997 European Union Netd@ys project were to develop awareness-raising around existing electronic networks of schools; to use the Internet to promote the benefits of networking, and to implement up to 10 Internet-related projects in each EU member state. Applications for funding under the project were sent direct to the European Commission for consideration. Twenty-one projects were submitted from the United Kingdom and the following were awarded funding by the European Commission:UK Netday. A consortium of commercial suppliers promoting the use of the Internet to co-ordinate and encourage nationally the development of IT and network applications in schools.
  BBC Project. The use of TV in schools to publicise Netd@ys 97, including an on-line lesson and a quiz on European history.
  City of Leeds. Building on networks via the Internet use of video conferencing facilities to link up with contacts in the UK and EU.
  Devon Council. A project involving 32 schools extending their transitional partnerships through networking in order to disseminate educational practice and support teachers and trainers.
  Kent TEC. Developing a Kent Lifelong Learning Video-Conferencing Network and establishing a network of Multimedia Learning Centres based in schools.
  Birmingham ABC project. Extending an inner city network of schools in Birmingham both into the West Midlands region and to school networks in European countries. Live concert over the Internet given by children.
  Netdays in Scotland. Encouraging parents and teachers to learn about and understand the Internet, dissemination of package training on the Internet on CD ROM and holding a conference on multimedia projects.
  Netdays Europe in Northern Ireland. A series of events encouraging parents and teachers to learn about and understand the Internet.
  Window on the Future, Window on the World. A local competition designed for the children from the 46 primary schools in the Isle of Wight.
  Netdays @ Beacon Community College, East Sussex. Developing a community intranet with web pages co-operatively produced at the college by local businesses. European links established to exchange views on health related topics.

  In addition, the European Commission funded the costs of the former National Council for Educational Technology in co-ordinating the programme on behalf of the UK.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the state of planning for Netd@ys Europe 1998. [45294]

  Dr. Howells
  This European Commission initiative will take place from 17 to 24 October 1998. The British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (BECTA) has been appointed by my Department as the United Kingdom's national co-ordinator and its role includes the offering of advice and support to UK applicants who submit bids under the project. It is understood that the Commission has so far received 64 project proposals from the UK.

  Young Consumer Competition
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the 1997 Young Consumer competition in schools financed by the European Commission. [45271]

  Dr. Howells
  The 1997 Young Consumer competition was a welcome initiative. It is important that consumer issues are addressed in schools and I hope many pupils were able to participate.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the proposed paper on the EMU and Education proposed by the European Commission for preparation by the UK presidency. [45272]

  United Kingdom

  Thousands

  Status of borrowers at end of financial year

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Borrowers with accounts in repayment status

  138

  263

  429

  622

  Borrowers owing less than two months' repayment

  2

  3

  5

  8

  Borrowers owing two or more months' repayment

  5

  11

  21

  34

  Borrowers deferring repayments

  61

  122

  207

  312

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals he has to provide additional finance for local education authorities for home tuition for pupils and students suffering from myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome in(a) age groups up to 16, (b) further education and (c) higher education; and if he will make a statement. [45471]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  All funding for local education authorities is being considered as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. It will be for authorities to decide within the total resources available to them the level of support to be provided for each of their services.

  The Department for Education and Employment will be consulting in the autumn on statutory guidance for local education authorities on educational provision for children who are out of school.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the financial impact on colleges of the removal of Schedule 2A qualifications for the financial year 1998–99. [45046]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: The effect on college budgets is not a factor taken into account when determining qualifications for inclusion under Schedule 2(a). The Further Education Funding Council is not proposing to withdraw allocated funding from colleges which currently offer qualifications no longer on
  146
  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is unaware of any such proposal.

  Student Loans
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many graduates in each socio-economic group(a) deferred and (b) defaulted on their student loans in each of the last four years for which figures are available. [45748]

  Dr. Howells
  Information on the socio-economic groups of borrowers of student loans is not collected centrally. Data on numbers of borrowers of student loans who were in deferment or default at the end of each financial year from the beginning of the scheme up to 1996–97 were published in Statistical Press Notice 391/97 on 26 November 1997. A copy of the Press Notice is in the Library.

  The following has been extracted from that Press Notice:

  the list, as it considers colleges are likely to substitute alternative qualifications or increase courses in other areas.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Schedule 2A qualifications have been removed by the Further Education Funding Council for the year 1998–99. [45047]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State approves vocational qualifications under Schedule 2(a) to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. For the teaching year 1998–99, the approved list currently includes 1,767 individually listed titles, 1,442 fewer than in 1997–98, plus all NVQs, GNVQs, NVQ'D' units, GNVQ'GPA' units, Key Skill units and Language units. More titles will be added as satisfactory in-year applications are approved. Reductions in the list for 1998–99 arise from qualifications which have been withdrawn by awarding bodies, decisions by awarding bodies not to re-submit qualifications as well as decisions not to class qualifications in Schedule 2(a).

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many Schedule 2A qualifications were listed in 1997–98. [45045]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: 3,209 individually listed titles, plus all NVQs, GNVQs, NVQ'D' units, GNVQ'GPA' units, Key Skill units and Language units.

  School Inspections
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has
  147
  received from (a) teachers, (b) professional bodies, (c) trade unions, (d) school governors and (e) LEAs regarding the Ofsted inspection system. [45707]

  Mr. Byers
  Many responses to the consultation exercise following publication of the Excellence in schools White Paper in July 1997 included comments on the school inspection system. We frequently receive representations about the inspection system from a range of interested parties.

  Education Funding (Lincolnshire)
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how much additional funding for education was(a) allocated and (b) received by Lincolnshire County Council in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99; and what future projections his Department has made of the education funding requirements for Lincolnshire County Council; [44961]

  (2) what are the intended uses of the additional education funding provided by the Government to Lincolnshire County Council for (a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99 and (c) future years; and what information his Department has obtained from Lincolnshire County Council with regard to its actual use of additional education funding provided by the Government for each of these years. [44962]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: The Government provided for an increase in Lincolnshire's education standard spending assessment for 1998–99 of some £14.7 million or 6.6 per cent. The Government believe that all of the education SSA increase for this year should be used to raise standards in schools. The County Council has increased its support to schools by some £3.4 million. Decisions on central government support for education funding in Lincolnshire in future years will be taken in the autumn. The table sets out details of the year-on-year changes in education SSA, education budgets and schools' budgets.

  1997–98 £ million

  1998–99 £ million

  £ million increase

  Percentage increase

  Ed. SSA

  221·4

  236·2

  14·7

  6·6

  Ed· Budget

  234·4

  241·9

  7·5

  3·2

  Schools' budgets

  211·7

  215·1

  3·4

  1·6

  Notes:

  1. The year-on-year changes have been calculated so as to take account of the ending of the nursery voucher scheme

  2. The education budget figures have been derived from the authority's General Fund Revenue Account return

  3. The schools' budgets consists of all the General Schools Budget minus capital, as derived from Section 122, plus all AMG recouped from the authority

  Dogsthorpe School, Peterborough
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will conduct an investigation into the discrepancies between two recent inspections of Dogsthorpe School, Peterborough by OFSTED. [45737]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: This is a matter for HM Chief Inspector of Schools. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the library.

  School Play Time
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the proportion of schools which have reduced play time since the introduction of the National Curriculum. [45284]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: Information about the duration of schools' breaks is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to commission research into the impact of a reduction of play time on the welfare of school children. [45285]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: We have no such plans at present.

  Nursery Places
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the current average cost of providing a full-time nursery place in(a) Barnsley and (b) Doncaster. [45822]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not available centrally.

  University for Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to what extent the University for Industry will be concerned with the provision of basic skills training to the New Deal target groups. [45505]

  Dr. Howells
  One of the priorities for the University for Industry when it is launched in the year 2000 will be to ensure that there are sufficient high quality and easily accessible learning opportunities for people who lack basic skills. It will also encourage those lacking these essential skills to take up the opportunities available. However, the University for Industry will not be aimed only at those in the New Deal target groups: it will seek to serve a much wider audience. The Department will be exploring in the coming period how the University for Industry and New Deal might work together to ensure that the two initiatives best complement each other.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the University for Industry will benefit small and medium-size enterprises; and what steps he plans to take to raise awareness of these benefits. [45506]

  Dr. Howells
  The small and medium-size business sector will be one of the priority client groups for the University for Industry when it is launched in the year 2000. The University for Industry Pathfinder Prospectus published on 31 March set out how it will seek to help SMEs improve their competitiveness by ensuring that high quality, cost effective education and training opportunities are available to owner managers and employees at the time and place they need them.

  A transition board has been established to take forward the development of the University for Industry until permanent structures are set in place later this year. As

  149
  part of their remit they will be advising Ministers on an appropriate marketing strategy. This will inform the implementation of a national marketing campaign.

  Schoolchildren (Health)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what percentage of schoolchildren have failed to attend school classes due to illness in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) Coventry in each of the last three years; [46219]

  (2) what was the total number of days schoolchildren missed during each of the last three academic years in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) Coventry; [46220]

  (3) what was the average number of days lost per schoolchild as a result of failing to attend class due to illness in each of the last three years. [46221]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Rates of authorised and unauthorised absence for maintained primary and secondary schools in Coventry for the last three academic years, together with England averages, are given in the following tables.

  Absences due to illness are not identified separately in the authorised absence data collected by the Department.

  Authorised absence in maintained primary schools

  Percentage of half days missed

  Average number of half day missed per absent pupil

  1994–95

  Coventry

  5.9

  20

  England Average

  5.7

  19

  1995–96

  Coventry

  6.4

  21

  England Average

  6.0

  20

  1996–97

  Coventry

  5.9

  19

  England Average

  5.6

  18

  Unauthorised absence in maintained primary schools

  Percentage of half day missed

  Average number of half days missed per absent pupil

  1994–95

  Coventry

  0.5

  10

  England Average

  0.5

  10

  1995–96

  Coventry

  0.5

  11

  England Average

  0.5

  10

  1996–97

  Coventry

  0.4

  9

  England Average

  0.5

  10

  150

  Authorised absence in maintained secondary schools

  Percentage of half days missed

  Average number of half per missed absent pupil

  1994–95

  Coventry

  7.9

  28

  England Average

  8.2

  27

  1995–96

  Coventry

  8.4

  28

  England Average

  8.4

  28

  1996–97

  Coventry

  8.9

  29

  England Average

  8.1

  26

  Unauthorised absence in maintained secondary schools

  Percentage of half days missed

  Average number of half day missed per absent pupil

  1994–95

  Coventry

  1.4

  34

  England Average

  1.0

  22

  1995–96

  Coventry

  1.3

  31

  England Average

  1.0

  21

  1996–97

  Coventry

  1.3

  30

  England Average

  1.0

  20

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to improve the health of schoolchildren to reduce the number of school days lost through illness. [46222]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government wish to play their part in helping to reduce the number of school days lost through illness. The National Healthy Schools Initiative, launched in May, will raise awareness among children, and their teachers, families and communities, of the important opportunities that exist in schools for improving health and raising achievement.

  The Initiative includes a National Healthy Schools Award designed to promote a whole-school approach to health, a Healthy Teacher Focus and the development of strategies for encouraging safe travel to school. These, and other measures, will help young people to develop the knowledge, skills and attitudes required to look after and improve their health in a range of contexts.

  Corporal Punishment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students received corporal punishment in privately funded schools located(a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in the Midlands, in the last year for which figures are available. [45502]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This information is not available centrally.

  EU Publicity (East Sussex)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the cost to public funds in the current financial year of Relay Europe Ltd.'s provision of a Mobile Information Centre to visit schools in East Sussex; and if he will make a statement. [45980]

  Dr. Howells
  The costs of the Mobile Information Centre are met by the European Commission's Representation to the UK. There is accordingly no direct cost to public funds.

  Job Vacancies (Tamworth)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many job vacancies were notified to the Tamworth Job Centre in each month since May 1997. [45535]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Brian Jenkins, dated June 1998:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your question regarding the number of job vacancies notified to Tamworth Jobcentre each month since May 1997.A total of 4,719 vacancies were notified to Tamworth Jobcentre over the twelve months from May 1997—April 1998. The table below gives a breakdown of figures for each month.

  Month

  Number of vacancies

  May 1997

  396

  June 1997

  484

  July 1997

  527

  August 1997

  482

  September 1997

  445

  October 1997

  381

  November 1997

  495

  December 1997

  347

  January 1998

  141

  February 1998

  368

  March 1998

  319

  April 1998

  334

  I hope this is helpful.

  Head Lice
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many instances of head lice were reported by(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in each of the last five years; [45975]

  (2) what records his Department keeps on the number of reported instances of head lice.[45976]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department does not keep records of the reported incidence of head lice in schools.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures he is discussing with schools with the aim of reducing the number of reported incidents of head lice. [45977]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The treatment of head lice in children is essentially dealt with at local level, between the Community Child Health Services (CCHS), the school 152
  and the parents. It is for parents to check their children's heads and arrange treatment where required, seeking advice as needed from the primary health care team—the general practitioner, health visitor, school nurse or the local pharmacist.

  The Department is in regular contact with the Department of Health on a range of health issues relating to pupils' health, including the treatment of head lice. Officials from both Departments provide advice to schools and parents on head lice control, including a leaflet containing guidance on prevention and treatment.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Quangos
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he intends to publish the Government's response to representations received following the publication of the consultation paper, Opening up Quangos. [45549]

  Dr. David Clark
  I intend to publish a paper later this month which reports the outcome of the quango consultation exercise and sets out further proposals to make the operation of quangos more open, accountable and effective.

  Government Car and Despatch Agency
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets he has set the Government Car and Despatch Agency for 1998–99. [46356]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have set the agency the following targets:

  Financial

  to break-even on an accruals basis;

  to maintain sales turnover at 1997–98 outturn;

  to maintain expenditure and receipts within Voted provision;

  Efficiency

  to improve the gross contribution as a percentage of sales revenue by 2 per cent;

  to increase the income per round of labour cost to £2.00;

  Quality

  to review the existing customer satisfaction survey, and establish a benchmark for future performance;

  Environmental

  to achieve an annual average of 26 miles per gallon for the GCS and IDS fleets.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many(a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years were employed by the Civil Service on 30 April. [46023]

  Dr. David Clark
  The latest available information relates to 1 January 1998. On that date, it is estimated that there were a total of 8,800 male and 3,400 female permanent civil servants aged over 60 years.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many employees in the Civil Service have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday.[46022]
  153
  Dr. David Clark
  The information is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Departments and agencies are free to set the normal retirement age for their own staff which allows them to take into account all relevant factors such as the needs of management, present availability of staff and projected staffing requirements.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what estimate he has made of the percentage of visitors to the Millennium Dome who will travel by London Underground. [45761]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has estimated that over 50 per cent. of visitors to the Millennium Dome will use London Underground's Jubilee Line Extension for the final leg of their journey.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio which organisations have(a) been asked, (b) agreed and (c) refused to take part in developing the environmental exhibition within the Millennium Dome. [41774]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 14 June 1998]: The designers contracted to develop the exhibit ("Living Island"), which has a particular focus on the environment, have met representatives from the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE); Greenpeace; the Natural Resources Foresight Panel DTI; The Environment Agency; Surfers Against Sewage; and media environmental editors and journalists. No organisation contacted by the designers has refused to take part in discussions.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what plans he has to include exhibits relating specifically to county characteristics in the Millennium Dome. [44843]

  Mr. Mandelson
  There will be numerous opportunities to explore the rich diversity of the culture of all parts of the United Kingdom through the Dome's exhibits and the associated UK wide national programme of events and activities. For example, as part of Tesco's contribution to the Millennium Experience, school children will be encouraged to describe life in their communities on the internet and this will then be relayed in the Dome. Other sponsors such as BT, BSkyB, Manpower and Marks and Spencer are also supporting national programme events and activities which will find expression in the Dome.

  Beneficiary

  Title of the project

  Funding up to:

  International Testing

  Parallel food testing in the EU

  843,141 ecu

  Consumers in Europe Group

  Preventing accidents of young children

  11,686 ecu

  Central Scotland Fire Brigade Headquarters

  Central Scotland Crucial Crew Project

  43,804 ecu

  Consumers International

  15th World Congress in Chile November 1997

  112,148 ecu

  Scottish Consumer Council

  Being a Consumer Representative

  50,691 ecu

  Association of Personal Injury Lawyers

  Creation of European Personal Injury Lawyers Organisation

  55,432 ecu

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  Information campaign on EURO for blind people

  74,824 ecu

  Surfball
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) if he will publish his reply to the letter written to him by Richard Heller on 24 May relating to the Millennium Experience;[44451]

  (2) if he will publish his replies to the letters of 9 and 24 May 1998 from Mr. Richard Heller relating to Surfball. [46237]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport replied to Mr. Heller's letters of 9 and 24 May on 15 June. If Mr. Heller wishes to publish the Department's reply, he is free to do so.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Royal Parks (Dogs)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to review the bylaws in the royal parks relating to the control of dogs. [45168]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I have no plans to review the Royal Parks Regulations as they relate to the control of dogs.

  Sustainable Tourism
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the contribution which private coach operators could make to sustainable tourism.[45455]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  The Government have recently undertaken a nationwide consultation exercise on sustainable tourism. Among the responses we have received are a number from bodies representing the interests of coach operators. All responses to the consultation are currently being analysed. They will feed into the development of the new strategy for tourism which my Department will launch later this year and will help update the UK Sustainable Development Strategy which will be published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions also later this year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  EU Funds
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the projects funded in 1997 in the United Kingdom under European Communities budget lines B5–100 and B5–102. [45325]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Commission has given us the following information on projects funded in 1997 in the United Kingdom under the European Communities budget lines B5–100 and B5–102:
  155
  The funding indicated is the ceiling the Commission may contribute for each project. The actual sums paid will depend on the acceptance by the Commission of the final report and financial documents.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make it her policy to introduce a scheme for the statutory regulation of the conduct of estate agents. [44711]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: Statutory regulation is provided by the Estate Agents Act 1979 which regulates the conduct of estate agents and includes the power to prohibit their trading as estate agents. The Director General of Fair Trading, who is responsible for enforcement, has taken vigorous action against estate agents who misbehave.

  Export Licences
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make it her policy that a separate account be kept of all applications for export licences which require consideration under the criteria announced by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28 July 1997. [45509]

  Mrs. Roche
  In his announcement on 28 July 1997,Official Report, columns 26–29, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs stated that the criteria would be used when considering all future individual applications for licences to export goods entered in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 and existing licence applications on which a decision has not yet been made. He also stated that the criteria will be applied when considering licence applications for the export of dual-use goods when there are grounds for believing that the end user of such goods will be the armed forces or the internal security forces of the recipient country.

  As all the decisions taken against the criteria and others taken by this Government since 2 May 1997 reflect our commitment to manage arms transfers responsibly, in particular so as to avoid their use for internal repression and international aggression, I do not believe there would be any purpose in separating data in the manner suggested.

  Employees (Overseas Working Conditions)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to extend the provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1978 to British workers working for British companies abroad. [45475]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have no current plans to extend the territorial scope of employment legislation.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what budget has been given to the Design Council to select British designs for display in the Millennium Dome; [45724]
  156
  (2) what investigations she has made into allegations that the Zefyr 43, a Millennium product endorsed by the Design Council is not suitable for such recognition; [45722]

  (3) how the new British designs, to be displayed in the Millennium Dome are selected; and how the quality of the design is assessed; [45727]

  (4) how many new British designs have been approved for display in the Millennium Dome;[45726]

  (5) what guidance she has given to the Design Council on selecting British designs for inclusion in the Millennium Dome; and what checks are being made to ensure the quality of the products; [45723]

  (6) what testing has been conducted on products bearing the Millennium Mark; and what assessment she has made of the Government's legal liability if products are found to be faulty; [45738]

  (7) if she will list the new British designs to be displayed in the Millennium Dome; [45728]

  (8) if the yacht 'Zefyr 43', will be on display in the Millennium Dome. [45736]

  Mrs. Beckett
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: The Millennium Products initiative is designed to identify and promote up to 2,000 examples of world class products and services created in Britain for the new Millennium. They will be forward thinking, challenging, creative, and innovative and will show that we can lead the world through pioneering products and services which celebrate and exemplify our known strengths in innovation, creativity and design. My department is funding the project, which is managed on its behalf under contract by the Design Council. Funding is a total of £3.8 million for the four year period 1997–98 to 2000–01.

  Submissions to the Millennium Products project are assessed by the Design Council through evaluation by independent judging panels selected from industry, design and the media. My Department is not involved in the judging process and decisions rest with the Design Council.

  The first Millennium Products accolade winners were announced on 2 April. The Walker Wingsail—not the Zefyr 43—was among those announced. It was selected because it is a new marine navigation system comprising a wing sail and associated computer controlled software. Matters of product liability fall to those making the Millennium Products submission. This is set out clearly in the Millennium Products submission form.

  It is for my hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio to decide on the contents of the Millennium Experience at Greenwich. However, I understand that the Design Council has had preliminary discussions with the Millennium Experience Company about the possibility of exhibiting some Millennium Products accolade winners at Greenwich but no decision has yet been reached on which Millennium Products might be exhibited.

  Marine Science and Technology Committee
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans the Government have for the future role of the Inter-Agency Committee on Marine Science and Technology. [46422]
  157
  Mr. Battle
  The Government have recently reviewed the role and effectiveness of the Inter-Agency Committee on Marine Science and Technology (IACMST) and concluded that it is effective in performing its main function of ensuring that co-ordination takes place across Government on marine science and technology issues. IACMST will therefore continue for the next three years, with a further review of its future taking place at that point.

  In response to the more detailed findings of the review, IACMST will increase its focus on international marine activities and on science and technology relating to marine vessels and structures, alongside its traditional emphasis on the marine environment and oceanography. IACMST will also produce a guide for business on responsibilities for marine science and technology within departments and agencies; will continue to work closely with the Marine Foresight Panel; and will begin a review of individual members' strategies for marine science and technology.

  Copies of a report setting out the review's conclusions in more detail are available in the Library. This report also mentions some of the main activities currently being undertaken by IACMST, including its co-ordination of a wide range of UK events to mark 1998 as the International Year of the Ocean.

  Independent Radio
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what powers(a) her Department (b) the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and (c) the Office of Fair Trading would have to intervene in any proposed take-over of one or more of the three companies holding independent national radio licences; and if she will make a statement.[46274]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  It would, in the first instance, be for the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) to consider any actual proposal which appeared to give rise to a qualifying merger situation under the Fair Trading Act 1973. In the light of the DGFT's advice, my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, would decide whether or not to refer the merger to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation and report. She has said that her policy will be to refer mergers primarily on competition grounds. Each case is considered on its individual merits.

  Unions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures she is taking to safeguard workers' rights to form unions. [45503]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government have no plans to change the existing law which allows workers in the United Kingdom to form trade unions. Once formed, trade unions are subject to the requirements of Part I of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 as regards accounting records, annual returns, audit, elections for certain positions, the use of funds for certain political objects, etc.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures she is taking to protect workers who are associated with trade union organisations from discrimination by their employers. [45504]
  158
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The White Paper "Fairness at Work", published on 21 May, set out proposals to supplement the existing protection against dismissal or action short of dismissal on grounds of trade union membership or non-membership. The Government intend to provide protection against discrimination by omission, and to prohibit the blacklisting of trade unionists.

  World Trade Organisation
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the outcome of the second Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organisation in Geneva from 18 to 20 May. [46423]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I attended the second Ministerial Conference in Geneva from 18 to 20 May, with the Minister for Trade. The Prime Minister attended the Heads of Government event on 19 May, marking 50 years of the GATT, about which he made a statement in this House on 20 May 1998,Official Report, columns 955–70.

  The Conference recognised the critical importance of the rules-based multilateral system and WTO member countries paid tribute to the contribution which that system has made to economic growth, employment and stability across the world. They also joined in a rejection of protectionist measures and made a commitment to keeping markets open in the face of difficulties as a result of disturbances in financial markets. In addition, they emphasised that full and faithful implementation of WTO Agreements and Decisions was imperative for the credibility of the multilateral trading system. At the same time, WTO members renewed their commitment to ensuring that the benefits of the multilateral system were extended as widely as possible and pointed to the urgent need to address the marginalisation of least developed countries, to improve market access for them, and in the wake of economic change to assist them to manage social change.

  There was also recognition of the importance of enhancing public understanding of the benefits of trade liberalisation, building support for it and improving the transparency of the WTO.

  The Conference was significant in looking ahead to the future composition and shape of multilateral trade liberalisation. The text of the Ministerial Declaration points to the need for sufficiently broad-based liberalisation to respond to the interests and concerns of all Members. In preparation for this, WTO members agreed to launch a wide ranging process, beginning in September this year, so as to be ready to take decisions at the third Ministerial Conference on the scope, structure and timeframes of future negotiations. This was central to the UK's and EU' s objectives for the Conference. This process will include the range of issues to which the UK and EU attach importance in the context of future comprehensive multilateral negotiations, including agriculture, services, industrial tariffs, technical barriers to trade, investment, competition, trade facilitation and government procurement.

  It was agreed that the third Ministerial Conference will be held in the US towards the end of 1999.

  In interventions during the course of the Conference, British and other Ministers recognised the need to consider the environmental impact of their policies,

  159
  including their trade policies, while ensuring that trade rules were not used to impose unfair standards on developing countries or to discriminate against their exports. Separately, Ministers in their interventions also clearly recognised the importance of core labour standards, the avoidance of the exploitation of children and the important role for the ILO in furthering the international advancement of these goals.

  In addition, WTO Members agreed to establish a comprehensive work programme to examine all trade-related issues relating to global electronic commerce. Members also agreed to continue their current practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions.

  Copies of both of the Ministerial Declarations from the Conference will be deposited in both Houses.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement about the 1998–99 running costs limit for the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland departments. [46421]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The gross running costs limit for 1998–99 for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is £749,283,000. There is also a net running cost limit of zero for the Land Registers of Northern Ireland. A separate running cost limit of £6,041,000 for the Welfare to Work programme is outside the control total. Details of the provision for individual Northern Ireland Departments are set out in the Northern Ireland Estimates published today and are available in the Library.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organic Farming
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of agricultural produce is grown organically within the United Kingdom. [44868]

  Mr. Morley
  We do not know what percentage of agricultural produce is grown organically within the United Kingdom. However, land area registered as organic is 0.3 per cent. of the United Kingdom's utilisable agricultural area. We have recently announced measures to boost interest in conversion to organic farming, and decisions on further recommendations will be made in the context of the comprehensive spending review.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many complaints he received about conditions in registered kennels for animals in quarantine in 1997–98.[44941]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department received 36 letters of complaint in 1997, and 406 in 1998 (as at 9 June) about conditions in authorised quarantine premises. Of these, 22 and 11 respectively were made by owners of pets undergoing quarantine. The majority of those made this 160
  year followed media coverage of conditions in two quarantine premises, which this Department is investigating.

  All specific complaints about individual quarantine premises made by owners of animal undergoing quarantine are investigated and appropriate action taken.

  Oilseed Rape
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many complaints his Department received in each of the last three years from members of the public relating to the crop oilseed rape. [45296]

  Mr. Rooker
  The number of written complaints received centrally from members of the public in which oilseed rape has been a principal issue is as follows:

  Number

  1996

  5

  1997

  75

  1998 (to 12 June)

  3,054

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the abattoirs in England and Wales, identifying(a) those undertaking religious slaughter, (b) the number of visits each has received by his inspectors during the last year and (c) those where inspectors alleged intimidation or threats. [45660]

  Mr. Rooker
  A list of licensed abattoirs in England and Wales is published in the Meat Hygiene Enforcement Report which is placed in the Library of the House each month. Information is not held on those adopting religious methods of slaughter.

  A member of the Meat Hygiene Service inspection team is present every day during operating periods. It would be inappropriate to identify abattoirs where there have been cases of alleged intimidation or threats, but I would refer the right hon. Member to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on 4 and 8 June 1998, Official Report, columns 341–43 and 451–52.

  Solway and Border Esk Rivers
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he is making in inter departmental discussions on an agreed fishing regime for the Solway and Border Esk rivers. [45688]

  Mr. Morley
  Discussions on the future management of the Solway and Border Esk rivers are continuing, with the objective of ensuring that Clause 100 of the Scotland Bill makes it possible for decisions on the future management of these rivers to meet the concerns expressed by those we have consulted on this issue. In particular, we wish to ensure that the difficult problems of jurisdiction, which have been a feature of the Solway for many years, can be properly addressed.

  Emergency Food Stockpile
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) stores and (b) equipment from the emergency food stockpile remain. [45701]

  Mr. Rooker
  No stores or equipment from the emergency food stockpile remain.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many buildings used for the emergency food stockpile remain in Government ownership. [45702]

  Mr. Rooker
  Fourteen of the freehold sites which were used to store the emergency food stockpile remain in Government ownership and one leasehold site remains with the Government. All are subject to disposal action, although in some cases this is complicated by matters such as local authority planning, rights of way or the need to clear contamination.

  Flood Damage (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new measures he has considered to prevent future flood damage in the West Midlands. [46224]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has commissioned an Independent Review into the Easter floods which will identify the lessons to be learned. The final report of the Review Team is due by the end of September 1998. I shall need to consider the follow up action with the Environment Agency with a view to reducing the risks of damage from flooding.

HEALTH

  Ayaz Sheikh
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 December 1997,Official Report, column 542, on the case of Ayaz Sheikh, what further action has been taken; and on what date the Chairman of the Leicestershire Health Authority wrote to the hon. Member for Leicester, East setting out action taken with regard to this matter. [44091]

  Ms Jowell
  I understand that Neil Townsend, Chairman of Leicestershire Health Authority, wrote to my hon. Friend on 3 June setting out the latest position on this case. The letter confirmed that approval had been given by the health authority to fund an out of area referral to enable Ayaz to attend the Early Years Diagnostic Centre in Nottingham. I understand that Ayaz attended the centre for assessment on 19 March 1998.

  NHS Direct (Minicom Service)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the NHS direct pilot scheme is accessible to deaf telephone users via a minicom number. [45010]

  Mr. Boateng
  The three National Health Service Direct pilot sites currently in operation all have access to a minicom service. The second wave of NHS Direct pilots will be in operation by the end of this financial year. The
  162
  organisations bidding to run these pilots are asked to take account of the needs of deaf people and explain in their proposal how these will be addressed.

  Home Care Services
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give a breakdown by(a) percentage and (b) number, of adult households in England who received home help/home care services in each year between 1994 and 1997 where the oldest member of the household was aged (i) under 65, (ii) 65 to 74, (iii) 75 to 84 and (iv) 85 years and over. [44937]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is in the table.

  Households receiving home help or home care services England: survey week during September/October

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Age group of oldest client in household

  18–64

  Number of households1

  54,700

  57,000

  59,400

  62,400

  Percentage of all households1

  0.40

  0.42

  0.43

  0.46

  65–74

  Number of households1

  94,700

  82,100

  77,000

  71,500

  Percentage of households1

  3.41

  2.96

  2.77

  2.58

  75–84

  Number of households1

  219,100

  206,300

  195,400

  177,400

  Percentage of households1

  11.7

  11.0

  10.4

  9.44

  85 and over

  Number of households1

  166,200

  164,000

  154,600

  154,300

  Percentage of households1

  38.1

  37.5

  35.4

  35.3

  1Per cent. of the total number of households for the appropriate age band

  Source:

  Department of Health annual statistical returns (HH1)

  Hip Operations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hip operations were undertaken on persons over 80 years old in the latest year for which figures are available; and how many were unsuccessful. [45512]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of hip replacement and other hip operations carried out in England in 1995/96 is set out in the table. Information on outcomes is not available. This is a matter we are discussing with the professions.

  Operations on the hip joint. Estimated number of finished consultant episodes (FCEs) by primary operation and age, National Health Service hospitals, England, 1995–96

  Age groups

  FCEs

  Under 80

  47,705

  80 and over

  17,920

  not known

  13

  Total

  65,638

  Notes:

  OPCS4 R codes—W37-W39, W46-W48

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

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

  Child Protection Registers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children at risk from sexual or physical abuse were on child protection registers on 1 June. [45211]
  163
  Mr. Boateng
  The latest figures for children and young people on child protection registers in England are for 31 March 1997 and show 8,200 at risk of physical injury alone, 5,600 at risk of sexual abuse alone and 800 at risk of both physical injury and sexual abuse.

  Methadone Treatment
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the United Kingdom undertake methadone treatment for heroin or cocaine addiction. [45662]

  Ms Jowell
  The available information shows that during the six month period ending 30 September 1996, 19,191 heroin users and 3,593 cocaine users presented to services in Great Britain with problem drug misuse for the first time or for the first time for six months or more. There is some double counting in these figures because some users reported misusing both heroin and cocaine. Reliable information is not currently available on the number of these users receiving methadone treatment. Methadone is not prescribed for the treatment of cocaine misuse.

  The figures given were published in the Statistical Bulletin "Drug Misuse Statistics for the six months ending September 1996", copies of which are available in the Library. The next Statistical Bulletin, for the six months ending March 1997, is due to be published on Wednesday 17 June 1998.

  Clinical Trials
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his Department's policy on controlled trials of medical treatments. [45829]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: The Department recognises that in many instances the best evidence on effectiveness and side effects of treatment can be obtained from clinical trials. This is because clinical trials, especially randomised controlled trials, allow treatments to be compared with minimal bias. For this reason, the Department has set up the research and development programme for the National Health Service which: commissions clinical trials, so as to be able to improve care for patients in the NHS; includes economic analysis alongside clinical trials to determine cost effectiveness; produces systematic reviews so that patients can benefit from all the clinical trials conducted around the world; makes the results of these reviews widely available; and ensures that the NHS fulfils its obligations to meet the treatment costs of clinical trials whose research costs are met through other funders.

  It is Departmental policy that all clinical trials (like other forms of clinical research) receive prior ethical committee approval from the local research ethics committee.

  The NHS has taken steps to ensure the methodological quality of clinical trials through, in the first instance, the appointment of a National Clinical Trials Advisor, Professor R. Lilford, who has collaborated with the Medical Research Council in producing a set of guidelines for good clinical practice in relation to clinical trials which were based on the principles laid down by the International Committee on Harmonisation.
  164
  The NHS is taking a number of steps to ensure that the results of clinical trials carry through into practice.

  Viagra
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 686, if he proposes to make Viagra available by NHS prescription, if marketing authorisation is given in respect of the drug. [46250]

  Ms Jowell
  As with most drugs, sildenafil (Viagra), if licensed, will be available on National Health Service prescription to meet identified clinical need. We will be considering whether guidance to clinicians or any other action is required. Issues of this kind will in due course be considered under the auspices of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the cost to the National Health Service of asylum seekers whose application has not been resolved in the last year for which figures are available. [45542]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  National Health Service hospital treatment, received by an asylum seeker whose application is pending, is the responsibility of the health authority for the district in which they are residing.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the cost to local authorities of asylum seekers whose application has not been resolved in the last year for which figures are available. [45541]

  Mr. Boateng
  Almost £40 million was paid to local authorities for supporting adult asylum seekers; around £28.4 million for asylum seekers with children and £1.6 million for unaccompanied children. The full cost to local authorities of supporting asylum seekers whose applications have not been resolved is not known as the grants paid by central government to local authorities do not fully re-imburse those costs.

DEFENCE

  Nerve Agent Pre-treatment Sets
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the life-expiry date of Pyridostigmine Bromide was in(a) 1990 and (b) 1995. [40141]

  Dr. Reid
  In 1982 and 1983, the Ministry of Defence took delivery of an initial stock of unlicensed Nerve Agent Pretreatment Set (NAPS) tablets containing pyridostigmine bromide (PB) which had been manufactured by Roche Products Ltd. in those years. These tablets had a nominal shelf-life of 5 years, which was later extended to 6 and then 7 years following testing at the Chemical Defence Establishment (CDE) (now known as the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency) at Porton Down in 1987 and 1988. In July 1988 a contract was let to Duphar BV (now known as Solvay Duphar BV) to replace
  165
  MOD's holding of NAPS. This second order, also unlicensed, was delivered to MOD in February 1989 and distributed to units by August 1989. These tablets had a nominal life expectancy of 4 to 5 years, expiring in 1992–93.

  Thus, at the beginning of 1990, MOD's stock of NAPS contained tablets manufactured by Roche Products Ltd., some of which had, nominally, life-expired in 1989 and some of which were due to expire early that year, and tablets manufactured by Duphar BV with a nominal expiry date of 1992–93. We believe that the NAPS tablets used during the Gulf conflict were drawn principally, possibly exclusively, from stocks of the Duphar tablets which were due to expire in 1992–93. However, in October 1990 samples of the Roche tablets, all of which were, at that time, life-expired, were analysed by CDE to determine their suitability for use during Operation GRANBY in the event that additional stocks were required; their PB content was found to be within an acceptable range for use.

  Additional stocks of NAPS tablets were delivered from Duphar BV in 1991. A licence application for NAPS was made in 1992 and, based on the available storage data information, a life expiry date of 4 years was granted when the licence application was approved in 1993. This stock therefore had an expiry date of 1995. It is possible that MOD's holding of NAPS in 1995 also included some of the Roche and earlier Duphar batches whose shelf-lives had already expired.

  Further stocks of NAPS tablets were delivered in the Spring of 1996 to replace MOD's holding. These have an expiry date of early 2000. Life-expired stocks of NAPS are currently being disposed of at CBD Porton Down.

  CR Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment of the health effects of CR gas has been made by the senior medical officers of his Department since 1991; how many published and internal papers have been written by his Department's medical officers on this subject since 1991; and what are the current security classifications of these reports. [45311]

  Dr. Reid
  No such assessment has been made by my Department since 1991. No published or internal papers on the subject have, therefore, been written by my Department's medical officers since 1991.

  UN Peacekeeping Operations
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom troops were engaged in United Nations peace keeping duties on 1 January in each of the last five years; and in what locations they were engaged and by the authority of which United Nations resolutions. [45463]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer the hon. Member to the letter I sent to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 17 November 1997, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. The only change, as of 1 January 1998, to the figures quoted in my letter for UK Service personnel serving on current UN peacekeeping operations is the addition of five in UNFICYP (Cyprus), making a total of 409. Since 1 January, however, the numbers of UK personnel deployed in UNFICYP has 166
  reduced from 409 to 312 to allow the integration of a Dutch contingent of 102 personnel. And in UNOMIG, following a UN freeze on the rotation of personnel due to the deterioration in the security situation in Georgia, the number of UK personnel deployed has reduced from seven to one.

  The additional information requested on the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions (UNSCRs) for peacekeeping operations on which United Kingdom troops were deployed in the last five years is as follows:

  UNFICYP (Cyprus)—UNSCR 186;

  UNIKOM (Iraq)—UNSCR 689;

  UNOMIG (Georgia)—UNSCR 858;

  UNPROFOR (Croatia/Bosnia)—UNSCR 743;

  UNCRO (Croatia)—UNSCR 981;

  UNAVEM III (Angola)—UNSCR 976;

  MINURSO (Western Sahara)—UNSCR 690.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 May 1998,Official Report, column 436, on the Territorial Army, when he expects to write to the hon. Member for Banbury. [45462]

  Dr. Reid
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 15 June and a copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  King's Own Border Regiment
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the establishment strength of the First Battalion King's Own Border Regiment; and what is the current number of soldiers in the regiment. [45811]

  Dr. Reid
  The First Battalion Kings Own Border Regiment has an establishment strength of 770. The current number of soldiers serving in the Regiment is 750.

  Eritrea
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the Royal Marines and Royal Air Force in Eritrea. [46095]

  Mr. George Robertson
  At 0730 on the morning of Saturday 6 June, following a request from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, an RAF C-130 Hercules aircraft left RAF Lyneham, Wiltshire for Eritrea with a party of 18 Royal Marines on board to conduct an evacuation of UK citizens stranded by the fighting there. After refuelling in Crete, the aircraft arrived in Asmara late in the evening and spent an hour on the ground during which time the Royal Marines, carrying light weapons, helped to marshal evacuees and provide protection. The aircraft picked up the remaining 40 or so UK citizens who wished to leave, together with the Honorary Consul as well as around 60 other foreign nationals.

  Executive Agencies (Performance Targets)
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency for 1998–99. [46285]
  167
  Dr. Reid
  The Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency has been set the following key targets for 1998–99:

  1. To deliver personnel to the trained strength (or to other training organisations) within 10 per cent. variance from the tasked requirement.

  2. To obtain a Customer Satisfaction Rating of at least 91 per cent.

  3. To maintain success rates of 95 per cent. in Career Training and 97 per cent. in examined Pre-joining training.

  4. To increase the strength of the RNR to at least 3,100 by 31 March 1999.

  5. To retain tasked capacity while operating NRTA within its 1998–99 cash allocation of £233 million, a reduction of £7 million (3 per cent.) from 1997–98 figures.

  6. To break even over the year in respect of the partnering arrangement with Flagship Training Ltd.

  7. To review the NRTA's Corporate IS Strategy and produce a supporting Action Plan for its implementation, by 31 March 1999.

  8. To include satisfactory accounts in the Agency Annual Report for Financial Year 1997–98, in preparation for passing a full external NAO Audit on the 1998–99 accounts included in the following year's Annual Report.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the RAF Personnel Management Agency for 1998–99. [46287]

  Dr. Reid
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the RAF Personnel Management Agency for the Financial Year as follows:

  Key Target 1

  a. To ensure that the percentage of Peacetime Established Posts filled, as a ratio of the manning level, is 91.70% or greater.

  b. To man War, Tension, Crisis and MOD Authorised Unestablished tasks at 95% or greater.

  Key Target 2

  To ensure that 80% or more of personnel given a posting that qualifies for a domestic move receive the required notice.

  Key Target 3

  To increase the number of operationally employable reservists to 2,900 by 31 March 1999.

  Key Target 4

  To ensure that the percentage variation between the actual trained strength and the authorised trained strength, taken as an average over the Financial Year, is no greater than †/- 1%.

  Key Target 5

  To deliver the £353,500, or 3% savings that accrue from the efficiencies planned for the Financial Year 1998–99.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Training Group Defence Agency for 1998–99. [46288]

  Dr. Reid
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Training Group Defence Agency for the Financial Year 1998–99 as follows:

  Key Target—Quality of Product

  Achievement of customer satisfaction with the quality of graduate trainees as reflected in Customer Advisory Committee reports to the Air-Officer Commanding in Chief.

  Target for 1998–99: Development of quality monitoring system by 31 March 1999.
  168
  Key Target 2—Efficiency

  To deliver the savings that accrue from the efficiencies planned for FY98–99.

  Target for 1998–99: £10.4M (3%)

  Key Target 3a—Quantity of Output (Flying Training)

  The percentage of trained aircrew delivered against RAF requirements.

  Target for 1998–99: 96.0%.

  Key Target 3b—Quantity of Output (Ground Training)

  The percentage of trained personnel delivered against RAF requirements.

  Target for 1998–99: 97.0%.

  Key Target 4—Development of Output Costings and Unit Cost Measures

  To provide full output costings and associated unit cost measures for the Agency by FY00–01.

  Target for 1998–99: Output costing model.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what key targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation for 1998–99. [46286]

  Dr. Reid
  The Chief Executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation has been set the following Key Targets:

  1. To deliver a responsive service which matches the needs of the customer in peace and for operations to the agreed timeliness, quantity and quality criteria, to the maximum extent possible with available resources.

  2. To remain within ABRO's allocated cash budget.

  3. To reduce the ratio of labour costs to hours of production by 2 per cent. from those of the averaged last three years.

  4. To delivery objective measures of customer satisfaction.

  5. To deliver an implementation plan embracing the endorsed recommendations from the Agency and ES Next Steps Reviews.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  War Widows
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claims for war widows' pensions based(a) wholly and (b) in part on exposure to nuclear tests were (i) accepted and (ii) rejected in the periods (1) January 1988 to December 1993 and (2) January 1994 to May 1998; [45217]

  (2) how many of the widows who were awarded war widows' pensions in the period from January 1988 to December 1993, based (a) wholly or (b) in part on their husbands' exposure to nuclear tests, have continued to receive the pension; [45190]

  (3) how many claims for war widows' pension were made by widows of nuclear test veterans, based wholly or in part on exposure to nuclear tests in the periods (a) January 1988 to December 1993 and (b) January 1994 to May 1998. [45283]

  Mr. Denham
  One of our key aims is that delivery of service should be simpler and more efficient. The administration of the War Pensions Agency is a matter for its Chief Executive, Mr. Gordon Hextall. I have asked him to write to my hon. Friend.
  169
  Letter from G. Hextall to Mr. Michael Wills, dated 15 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about claims and awards of War Widows Pension related to exposure to nuclear tests, between the dates January 1988 to December 1993 and January 1994 to May 1998.Under the War Pension Scheme a War Pension may be awarded to ex-servicemen or their widows in respect of death or disablement which is due to service in the Armed Forces. Consequently, claims may be made by the widows of men who participated in the UK nuclear weapons test programme in respect of a wide variety of conditions which may have lead to or hastened death. The War Pensions Agency collates data on all cases where it is claimed that the late husband was exposed to excess radiation as a result of participation in the tests, even where the claim for pension is for a condition a widow has not regarded as related to such exposure.The Secretary of State's normal policy is that where there is reliable evidence of exposure to excess ionising radiation and a recognised link between a claimed condition and such exposure, an award of War Pension may be made.As a result of concern amongst some test participants about the effects their participation has had on their health, the Ministry of Defence commissioned an independent study by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB). The study compared the mortality and cancer incidence in over 20,000 test participants with that of a similar-sized control group of ex-servicemen who had not participated in the test programme.The NRPB Report, published in 1988, concluded that participation in the UK tests has not had a detectable affect on the participants' expectation of life, nor on their risk of developing cancer in general. It did, however, raise a reasonable doubt that leukaemia (other than chronic lymphatic leukaemia) and multiple myeloma might be due to participation. Whilst the NRPB Report did not causally relate leukaemia specifically to participation in the nuclear weapons tests, its evidence was nevertheless accepted as raising a reasonable doubt that these two conditions may have resulted from such participation. The relevant War Pension Legislation provides that an award may be made if, on the basis of reliable evidence, there is a reasonable doubt that a condition is due to service; the benefit of any reasonable doubt is given to the claimant. Awards of War Pension were therefore made on that basis.In the table, the "total awarded" figure represents the total number of awards of War Widows' Pensions made to the widows of men who participated in the tests. Awards therefore include both those made as a result of the Secretary of State's normal policy following the evidence from the NRPB, and those made as the result of a condition arising from service unrelated to participation in the tests. The awards made as a result of the NRPB reports are recorded in the next column headed "Radiation Award".

  Awards made as a result of NRPB reports

  January 1988 to December 1993

  January 1994 to May 1998

  Claims received

  104

  55

  Total awarded

  24

  6

  Radiation award

  12

  0

  Rejected

  80

  41

  8 claims are still under consideration.

  The 12 Radiation Awards for 1988–1993 are included in the Total Awarded column.

  Of the 24 awards made between January 1988 and December 1993, our records show that 18 widows are still in receipt of a War Widows Pension.

  I hope you find my reply helpful.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what targets have been established by her Department for the time to be taken by the Child Support Agency to deal with claims for compensation. [45765]

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

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Terry Davis, dated 15 June 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency compensation payments, normally referred to as special payments.A special payment is considered where a clear and unambiguous error by the Agency has resulted in an actual financial loss to the customer which is not recoverable through other means. No set target has been given to the Agency for the length of time taken to award such payments. Each case is carefully considered on its individual merits and depending on the complexity of the case, the length of time required to reach a decision can vary considerably.The Agency has a discrete unit to deal with claims for special payments. This ensures that each case receives individual attention and helps achieve fairness and an appropriate standard of consistency in an essentially discretionary scheme. All cases are now treated with priority and are normally dealt with in order of the date of receipt.The number of claims is small compared with our overall caseload of over 770,000 live and assessed cases. But it has risen as a result of the increases in the Agency's current workloads and of our recent actions to clear the backlog of maintenance applications which had accumulated in the Agency during its first 2–3 years. In 1997/98 the Agency cleared 595,000 maintenance applications compared with 357,000 in 1996/97 and reduced the number of maintenance applications over 52 weeks old from 225,000 to 110,000.We recognise that the length of time taken to deal with special payments in some instances has been protracted; we have recently reorganised our resources in this area and streamlined procedures with the aim of resolving special payments more speedily. As a result, the majority of individual claims which had been outstanding have been processed since December 1997 and the time for dealing with new claims has reduced significantly. Since December 1997 a total of 585 new cases have been cleared and 1719 new cases are at various stages of action. We also recognise that by improving our underlying service and efficiency we can avoid the need for such claims. We are on course to clear the rest of the backlog of maintenance applications over 52 weeks old by the end of 1998/99.We acknowledge that in the past our basic levels of customer service have been unacceptable and we are sorry that our failings may on occasion have caused inconvenience, frustration, distress and financial hardship. During 1997/98 we developed the Customer Service Strategy, our customer service improvement plan for the next four years. The Strategy will improve performance standards; information and openness; consultation and choice; courtesy and helpfulness and provide value for money. We have begun action on some of our customer service initiatives but it will take three to four years to deliver everything. However, we expect customers to see some real improvements by the end of 1998/99.I hope this is helpful.

  ADAPT Project
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she intends to respond to proposals made by the three private sector consortiums involved in the ADAPT project; and if she will place a copy of the proposals in the Library. [46031]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  171
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Rendel, dated 15 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when she intends to respond to proposals made by the three private sector consortiums involved in the ADAPT project; and if a copy of the proposals will be placed in the Library.To date, the Project has received one formal proposal from one of the private sector consortia. This has been given due consideration and a response has been given to the relevant consortia.The Benefits Agency is working collaboratively with all three of the private sector consortia to jointly develop appropriate ideas which will meet Government's objectives and fit with the Benefits Agency's business.The proposal which was submitted contained information of a commercially confidential nature and, as such, it is not appropriate to place copies of the document in the Library.I hope you find this reply helpful.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Contributions Agency expects to start processing NI returns for the current tax year using the new NIRS2 computer system. [46030]

  Mr. Denham
  The processing of National Insurance returns using the NIRS2 system is a matter for George Bertram, the Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with further details.

  Letter from David Slater to Mr. David Rendel, dated 15 June 1998:
  George Bertram is the Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency and has the responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the Agency under which the processing of National Insurance returns on NIRS2 falls. In the absence of Mr. Bertram, I have been asked to answer your question about processing National Insurance returns using NIRS2 on his behalf.The new National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2) release which supports the processing of National Insurance (NI) returns is undergoing formal acceptance testing. On current plans, the processing of NI returns for the 1997–98 tax year will commence during July 1998, subject of course to satisfactory completion of the acceptance testing.The Contributions Agency will expect to process NI returns for the "current" tax year (1998–1999) with effect from April 1999.

  Benefit Fraud Inspectorate
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimated savings have resulted from the work of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate. [46223]

  Mr. Field
  The role of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) is to inspect and report on the counter-fraud performance of local authorities and DSS agencies. It will raise standards by publishing reports with recommendations and by identifying and encouraging good practice across organisational boundaries. It is too soon to quantify the savings local authorities and DSS agencies will make by implementing the recommendations in the BFI's first report.

  Parental Leave
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if employees who apply for unpaid parental leave 172
  from work and whose incomes are low, will be able, under her proposals for extending parental leave, to receive state benefits. [46145]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government are keen to support a strong family-friendly culture in the workplace. Family-friendly employment policies are good for parents, good for children, good for business and good for the economy. We are working with employers, voluntary organisations and trade unions to promote family-friendly policies and encourage best practice. We are also introducing for the first time a framework of rights for employees—these rights will include time off for mothers and fathers at the time of birth, as well as time off for parents when their children are taken ill. The interaction between parental leave and benefit entitlement is being considered as part of our wider review of family-friendly working arrangements.

  Pensions Education Working Group
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will publish the report of the Pensions Education Working Group. [46454]

  Mr. Denham
  Last September, as part of the Governments Pension Review, we commissioned the Pensions Education Working Group Report to look at ways of improving education and awareness of pension issues. Today we are pleased to be publishing their report 'Getting to know about Pensions', copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  The Pension Provision Group report, published on 4 June 1998, identified that many people will face an avoidable drop in income in retirement because they do not make adequate provision for themselves over and above the basic State pension. One of the key issues underlying this problem is the lack of financial awareness and good information on pensions.

  Today's report provides a clear and concise analysis of the need for improved education and is an important contribution to addressing the challenge, identified in the Pension Provision Group report, to bring about a significant improvement in people's understanding about pensions and the need to make sufficient provision.

  The report makes a series of recommendations for action. The Government's response is being considered as part of the pensions review, but action has already been taken to improve the quality of information provided by the Department of Social Security.

  We are grateful to members of the Pensions Education Working Group for the time, commitment and expertise they have provided. We are pleased that the Group has agreed to continue to carry forward its work in a number of areas.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many reports his Department has received in each of the past five years of cases of death or injuries caused by fire in unlicensed bed-and-breakfast establishments. [45373]
  173
  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  CS Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the manufacturers of CS spray devices which have been evaluated for use by police forces by the police scientific development branch since 1994; for what reasons the police scientific development branch recommended the purchase of CS sprays produced by SAE Alsetex; and how many police forces are currently purchasing stocks of CS sprays from SAE Alsetex; [45309]

  (2) if he will list the police forces which (a) have and (b) have not issued CS sprays to officers; [45306]

  (3) what research has been conducted by the police scientific development branch since 1995 into the safety and effectiveness of reducing the strength of CS in CS sprays currently issued to police officers; when this research was carried out; what are the current security classifications of reports resulting from this research; and if he will place copies of the results of this research in the Library; [45307]

  (4) what plans he has to reduce the strength of CS in CS sprays currently issued to police officers to below five per cent.; and what assessment he has made of the safety of the current strength; [45308]

  (5) what research has been commissioned by his Department from the DERA since July 1997 into alternative solvents for CS sprays and for what reasons; when this research was commissioned; what are the current security classifications of the reports resulting from this research; and if he will place copies of this research in the Library. [45305]

  Mr. Michael
  Individual chief officers are responsible for deciding which type of equipment to issue. All forces in England and Wales, apart from Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and Sussex, have now issued CS sprays to their officers. A specification issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) on the purchase of CS sprays, reflecting advice from the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch, recommends a five per cent. concentration of CS. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to suggest that this guidance is changed. Operational use of this concentration by the French police for many years has been found to be effective in delivering the required amount of incapacitant in a short time. Lower concentrations of CS would require the delivery of a larger quantity of liquid over a longer period to produce an operationally effective dose. It is the total quantity of CS which may be delivered which is relevant to consideration of safety. The specification issued by the ACPO provides that the total content of CS in a can should not exceed 5g to comply with a recommendation by the 1971 inquiry (the Himsworth inquiry) into the medical and toxicological aspects of CS, relating to the use of CS in enclosed spaces. A copy of the report of that inquiry is in the Library.

  At the end of 1997, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency carried out a literature review on behalf of the Home Office to identify possible alternative
  174
  solvents. None was identified. Work in this area by the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch is continuing.

  The Branch does not recommend any particular manufacturer of CS spray. CS sprays produced by SAE Alsetex have been chosen by some police forces because they performed best in a competitive national tendering process managed by the Metropolitan Police on behalf of ACPO. Details of how many forces have purchased equipment from SAE Alsetex are not held centrally.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were in prison in England and Wales for serious sex offences on 1 June.[45447]

  Ms Quin
  The available information for all sexual offences is for 30 April and is given in the table.

  Population in prisons in England and Wales under sentence for sexual offences on 30 April 19981

  Sexual offence

  Males

  Females

  Abduction

  19

  —

  Bigamy

  1

  1

  Buggery

  322

  —

  Buggery, indecency between males

  54

  —

  Gross indecency/indecent assault child

  541

  4

  Incest

  88

  1

  Indecent assault

  967

  4

  Indecent exposure

  7

  —

  Rape

  2,191

  4

  Unlawful sexual intercourse

  118

  —

  Other sexual offences

  2

  —

  Total

  4,310

  14

  1Provisional figures

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were being held as category A prisoners in prisons in England and Wales on 1 June. [45445]

  Ms Quin
  On 1 June 1998, 839 men and 4 women were classified as Category A prisoners.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research has been(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated by his Department in respect of racial awareness training for police officers. [45643]

  Mr. Michael
  There have been various evaluation studies of training courses and seminars run by the Home Office and the matter has been addressed in the course of reports on issues which have a bearing on racial awareness training.

  In 1984, a report was published of the evaluation of an experimental series of four short courses in racism awareness training sponsored by the Home Office. In 1991, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (supported by Her Majesty's Inspectorate (Schools) and an independent assessor) inspected the Home Office Specialist Support Unit (SSU), which provides expert community and race relations training to the police. In 1993, the Home Office Police Research Group evaluated the six-week course in racial awareness offered by the

  175
  Specialist Support Unit. In 1995, the Home Office Research and Planning Unit carried out a study of the annual Holly Royde seminar which is intended to help the police to address their local policing priorities and practice with a greater awareness of the multi-racial context in which they operate. These studies have highlighted the need to build racism awareness training into regular training programmes.

  Details of other research into areas which have a bearing on racial awareness training are as follows:

  Home Office study into Racial Attacks—November 1981

  Police Research Group report on reducing repeat racial victimisation—November 1995 (ISBN 1–85893–453–2).

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary's thematic report on police community and race relations—October 1997 (ISBN 1–85893–9658).

  Police Research Group report on policing racially motivated incidents—November 1979 (ISBN 1–85893–988–7).

  Much of this research concluded that more work needed to be done on building a better relationship between the police and the community. This included recommendations that police officers receive training in community and race relations generally and, more specifically, in developing a greater sensitivity to the impact of racial attacks on the community and in responding to ethnic minority groups.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce more rigorous background checks for future applicants to join the police force.[45709]

  Mr. Michael
  All new recruits to the police service are subject to a vetting procedure. It is for individual forces to determine what other background checks are made in respect of those officers who have been selected for appointment to the police service. I have seen no evidence to suggest that these procedures are not satisfactory.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding racial awareness training procedures for the police indicating what training is compulsory. [45711]

  Mr. Michael
  At national level, all police officers receive training in community and race relations (CRR) as part of their probationer training. CRR forms part of the Strategic Command Course (which, since 1990, has been mandatory for all officers being appointed to the Association of Chief Police Officer ranks) and is also included in the Police Sergeants' Programme and the Inspectors' Management Development Course (which newly promoted Sergeants and Inspectors respectively are expected to attend) and the Trainers' Development Programme. The Staff College at Bramshill also runs a dedicated course on policing racial incidents.

  Minimum Effective Training Levels in equal opportunities and community and race relations in the form of behavioural statements for officers up to and including inspector rank, have been devised and work is in hand to incorporate them into the national curriculum.

  Further CRR training within forces is a matter for individual chief officers and the extent of such training and whether or not it is compulsory varies from force to force. Some forces run specific courses covering diversity issues, others integrate community and race relations
  176
  issues within existing courses. Some forces make use of expert consultancy organisations in providing this training.

  The Home Office funds a Specialist Support Unit which provides independent expert community and race relations training and advice to the police service. In the past, efforts have focused on training force trainers who cascade the training to officers in their forces. We will be implementing a new strategy for the provision of this specialist support from 1999 which will focus on:

  completing the integration of community and race relations throughout the national training curriculum; and

  support and training to individual forces to place community and race relations firmly within operational policing activities.

  The Home Office also runs the Holly Royde seminar annually for police managers which focuses on the relationship between the police and the public—particularly minority ethnic communities—and the implications for operational policing in multi-racial Britain.

  Police Training Procedures
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the last independent review of police training procedures was conducted; and what plans he has to instigate another review. [45644]

  Mr. Michael
  Ministers are currently giving active consideration to the best way of improving the quality and comprehensiveness of police training. There has been no fully independent review specifically of police training in recent years. The report by Lord Scarman on the Brixton disorders in 1981 made a number of important recommendations relating to police training and there have also been a number of internal or partly independent reviews since then. A series of reviews led to the creation of National Police Training (NPT) in 1993. A strategic review of NPT began in 1997 and is expected to be completed later this year. A review of probationer training was carried out between 1994–95. Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary is carrying out a thematic inspection of police training, which is expected to be completed early in 1999.

  West Mercia Constabulary
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police constables were employed by West Mercia Constabulary in each of the years 1979 to 1997; [45673]

  (2) what was the police officer strength of West Mercia Constabulary in each of the years 1979 to 1997. [45674]

  Mr. Michael
  The information available is set out in the table. It is not possible to provide details of the number of constables prior to 1990.

  West Mercia Constabulary

  Year1

  Total constable strength

  Total officer strength

  1979

  n/a

  1,777

  1980

  n/a

  1,928

  1981

  n/a

  1,926

  1982

  n/a

  1,924

  1983

  n/a

  1,906

  1984

  n/a

  1,923

  177

  West Mercia Constabulary

  Year1

  Total constable strength

  Total officer strength

  1985

  n/a

  1,926

  1986

  n/a

  1,923

  1987

  n/a

  1,948

  1988

  n/a

  1,956

  1989

  n/a

  1,959

  1990

  1,503

  2,013

  1991

  1,517

  2,028

  1992

  1,545

  2,057

  1993

  1,557

  2,064

  1994

  1,547

  2,043

  1995

  1,519

  2,008

  1996

  1,529

  2,011

  1997

  1,558

  2,031

  1 Figures provided are as at 30 September for each year

  Asylum Seekers
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many appeals are currently outstanding against an initial decision to refuse political asylum; and if he will make a statement. [45520]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As at 30 April 1998 (the most recent date for which information is available) there were 23,815 asylum appeals outstanding with the Immigration Appellate Authority. The total number has been falling steadily from a peak of 26,180 in August 1997.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason interviews with asylum seekers at Heathrow are conducted in designated secure areas. [45634]
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Immigration Service control accommodation is provided by the port operator. As the business of the Immigration Service at Heathrow is to process arriving passengers and conduct interviews under Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 1971, the accommodation provided is most appropriately sited close to the immigration arrivals control. A designated secure area provides confidentiality and enables the Service to fulfil duty of care obligations to both interviewees and officials.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions were issued by his Department to the Immigration Service at Heathrow regarding the revised arrangements for access to immigration and asylum interviews which came into operation on 1 March. [45636]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At Heathrow, representatives are now required to provide details of employees in advance of their attendance at ports. This is to facilitate airside clearance for representatives and their interpreters.

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has issued on how asylum seekers should be informed of a decision which affects their entitlement to benefits. [45632]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Asylum caseworkers have been instructed to notify an asylum seeker who is known to be in receipt of benefits of the refusal of the application at the same time as the Benefits Agency is notified of the refusal, if consideration is to be given to enforcing removal from the United Kingdom.
  178
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason asylum seekers whose cases are unresolved but who have permission to work are excluded from acting as interpreters in asylum interviews at Heathrow. [45635]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is not appropriate to allow asylum seekers, including those who have permission to work, to act as interpreters in asylum interviews. This is both to safeguard the security of the port and those in our care, whilst at the same time ensuring the integrity of an asylum application.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the cost to his Department of asylum seekers whose application has not been resolved in the last year for which figures are available. [45543]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information requested is not available, but the total cost to the Home Office in 1997–98 of dealing with asylum seekers is estimated to be about £80 million. The estimate includes dealing with asylum seekers at ports of entry, deciding asylum claims, handling subsequent appeals work, removing failed asylum seekers and detaining some asylum seekers. It is not possible to give precise figures as not all the costs associated with asylum seekers can be identified separately within total immigration spending.

  In addition, the Home Office paid grant of about £7 million to non-governmental organisations in assistance to asylum seekers and refugees.

  Firearms Compensation
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current delay in processing applications for compensation under Category C of the Firearms Compensation Scheme; and what was the delay(a) one month ago and (b) two months ago. [45548]

  Mr. Michael
  The Firearms Compensation Section (FCS) is currently working on Option C claims lodged with the police on 13 July 1997. I regret that information is not available on the comparable processing dates in previous months. Having cleared the claims under Options A and B of the compensation scheme, the FCS is now devoting its resources to processing the remaining claims under Option C. Around 900 payments totalling over £3.1 million have been made under Option C, including interim payments to firearms dealers, and offers of payment have been made in a further 450 cases. These will be processed as soon as the necessary Declarations have been returned by the claimant. I outlined the timetable for completion of Option C payments in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) on 8 June 1998,Official Report, columns 438–39.

  Deaf Prisoners
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to(a) identify,(b) promote and (c) disseminate good practice in the way in which prison officers deal with deaf prisoners throughout the Prison Service. [45476]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service does recognise the needs of deaf prisoners. Most recently, the Service's Instruction 79/1996 alerted governors, in keeping with the first
  179
  provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995, of the need to comply with these provisions which are concerned with attitudes towards disabled people and an awareness of their needs, and prohibiting discrimination against them in relation to access to goods, facilities and services. Further guidance will be published later this year on the management of prisoners with physical and sensory disabilities, setting out practice to be implemented across all establishments in England and Wales. In implementing the provisions of the DDA, the Prison Service will consult with external organisations representing people with hearing, sight and other disabilities.

  Prisons (Beef)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the availability of(a) imported and (b) British beef in prisons. [45518]

  Ms Quin
  Both British and imported beef is available to all prison establishments through centrally negotiated contracts. It is purchased by establishments to a quality specification set by the Meat and Livestock Commission.

  DNA Results (Exchanges)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) of 5 June 1998,Official Report, columns 378–80, if he will place in the Library the report on the exchange of DNA analysis results. [45715]

  Mr. Michael
  This document has already been deposited in the Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the PH projects currently under way and (b) those under consideration for the police service in England and Wales. [45695]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is as follows.

  Private Finance Initiative (PFI): Police Authority Projects in England and Wales

  (a) Projects currently underway:

  Derbyshire—Ilkeston Police Station (contract awarded February 1998)

  Chief officers of police in England and Wales (as at 12 June 1998)

  Police force

  Current rank

  Name

  Date appointment

  Avon and Somerset

  A.C.C.

  K.L. Jones

  5 January 1998

  A.C.C. (D)

  T. Grange

  30 March 1998

  C.C.

  S.C. Pilkington

  16 February 1998

  Bedfordshire

  A.C.C.

  A. Howlett Bolton

  13 May 1996

  C.C.

  M. O'Byrne

  3 January 1996

  A.C.C. (D)

  D.F. Stevens

  1 January 1996

  Cambridgeshire

  A.C.C.

  B.J.P. Whyte

  6 January 1992

  A.C.C. (D)

  D. Winser

  9 March 1998

  C.C.

  D.G. Gunn

  1 January 1994

  Cheshire

  A.C.C.

  I.R. Moody

  15 April 1991

  A.C.C.

  J.V. Dwyer

  31 October 1994

  A.C.C. (D)

  I. Holding

  21 October 1995

  C.C.

  N. Burgess

  8 December 1997

  City of London

  Commissioner

  P.R. Nove

  28 May 1995

  Cmdr.

  M.J. Davison

  25 September 1995

  A. Comm.

  Vacant

  —

  180
  Northumbria—Mounted Section Facility (contract awarded May 1998)

  Wiltshire—Air Support (contract awarded December 1997)

  (b) Projects under consideration:

  England

  Cheshire—Force HQ/Training Centre

  Cleveland/Durham—Firearms Training

  Cumbria—Workington Divisional Police Station

  Derbyshire—Derby Divisional HQ

  Dorset—Divisional HQ and Police Station (Dorchester)

  Greater Manchester—Forcewide Property Review

  Hertfordshire—Communications System

  Norfolk—Force HQ

  Nottinghamshire—Area Traffic Wing

  Thames Valley—Area HQ and Sector Station (Abingdon)

  Metropolitan Police—i) 3 Divisional Police Stations (Bromley, Lewisham and Sutton); ii)Firearms Training

  Wales

  Dyfed-Powys—i) Ammanford Police Station; ii) Lampeter Police Station

  Gwent—Ystrad Mynach Police Station

  North Wales—Divisional HQ and Police Station (Rhyl).

  Emergency Control Centres
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the benefits of(a) amalgamating and (b) integrating (i) locally and (ii) nationally police, fire and ambulance emergency control centres. [45696]

  Mr. Michael
  We are currently engaged in a consultation exercise with the police, fire and ambulance services on the possibility of sharing control rooms. The exercise is looking at the potential efficiency savings and other operational benefits of the shared use of control rooms by the three emergency services, as well as considering any down-side.

  Chief Police Officers
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each of the chief police officers in England and Wales indicating the names and their assistants and how long each has been in post. [45680]

  Mr. Michael
  The table shows the information requested.
  181

  Chief officers of police in England and Wales (as at 12 June 1998)

  Police force

  Current rank

  Name

  Date appointment

  Cleveland

  A.C.C.

  R. Brunstrom

  25 September 1995

  A.C.C. (D)

  R.S. Turnbull

  12 May 1997

  C.C.

  B.D. Shaw

  5 April 1993

  Cumbria

  A.C.C.

  C.E. Twigg

  5 January 1998

  A.C.C. (D)

  J.R. Allsopp

  1 January 1998

  C.C.

  C. Phillips

  13 March 1997

  Derbyshire

  A.C.C.

  R.J. Wood

  31 July 1989

  A.C.C.

  P. Hancock

  10 June 1996

  A.C.C. (D)

  D.F. Dovaston

  1 October 1996

  C.C.

  J.F. Newing

  1 June 1990

  Devon and Cornwall

  A.C.C.

  A.C. Street

  16 November 1994

  A.C.C. (D)

  K.A. Portlock

  1 April 1993

  C.C.

  J.S. Evans

  1 January 1989

  Dorset

  A.C.C.

  W.G. Pothecary

  10 May 1995

  C.C.

  D.W. Aldous

  1 January 1995

  A.C.C. (D)

  F.A. May

  1 January 1995

  Durham

  A.C.C. (D)

  E.W. Marchant

  1 December 1990

  C.C.

  G.E. Hedges

  12 September 1997

  Dyfed Powys

  A.C.C.

  P. Clough

  1 January 1998

  A.C.C. (D)

  K. Turner

  1 January 1998

  C.C.

  R. White

  5 June 1989

  Essex

  A.C.C.

  J. Broughton

  3 November 1997

  A.C.C.

  G. Markham

  1 September 1983

  A.C.C. (D)

  C.E. Clark

  1 September 1997

  C.C.

  J.H. Burrow

  1 February 1988

  Gloucestershire

  A.C.C.

  P.A. Todd

  4 August 1997

  A.C.C. (D)

  T. Brain

  8 March 1998

  C.C.

  A.J.P. Butler

  23 August 1993

  Greater Manchester

  A.C.C.

  F.A. Bridge

  24 March 1997

  A.C.C.

  V.A. Sweeney

  25 April 1994

  A.C.C.

  R.A. Taylor

  3 March 1997

  A.C.C.

  D.S. McCrone

  4 May 1993

  C.C.

  D. Wilmot

  1 July 1991

  A.C.C. (D)

  M.G. Cairns

  30 September 1991

  A.C.C.

  G. George

  16 December 1988

  Gwent

  A.C.C.

  A. McQuillan

  5 June 1995

  C.C.

  F.J. Wilkinson

  1 January 1997

  A.C.C. (D)

  R.O. Thomas

  5 September 1994

  Hampshire

  A.C.C.

  P.L. Jones

  17 February 1992

  A.C.C.

  I.R. Readhead

  24 April 1995

  C.C.

  J.C. Hoddinott

  1 August 1988

  A.C.C. (D)

  W.G. Nelson

  1 May 1991

  Hertfordshire

  A.C.C.

  P.F. Maddison

  24 February 1997

  A.C.C. (D)

  W.F. Hughes

  3 March 1997

  C.C.

  P.S. Sharpe

  1 August 1994

  Humberside

  A.C.C.

  M.J. Speakman

  13 February 1995

  A.C.C.

  G. Clark

  24 May 1996

  C.C.

  D.A. Leonard

  1 January 1992

  A.C.C. (D)

  D. Westwood

  1 September 1997

  Kent

  A.C.C.

  M. Bowron

  15 September 1997

  A.C.C.

  D.L. Valls-Russell

  27 February 1995

  A.C.C.

  T. O'Connor

  29 September 1994

  C.C.

  J.D. Phillips

  1 March 1993

  A.C.C. (D)

  R. Ayling

  6 June 1997

  Lancashire

  A.C.C.

  J. Vine

  1 May 1996

  A.C.C.

  T. Ghaffur

  13 May 1996

  A.C.C.

  D.R. Smith

  17 April 1995

  A.C.C. (D)

  G.R. O'Connell

  1 January 1996

  C.C.

  P.A. Clare

  31 July 1995

  Leicestershire

  A.C.C.

  D. Coleman

  1 January 1996

  A.C.C.

  C.J. Gray

  28 April 1997

  A.C.C. (D)

  D.J. Lindley

  1 December 1997

  C.C.

  D.J. Wyrko

  16 June 1997

  Lincolnshire

  A.C.C.

  A. Goldsmith

  8 April 1991

  C.C.

  R.J. Childs

  24 May 1998

  A.C.C. (D)

  P.G. Davies

  14 November 1994

  Merseyside

  A.C.C.

  B. Hogan-Howe

  1 September 1997

  A.C.C.

  M.W. Baxter

  1 December 1997

  A.C.C.

  P.R. Stephenson

  21 November 1994

  A.C.C. (D)

  P. Acres

  1 May 1995

  C.C.

  J. Sharples

  25 June 1989

  182 183

  Chief officers of police in England and Wales (as at 12 June 1998)

  Police force

  Current rank

  Name

  Date appointment

  Metropolitan

  Cmdr.

  M. Campbell

  24 September 1984

  D.A.C.

  B. Wilding

  1 June 1998

  D.A.C.

  M.J. Todd

  25 May 1998

  Dep. Comm.

  J. Stevens

  6 April 1998

  A. Comm.

  A. Dunn

  2 September 1996

  A. Comm.

  D. Veness

  5 April 1994

  A. Comm.

  W.I.R. Johnston

  2 September 1996

  A. Comm.

  P.A. Manning

  17 February 1997

  Cmdr.

  N.G. Mulvihill

  2 December 1996

  Cmdr.

  M. Messinger

  10 February 1997

  Cmdr.

  C. Howlett

  23 September 1996

  Cmdr.

  B.G. Moss

  27 April 1996

  Cmdr.

  D. Ray

  2 September 1996

  Cmdr.

  D.M. Kendrick

  2 September 1996

  Cmdr.

  P.J.M. Clarke

  10 April 1996

  Cmdr.

  R. Currie

  11 December 1995

  Cmdr.

  P.L. Tomkins

  8 January 1997

  Cmdr.

  M.J. Gerrard

  20 January 1997

  Cmdr.

  D.E.M. Gilbertson

  2 September 1996

  Cmdr.

  D. Croll

  13 January 1997

  Cmdr.

  T.C. Lloyd

  19 August 1996

  Cmdr.

  B.J. Luckhurst

  30 October 1995

  Cmdr.

  M. Craik

  14 July 1997

  Cmdr.

  S. Becks

  23 September 1996

  Cmdr.

  R. Cullen

  11 August 1997

  Cmdr.

  J.F. Purnell

  2 September 1996

  Cmdr.

  R. Gaspar

  2 September 1996

  Commissioner

  P.L. Condon

  1 February 1993

  D.A.C.

  A.S. Trotter

  27 April 1998

  D.A.C.

  J. Stitchbury

  16 February 1998

  D.A.C.

  A. Fry

  12 February 1996

  D.A.C.

  J. Townsend

  16 October 1995

  D.A.C.

  J.G.D. Grieve

  19 May 1997

  D.A.C.

  R. Clark

  28 October 1996

  D.A.C.

  W. Griffiths

  23 September 1996

  Norfolk

  Cmdr.

  I. Quinn

  2 January 1995

  A.C.C.

  W.J. MacIntyre

  4 May 1992

  A.C.C. (D)

  C. Port

  1 April 1998

  C.C.

  K. Williams

  5 July 1993

  North Wales

  A.C.C.

  T.J.M. Cooke

  1 May 1994

  C.C.

  M.J. Argent

  31 August 1994

  A.C.C. (D)

  J.T. Owen

  2 December 1991

  North Yorkshire

  A.C.C.

  P.F. Walker

  1 April 1996

  A.C.C. (D)

  P.R. Kernaghan

  1 April 1996

  C.C.

  D.R. Kenworthy

  2 February 1998

  Northamptonshire

  A.C.C.

  F.N. Whiteley

  14 April 1997

  C.C.

  C. Fox

  2 December 1996

  A.C.C. (D)

  A. Timpson

  1 April 1997

  Northumbria

  A.C.C.

  A.J. Crimmens

  14 June 1995

  A.C.C.

  A.B. Oliver

  22 June 1992

  A.C.C. (D)

  A. Brown

  13 April 1998

  C.C.

  C. Strachan

  14 April 1998

  Nottinghamshire

  A.C.C.

  C.R. Searle

  1 May 1996

  A.C.C. (D)

  T. Williamson

  13 November 1995

  C.C.

  C. Bailey

  6 July 1995

  South Wales

  A.C.C.

  D.J. Francis

  19 May 1997

  A.C.C.

  T.J. Rogers

  30 June 1997

  A.C.C.

  P.J. Wood

  8 January 1995

  A.C.C. (D)

  A.M. Greaves

  17 December 1996

  C.C.

  A.T. Burden

  25 November 1996

  South Yorkshire

  A.C.C.

  T.S. Hollis

  27 June 1994

  A.C.C.

  I. Daines

  8 July 1996

  A.C.C.

  M.N. Davies

  1 January 1990

  C.C.

  R.B. Wells

  1 June 1990

  Staffordshire

  A.C.C. (D)

  M.I.A. Hedges

  26 April 1993

  A.C.C.

  S.W. House

  30 March 1998

  A.C.C.

  S.M. Green

  9 December 1996

  A.C.C. (D)

  D.W. Swift

  5 January 1998

  align="right">C.C.

  J.W. Giffard

  31 March 1996

  Suffolk

  A.C.C.

  J.S.C. Cullum

  1 May 1987

  C.C.

  A. Coe

  1 May 1989

  A.C.C. (D)

  P.J. Scott-Lee

  1 September 1994

  184 185

  Chief officers of police in England and Wales (as at 12 June 1998)

  Police Force

  Current rank

  Name

  Date appointment

  Surrey

  A.C.C.

  P.M. Fahy

  24 February 1997

  A.C.C.

  J.M. Hart

  30 October 1994

  A.C.C.(D)

  I. Beckett

  1 August 1994

  C.C.

  I.W. Blair

  12 January 1998

  Sussex

  A.C.C.

  J.A. Lake

  24 October 1994

  A.C.C.

  M. Wallis

  7 November 1994

  A.C.C.

  N.J.E. Yeo

  15 December 1997

  C.C.

  P.C. Whitehouse

  1 September 1993

  A.C.C.(D)

  M.A. Jordan

  23 October 1997

  Thames Valley

  A.C.C.

  T.R. Davidson

  1 August 1991

  A.C.C.

  P. West

  2 March 1998

  A.C.C.(D)

  R.D.M. Davies

  31 December 1997

  C.C.

  C. Pollard

  28 January 1991

  Warwickshire

  A.C.C.

  P. Furnace

  6 January 1997

  C.C.

  P.D. Joslin

  6 June 1983

  A.C.C.(D)

  M.J. Brewer

  2 December 1996

  West Mercia

  A.C.C.

  C. Cramphorn

  31 January 1995

  A.C.C.

  P.W. Neyroud

  12 January 1998

  A.C.C.(D)

  J. Burbeck

  16 January 1998

  C.C.

  D.C. Blakey

  28 August 1991

  West Midlands

  A.C.C.

  R. Packham

  26 June 1995

  A.C.C.

  S.A. Summers

  27 May 1996

  A.C.C.

  P.E. Blewitt

  20 April 1998

  A.C.C.

  M.D. Baggott

  8 June 1998

  C.C.

  E.M. Crew

  26 August 1996

  A.C.C.(D)

  C.J.R. Roche

  1 July 1995

  west Yorkshire

  A.C.C.

  D.L. Clarke

  15 December 1993

  A.C.C.

  G. Wilkinson

  1 May 1993

  A.C.C.

  P. Garvin

  27 May 1997

  A.C.C.

  N.G. Bettison

  28 October 1991

  A.C.C.(D)

  A. Charlesworth

  1 April 1996

  C.C.

  G. Moore

  9 March 1998

  Wiltshire

  A.C.C.

  A.H. McWhirter

  1 June 1996

  C.C.

  E.L. Neville

  1 April 1997

  A.C.C.(D)

  R.P. Lind

  1 January 1995

  Abbreviations:

  C.C.: Chief Constable

  A.C.C.: Assistant Chief Constable

  A.C.C.(D) Assistant Chief Constable (Designate)

  Dep. Comm.: Assistant Commissioner

  A. Comm.: Assistant Commissioner

  D.A.C.: Deputy Assistant Commissioner

  Cmdr.: Commander

  Motorists (Drug Tests)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress in the development of the portable drug testing device suitable for testing motorists suspected of driving under the influence of drugs. [45672]

  Mr. Michael
  Work by the Police Scientific Development Branch on the possibility of developing a portable drug testing device is continuing. The police service has recently completed trials of two devices for screening motorists for drugs on the roadside. The results of the trials are being evaluated by the Forensic Science Service and the Transport Research Laboratory.

  Community Policing
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has evaluated into the effectiveness of community policing in other countries. [45703]
  186
  Mr. Michael
  Research literature on various aspects of effective policing was recently reviewed by the Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  The Home Office Police Research Group is in close contact with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) which is evaluating community policing in the United States. The NIT is currently hosting a fact finding visit by Police Research Group researchers, who will review the United States Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, which is responsible for promoting and funding community policing strategies across the United States.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what requests he has received from foreign(a) Governments and (b) police forces for information on the United Kingdom's community policing. [45699]

  Mr. Michael
  My Department regularly exchanges information with foreign Governments and police forces about policing issues and often receives visitors from
  187
  them. We have sent copies of the reports of the Home Office Police Research Group, which include those on community policing strategies, to 44 countries.

  On 9 and 10 June, we hosted a European Union seminar, "Partnerships in Reducing Crime", covering community safety, policing methods for tackling anti-social behaviour, and partnerships to reduce juvenile crime. The key findings of the seminar will be reported to the European Union Police Co-operation Working Group with recommendations for follow-up action. Representatives from Canada and the USA took part in the seminar, as well as representatives from across Europe.

  Bosnian Asylum Seekers (Cumbria)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he had made of the number of Bosnian asylum seekers presently resident in Cumbria. [45700]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that information on the number of Bosnian asylum applicants currently resident in Cumbria could be obtained only by examination of individual case records and is, therefore, available only at disproportionate cost.

  999 Calls
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many 999 calls were received by(a) the Fire Service and (b) the Police Service in the last year for which figures are available. [45697]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In 1996–97, the number of 999 calls received by police forces in England and Wales totalled 7,297,219.

  Figures for 999 calls received by fire brigades in England and Wales are not collected. This is because brigades may receive multiple 999 calls for a single incident. Brigades therefore record the number of incidents actually attended. In 1996, brigades attended a total of 1,060,727 incidents. This figure includes fires, false alarms and special service incidents.

  West Midlands Police
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received in respect of granting bravery awards in the West Midlands Constabulary. [45683]

  Mr. Michael
  Nominations for gallantry awards for police officers are usually made by chief constables to the Home Office. However, I have received representations from the Chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, Black Police Officers Association and a member of the public concerning the actions of two Metropolitan Police officers who were involved in an undercover drugs operation assisting the West Midlands Police.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the Chief Constable of West Midlands has made recommendations for bravery awards in the last year for which figures are available. [45682]
  188
  Mr. Michael
  The Chief Constable for West Midlands did not submit any recommendations for bravery awards to the Home Office in 1997; nor has he done so to date this year.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers have taken the(a) West Midlands Police Force and (b) Staffordshire Police Force to industrial tribunals on race-related matters in each of the last three years. [45675]

  Mr. Michael
  None.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers in West Midlands were(a) killed on duty and (b) given bravery awards in (i) 1997, (ii) 1996 and (iii) 1995. [45684]

  Mr. Michael
  One police officer from West Midlands was killed on duty in 1995 and one was killed while on a tour of duty in Bosnia in 1996. No officers from the West Midlands Police Force were killed on duty during 1997.

  No police officers from West Midlands received a bravery award during 1995, 1996 or 1997.

  Police (Deaths and Bravery Awards)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were(a) killed on duty and (b) received bravery awards in 1997. [45685]

  Mr. Michael
  Three police officers were killed while on duty in England and Wales during 1997. Eleven police officers in England and Wales received either the Queen's Gallantry Medal (QGM) or the Queen's Commendation for Bravery (QCB) in 1997.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) to what degree during (i) the residential, (ii) the therapeutic community-based and (iii) the 12 step prison drug treatment programmes evaluated by PDM Consulting Ltd. prisoners were protected from unsupervised contact with others while in treatment; [45560]

  (2) what proportion of prisoners who tested positive for drugs whilst on (i) the residential, (ii) the therapeutic community-based and (iii) the 12 step prison drug treatment programmes evaluated by PDM Consulting Ltd. were removed from the programmes; [45559]

  (3) what was the cost (a) per place and (b) per completion of (i) the residential, (ii) the therapeutic community-based and (iii) the 12 step prison drug treatment services evaluated by PDM Consulting Ltd.; [45556]

  (4) how often as part of (i) the residential, (ii) the therapeutic community-based and (iii) the 12 step prison drug treatment programmes evaluated by PDM Consulting Ltd., prisoners on the programmes were tested for drugs; [45561]

  (5) when the full version of the evaluation by PDM Consulting Ltd. of prison drug treatment services will be published; and if he will make a statement; [45557]
  189
  (6) what proportion of prisoners on (i) the residential, (ii) the therapeutic community-based and (iii) the 12 step prison drug treatment programmes evaluated by PDM Consulting Ltd. successfully completed the programmes; and what were the reasons for the failure of those who failed to complete them. [45558]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 15 June 19981: PDM Consulting Ltd. were contracted to monitor and evaluate the first fourteen pilot drug treatment projects. Over the last three years, they have produced a sequence of reports, most of which were intended for internal use only. They contain, for example, sensitive financial information about treatment services at individual establishments provided by external agencies which it would be inappropriate to publish for commercial reasons.

  Copies have, however, been provided to the governors of the prison establishments involved and, where appropriate, to the relevant outside agency.

  The executive report, which included a summary of recommendations, was published with the new Prison Service drugs strategy on 12 May.

  Aggregated performance management data provided by PDM Consulting Ltd. covering 12 months operation of the different treatment programmes are given in table A. Care is needed in interpreting the figures because of variations in the prisoner population, therapeutic content, programme objectives and the length of time they have been established within a custodial setting. They do not all relate to the same 12-month period.

  Inmates on these programmes are subject to voluntary drug testing arrangements, the frequency of such testing varies across programme type and between individual prisons. Information about the actual frequency of testing on each programme is not held centrally. In addition, all inmates are subject to mandatory drug testing. There is significantly more voluntary drug testing than mandatory drug testing on these programmes.

  Additional costs arising from the pilot programmes are shown in table B. Care is needed in comparing the additional costs of these programmes since the costs incurred vary according to the utilisation of Prison Service staff.

  The numbers of those completing and leaving the pilot drug treatment programmes are detailed in table C.

  None of the inmates participating in residential, therapeutic community or 12-Step programmes can be fully isolated from other prisoners. Where programmes are delivered in discrete accommodation, it is possible to minimise contact with other inmates, but it is often not practical to make separate arrangements for programme participants during domestic visits, kit change, canteen, association and chapel. A measure of contact is not necessarily undesirable as it will help inmates prepare for the pressures they will face on completion of their treatment.

  Pilot drug treatment projects

  Table A: Proportion of prisoners testing positive

  Percentage positive

  Residential

  Therapeutic community

  12 Step

  Voluntary drug test

  22

  11

  5

  Mandatory drug test

  20

  15

  6

  190

  Table B: Additional costs arising from pilot drug treatment projects

  Costs in £ sterling

  Residential

  Therapeutic community

  12 Step

  Per annual place

  3,606

  5,669

  8,803

  Per completion

  4,992

  7,570

  4,945

  Notes:

  1. Cost per annual place = the total additional cost of the programme to the prison divided by the number of places (i.e. the capacity of the unit)

  2. Cost per completion = the total additional cost of the programme to the prison divided by the number of inmates completing the programme

  Table C: Pilot drug treatment programmes: completions and leavers

  Reasons for leaving programme percentage

  Residential

  Therapeutic community

  12 Step

  Completion

  34

  13

  49

  Transfer

  1

  8

  16

  Released

  0

  16

  0

  Chose to leave

  6

  11

  13

  Discipline

  13

  23

  5

  Drug use

  26

  25

  17

  Other

  19

  5

  2

  Operational Police Policy Unit
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the officials from the Home Office Operational Police Policy Unit who have attended meetings of the Association of Chief Police Officers Sub Group on the Administration of Firearms Licensing Review Group and the dates of each such meeting in each of the last three years. [46105]

  Mr. Michael
  Information is available only in respect of meetings of the Association of Chief Police Officers Sub-Committee on the Administration of Firearms and Explosives Licensing held in the last two years. Home Office officials are not members of this Sub-Committee but have accepted invitations to attend the following meetings:

  Date of Meeting

  Officials attending

  9 January 1997

  Mr. C. Bone

  7 March 1997

  Mr. V. Clayton

  Mr. G. A. Widdecombe

  23 April 1997

  Mr. V. Clayton

  Mr. R. Henderson

  30 May 1997

  Mr. G. A. Widdecombe

  26 June 1997

  Mr. V. Clayton

  4 September 1997

  Mr. V. Clayton

  Mr. R. Henderson

  19 November 1997

  Mr. V. Clayton

  Mr. G. A. Widdecombe

  18 March 1998

  Mr. G. A. Widdecombe

  Mr. S. Barrett

  Metropolitan Police District
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District to make them coterminous with the boundaries of the London boroughs. [46307]
  191
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on changing the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police area. [45663]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are committed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. Aligning the operational boundaries of the different agencies is an important element in this. The Crime and Disorder Bill's proposed changes to the youth justice system and creation of local crime reduction partnerships give added emphasis to the importance of boundary alignment. The recently announced changes to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) will make police and CPS operational boundaries coterminous.

  I have in recent months received strong representations that the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District, which stretch into Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey, make more difficult effective joint working between the different criminal justice agencies.

  The present boundaries are an historical anachronism dating back to early in the 19th century, before the advent of modern local government.

  The Government have therefore decided that the Greater London Authority Bill, which will come before this House later this year, will provide for a change to the boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District to make them coterminous with those of the 32 London boroughs. As a result, those parts of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey which are currently policed by the Metropolitan Police Service will be policed by the respective county police forces.

  This change will mean that local councils and criminal justice agencies in the county districts of the Metropolitan Police District will not have to work with two different police forces, which leads to inefficiency and duplication. The change will help to promote effective joint working between agencies as they implement the provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill.

  These boundary changes will also support democratic accountability and enable the Metropolitan Police to focus on policing London, a major task in itself. A majority of elected members on the new Metropolitan Police Authority will provide the vital democratic link between Londoners and the Metropolitan Police. Residents in those parts of Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey currently policed by the Metropolitan Police will not have a vote in the elections for the Mayor and Assembly members. It is therefore right that those areas be policed by county forces whose Police Authorities already provide local democratic accountability in their areas.

  I expect this change to take place in April 2000. Implementing it will require close co-operation between the relevant police forces, police authorities and local councils, and other interested parties. I have written to them today to inform them of my decision and to seek their views on how it should be implemented.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the publications since 1 January 1989 accredited to Dr. David Clark, which were notified 192
  to him before Dr Clark's appointment to the Animal Procedures Committee. [46256]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Dr. Clark was appointed on the advice of a panel set up to reflect the Nolan principles. I understand that his CV was considered by that panel, but it did not include a list of publications.

  Lists of some publications accredited to Dr. Clark may have been submitted in support of licence applications or reporting the outcome of programmes of research. Records of such material are not kept centrally but I understand that his publications since January 1989 have focused on the need for, and application of, alternative methods.

  Dr. Clark, and all the other recently appointed members, have already made useful contributions to the work of the Animal Procedures Committee. In Dr. Clark's case, his expertise on regulatory testing and his experience as a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee to the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods are extremely valuable.

  Probation Services
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total case load undertaken by probation services; what was the average case load per probation officer; what was the real- terms change in the level of his Department's funding for probation services in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.[46260]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Year

  Persons commencing supervision

  Average caseload

  1992

  133,294

  20.7

  1993

  142,152

  21.3

  1994

  152,843

  23.1

  1995

  154,546

  25.0

  1996

  157,600

  27.7

  Year

  Resources (£ million)

  1992–93

  313.0

  1993–94

  330.8

  1994–95

  343.3

  1995–96

  348.3

  1996–97

  349.5

  The overall supervision figures are taken from table 3.1 of the "Probation Statistics England and Wales 1996" and the average caseload figures are taken from table 8.13 of the same publication. The resources figures, which are expressed in real terms at 1996–97 prices using the Gross Domestic Product inflator, are taken from table 13.1 of the "Home Office Annual Report 1998". Both publications are in the Library.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received expressing concern over the adequacy of resources available for probation services to fulfil their statutory obligations; and if he will make a statement. [46258]
  193
  Ms Quin
  We have received representations about probation service resources from hon. Members and from the Central Probation Council, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, the National Association of Probation Officers, area probation services and a number of individuals.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers have been made redundant over the last 12 months; how many redundancies are currently planned; how many new probation staff are required to implement the proposals in the Crime and Disorder Bill[Lords]; and if he will make a statement. [46261]

  Ms Quin
  Information on redundancies is not collected centrally. The Financial Memorandum to the Crime and Disorder Bill[Lords] indicates that some 600 additional probation service staff will in due course be needed once the full effect of the relevant provisions has come through. This remains our best estimate, although experience of operation of the relevant provisions will provide information bearing on it.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Exports (European Code of Conduct)
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department has taken to secure a European code of conduct on arms exports. [44525]

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps his Department has taken to establish a European code of conduct on arms exports. [44526]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a European Code of Conduct on arms exports.[44536]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 8 June, the General Affairs Council, under the UK Presidency, formally adopted the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. The Code sets high common standards to govern arms exports from all EU Member States. A copy of the text has been placed in the Library of the House.

  EU Reform
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in increasing the openness and transparency of decision making in the European Union during the United Kingdom presidency. [44527]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Good progress has been made during our Presidency to make EU decision-making more open and transparent, for example by agreement to establish a public register of Council documents. This progress will reinforce the provisions on openness that we helped secure in the Amsterdam Treaty.
  194
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made during the UK presidency of the European Union towards addressing the democratic deficit in Europe. [44553]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Good progress has been made during the UK Presidency of the EU to extend democratic accountability in Europe. In particular we have worked to enhance parliamentary oversight at both the EU and national level, and to extend openness and transparency.

  Iran
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Iran. [44528]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has no immediate plans to visit Iran.

  Algeria
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that applications from Algeria for United Kingdom visitors' visas are not unfairly rejected on the ground of political instability in that country [44529]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Immigration Rules set out the requirements which must be met in considering visit visa applications overseas. These concentrate mainly on the circumstances and intentions of the applicant and include an assessment of the intention to leave the UK at the end of the visit. When relevant, the political and security situation in a given country would be taken into account in assessing applications, but would not in itself constitute grounds for refusal.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request the United Nations to appoint a special rapporteur to co-ordinate an investigation into human rights abuses in Algeria. [45978]

  Mr. Fatchett
  As EU Presidency, we maintained close contact with the United Nations throughout this year's UN Commission on Human Rights. At that conference and in our regular contacts with Algeria, we reminded the Algerian Government that we would welcome their full co-operation with the requirements of UN human rights mechanisms. There remains international concern about continued allegations of human rights abuses; we believe that access by UN experts to Algeria would be in the country's own best interests for the sake of greater domestic and international transparency.

  Caribbean
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held relating to the relationship between the European Union and Caribbean countries. [44531]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  We are in frequent contact with Caribbean colleagues at both ministerial and senior official level. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the relationship between the European Union and the Caribbean with representatives from the region at the UK/Caribbean Forum in Nassau, Bahamas, in February. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
  195
  International Development also discussed the future of the Lomé Convention at the ACP-EC Council of Ministers in Barbados in May.

  War Criminals (Bosnia)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the arrest of indicted war crime suspects in Bosnia. [44533]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The international community's robust approach on the war crimes issue has resulted in the arrest of half of those currently indicted for war crimes. Eight of these indictees have been detained in Bosnia by SFOR, and seven of these detentions have taken place in the British-commanded sector and involved British forces, either directly or in support.

  However, the primary responsibility for bringing the remaining 31 war crimes indictees to justice lies with the Parties to Dayton themselves. We shall continue to press them to fulfil this, and all other, Dayton obligations.

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the enlargement of the European Union. [44534]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The EU' s preparations for enlargement are on schedule. I anticipate that Cardiff will welcome the fact that the UK Presidency has fully implemented the remit of the Luxembourg European Council. We have launched the European Conference, opened the Accession Process and started accession negotiations with the six countries considered to be ready.

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress on Agenda 2000 in relation to the enlargement of the European Union. [44542]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Cardiff European Council agreed to adopt the Agenda 2000 proposals by June 1999. This would ensure agreement to the future financing of the EU and the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and Structural and Cohesion Funds ahead of enlargement.

  Turkey
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Turkey. [44535]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I attach great importance to our relations with Turkey, and value our dialogue on a wide range of issues.

  As Presidency of the European Union, we are working with our European partners and the European Commission to develop further relations between the Union and Turkey.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her 196
  Majesty's Government are taking to assist in the re-establishing of peace and democratic Government in Sri Lanka. [44537]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Sri Lanka has a democratically elected government. We believe a lasting solution to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka can be reached only through a political settlement. We have said publicly that we stand ready to help in the resolution of the conflict if both sides ask us to play a role.

  Afghanistan
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the position of women in Afghanistan. [44538]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We receive frequent correspondence expressing concern about the status of women and girls in Afghanistan. We share that concern. At the start of our EU Presidency we drew up and agreed a new Common Position on Afghanistan. This urges the Afghan factions to end discrimination and promote equal rights.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Nigerian Government about presidential elections. [44539]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  General Abacha died early on 8 June. He has been replaced by General Abdulsalam Abubakar, formerly Chief of Defence Staff.

  Late on 15 June General Abubakar announced the release of 9 political prisoners, including General Obasanjo. We welcome this courageous and compassionate decision. It is an important first step in the process of national reconstruction, reconciliation and development. We look forward to an early indication of General Abubakar's plans to effect a rapid and inclusive transition to civilian rule, including the resolution of the case of Chief Abiola and the remaining detainees. We remain ready to help and support that process.

  Iraq
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to discuss Iraq with Secretary of State Albright. [44540]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has regular discussions on Iraq with Secretary of State Albright.

  Missile Technology Control Regime
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the advantages of revising the missile technology control regime. [44541]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Missile Technology Control Regime is a potent non-proliferation instrument. Its Guidelines are sound. Members keep under constant review the detailed provisions of the regime, notably the lists of sensitive equipment, as they relate to technological developments, including the emergence of more
  197
  sophisticated cruise missile technology and its suitability for chemical and biological weapon delivery. Regime members regularly meet to exchange information and discuss ways of tackling missile proliferation in regions and countries of concern.

  The Regime has evolved considerably and will evolve further in future to address missile proliferation issues.

  Middle East Peace Process
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with the middle east peace process. [44543]

  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation regarding the middle east peace process. [44546]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave in the House earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore),Official Report, column 131– 32.

  Ottawa Treaty
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the United Kingdom to ratify the Ottawa treaty. [44544]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We intend to ratify the Ottawa Convention as soon as the Parliamentary schedule allows for the legislation necessary to enable us to meet all our commitments under the Convention.

  Ethical Foreign Policy
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from defence-related companies about his ethical foreign policy. [44545]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The FCO has had contacts with many defence-related companies, as well as with the Defence Manufacturers Association, about the application of the UK's arms export criteria.

  Nuclear Tests (South Asia)
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Union and UN Security Council responses to the nuclear test programmes in India and Pakistan. [44547]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The European Union and United Nations Security Council have made clear their condemnation of the nuclear tests in India and Pakistan, principally in Declarations by the European Union at meetings of the General Affairs Council on 25 May and 8 June, and by the United Nations Security Council in Presidential Statements on 14 and 29 May and a Security Council Resolution on 6 June.

  We and international partners have left India and Pakistan in no doubt of our concern at the tests. We have made it clear that they must now take early steps to adhere unconditionally to the relevant non-proliferation regimes, including the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We have also urged both countries to resume their bilateral
  198
  dialogue to address the root causes of tension between them, and to agree confidence-building measures to restore stability to the region.

  GCHQ
  Mr. Hopkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues and others concerning pension rights and other benefits for workers dismissed at Government communications headquarters under previous Governments. [44549]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has personally discussed this with members of the CCSU on a number of occasions. The dismissed workers received compensation in accordance with the terms of the Civil Service Compensation Scheme and the recommendations of the Civil Service Appeals Board.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [44552]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave in the House earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe),Official Report, column 117– 18.

  Fur Coats
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to ensure that fur coats offered for sale in the United Kingdom, made from the skins of animals trapped using the steel-jawed leg-hold traps, bear a label carrying that information; and if he will make a statement. [43960]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  Having taken into account the operational difficulties and our legal obligations in the WTO, the Government have reluctantly decided not to pursue a labelling scheme for furs taken by steel-jawed leghold traps.

  Euro (Publicity Material)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost of producing the European Parliament's publicity material relating to Captain Euro; what was the role of Her Majesty's Government in devising this campaign; and what proportion of its costs was borne by the United Kingdom. [45142]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Neither the European Parliament nor the Government have had any role in financing the Captain Euro publicity campaign, which I understand is a private venture.

  Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to include Gibraltar in the present progress towards air liberalisation within the EU. [45817]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: The application of EC air liberalisation measures to Gibraltar is suspended until such time as the

  199
  1987 UK/Spanish Joint Declaration on Gibraltar Airport is implemented. We have said that we will look at any proposals for the development of the airport which are acceptable to all parties.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the new United Nations Security Council resolution adopted on 5 June lifting the arms embargo on Sierra Leone and imposing one on non-Governmental forces in Sierra Leone. [46357]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The new Resolution supersedes part of the UN Security Council Resolution 1132. It ensures that the arms embargo to Sierra Leone applies to non-governmental forces and makes explicit exception for the Military Observer Group of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOMOG) and the United Nations.

  Following the adoption of the UN Security Council on 5 June of the new Resolution, Orders in Council are now being prepared giving full effect in our law to the arms embargo imposed by the new Resolution.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to help to secure the implementation of United Nations resolutions on self-determination in Kashmir. [45979]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have taken every opportunity to urge on India and Pakistan the need to find a just and lasting settlement in Kashmir. In doing so, we believe that the two sides can and should build on both the UN Resolutions and the 1972 Simla agreement. We also believe that any solution, if it is to last, must be acceptable to the population of Kashmir whatever their race or religion.

  Mexico
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have taken place between embassy staff in Mexico City and human rights groups; and if he will list the organisations with which contact has been made. [45566]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  During the last 12 months, members of the Embassy have had direct contact with the following 33 human rights NGOs:

  Academia Mexicana de Derechos Humanos

  Accion de los Cristianos para la Abolicion de la Tortura (ACAT)

  Agrupacion de Derechos Humanos Xochitepetl—Veracruz

  Alianza Civica—Campeche

  Asistencia Social Municipal—Puebla

  Casa de Alegria—Merida

  Casa Alianza—Mexico

  Canica—Street children project in Oaxaca

  Centro de Derechos Humanos—Miguel Agustin Pro—(PRODH)

  Centro Estudios Juridicos y Sociales-Aguascalientes

  Centro de Promocion y Defensa de los Derechos Humanos

  Comision Estatal de Derechos Humanos—Chiapas

  Comision Estatal de Derechos Humanos—Chihuahua
  200
  Comision Estatal de Derechos Humanos—Durango

  Comision Estatal de Derechos Humanos—Puebla

  Comision Estatal de Derechos Humanos—Quintana Roo

  Comision de Derechos Takachihualis—Puebla

  Comision de Solidaridad y Defensa de Los Derechos Humanos—Chihuahua (COS YDDHAC)

  Comision Mexicana de Defensa y Promocion de los Derechos Humanos

  Comision Nacional de Derechos Humanos (CNDH)

  Comision de Derechos Humanos DF—Mexico City

  Comite de Derechos Humanos del Valle de Tehuacan—Puebla

  Comite parroquial de Derechos Humanos Martin de Tours—Puebla

  DEMOS—Umbrella of Social Action Initiatives

  FOCO—Umbrella group of Civil Rights and Charity groups in the State of Oaxaca

  Fray Bartolome de las Casas—Chiapas

  Frente nacional Zapatista de Liberation Nactional—Chiapas fundacion Pro ninos de la Calle

  Global Exchange—Chiapas

  Instituto Gerrerense de Derechos Humanos

  JUCONI

  OXFAM

  SIPAZ—Chiapas

  Sociedad Mexicana Pro Derechos de la Mujer—Mexico City and Jalapa.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official visits to the Chiapas region of Mexico have been made by officials from the UK embassy in Mexico City in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [45565]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The following members of the Embassy have made official visits to Chiapas in the last year:

  Deputy Head of Mission: 6–9 October 1997

  First Secretary (Political/Economic): 24–29 January 1998

  Vice-Consul: 29 March-1 April 1998

  First Secretary (Political/Economic): 17–18

  April 1998 Defence Attaché: 15–18 June 1998.

  Former Soviet Union
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the Government have initiated to promote human rights in the former Soviet Union. [45501]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Through the Know-How Fund and other budgets, HMG implement projects designed to support human rights activities, including visits to the UK by key human rights figures and training of judges and law enforcement officers. We also raise specific human rights cases and general problems with the countries concerned, bilaterally or jointly with EU partners.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the Government have taken to help to stabilise democracy within the former Soviet Union. [45500]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  HMG spent £50 million in 1996–97 (the last year for which full figures are available) on bilateral assistance for the countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. This supported a number of projects in
  201
  the field of good governance, including election monitoring in Ukraine and Armenia and the development of non-governmental organisations in several countries.

  Cardiff Summit Table
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 1998,Official Report, columns 461–62, on the table purchased for the European Council in Cardiff, on what basis Mr. Jones Parry informed the Foreign Affairs Committee that Her Majesty's Government had accepted the lowest price and had then negotiated a reduction in that price. [46054]
  202
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The tendering process for this type of contract is complex. As stated in my answer on 8 June 1998,Official Report, columns 461–62, we received three bids for the event production contract for the European Council in Cardiff. In order to keep costs to a minimum, and to be able to make a better comparison between the bids, we asked all three companies to re-work some elements of their bids. This re-working resulted in a reduction of some £375,000 in the tender of the company eventually selected which, both before and after the re-working, met the necessary standards most cheaply. Dr. Jones Parry explained this procedure in greater detail to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 2 June.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be visiting the Combined Court at Winchester and meeting local magistrates on Friday, 19th June. Accordingly, I trust the House will grant me leave of absence.

Multiple Sclerosis and Beta-interferon
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy with respect to the prescribing of beta-interferon for patients with multiple sclerosis.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the noble Lord will of course be aware from his own distinguished career in medicine that Her Majesty's Government do not have policies about individual prescribing decisions, which are naturally best left to members of the clinical professions. However, in November 1995 the NHS Executive issued a circular to health authorities and trusts about the introduction of a newly licensed beta-interferon product for multiple sclerosis. Copies of it are available in the Library. The circular suggested that the product should be prescribed by hospital neurologists where clinically appropriate. It asked health authorities to implement local arrangements to manage the entry of such drugs into the NHS. The guidance in that circular is still in force.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I appreciate to the full the dilemma for many health authorities faced with the prospect of paying for a drug which costs £10,000 per patient per year. However, does the noble Baroness accept that the evidence indicating the benefit of the drug in the relaxing and remitting form of multiple sclerosis has been known for some time, but that a recent multi-centre European trial has shown that the drug also produces substantial benefit in the chronic progressive form of the disease? Is it therefore acceptable that many health authorities and trusts are refusing to allow prescription of the drug and others are offering only token support? One per cent. of patients
1442
with multiple sclerosis in the UK receive it, compared with 7 per cent. in France, Germany and Italy and 15 per cent. in Australia and Greece.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I naturally hesitate to have any discussion based on my own understanding of the references that the noble Lord made to individual trials of the beta-interferon product. As I understand it—and I bow to the noble Lord's greater clinical knowledge—there are some conditions within multiple sclerosis which are affected by some of the drugs which are at present on the market and some which are not. One trial in particular, which I understand the recent health technology assessment of the NHS conducted, concluded that it was poor value for money in certain circumstances.
However, that certainly does not prevent the Government from feeling that the, as it is called, "post-code" prescribing decisions by individual health authorities affect the understanding of the national care that we want to see offered under the health service. That is why we are introducing new ways of organising the introduction of drugs. For example, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence—and details will be published shortly—will issue guidelines to health authorities about their prescribing practices. They will perhaps be slightly more forceful than the previous ones.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, when the Minister talks about value for money, is not the whole issue in the case of this drug its cost? The cost is now half what it was when it was introduced. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said, recent research has shown that it is effective in treating not only the form that the Minister mentioned but also all forms of multiple sclerosis. Yet, as I understand it—and I ask the Minister to confirm this—from the time when patients are told that they would benefit from it and should definitely have it, there is a procedural delay of over six months before the drug is received. It is a deliberate cost-saving tactic.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I can only re-emphasise what I said in reply to the supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that we are aware that there are examples of what is called colloquially "post-code" prescribing. Through it, some people are prevented from having the drug but others are not. It is unfortunate and something which we are determined to improve through the national guidelines, the national performance framework and the national clinical service frameworks. Those will come into force once we can achieve the legislative process through Parliament.
As to the specifics about individual patients being asked to wait six months, I suspect that that has to do with the individual decisions of health authorities. Unfortunately, they vary across the country.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, because interferon is being used now for the treatment of

1443
hepatitis C and other conditions as well as multiple sclerosis, what are the chances of the pharmaceutical industry bringing down prices?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is a complicated industrial question. It is something about which patient groups feel strongly, and probably rightly so. It would be helpful if pressures could be brought to bear on the pharmaceutical industry for the introduction of effective and cost-effective drugs at lower prices.
To return to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, which I believe to be the same as that being made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, the decisions in relation to these drugs should be made not simply on cost terms, but on cost-effectiveness terms. It is not simply a question of the marketing price, but of the relative marketing price in terms of other methods of treatment.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this is a tricky question? Clinical judgment is of little value if, when it is exercised, the health authority will not fund the necessary provision. I know of some health authorities which do not keep up to date with modern developments—I can provide my noble friend with evidence of that statement if necessary. Would it be worth while for the Government to monitor whether health authorities keep up to date with modern developments so that they know whether or not to take action?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is a tricky question. It is a question of balance between the individual clinical freedom of practitioners in the medical profession and the understanding of local health authorities. I re-emphasise to my noble friend that we hope that, with the introduction of so-called clinical governance, variations from the expected good practice which will be recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be increasingly challenged. We expect that guidance to be implemented consistently across the NHS. How well that happens in practice will determine whether and how NICE's powers may or may not be strengthened in the future.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, following the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is there anything to prevent the Government from acting as a bulk buyer to bring down the price of drugs?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, that is precisely what the NHS is; that is, a bulk buyer of drugs. That is why, overall, patients who obtain drugs on prescription through the NHS do so at competitive prices, particularly if we draw comparisons with our neighbours in Europe.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the promising evidence that MS sufferers can be restored to normal health and activity by controlled
1444
diet and lifestyle change is mainly anecdotal at present? Will she encourage research to endeavour to establish the facts?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to tell me that he might raise this issue. I asked people what the situation was on research into the matter, which is broadly in the area of complementary medicine for MS. At the moment the people involved in funding clinical trials, which would be the basis on which the NHS would make a decision about treatment, are not intending to conduct such trials.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the NHS White Paper commits the Government to ensuring consistent access to beneficial care across the NHS. Yet the unfortunate fact is that the strong guidance issued in 1995 by the NHS Executive has been ignored by many health authorities. Perhaps I can draw the Minister a little more on what she said about the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. What prospect is there that any guidance which may be issued by the institute will carry any more force than the guidance already promulgated? If it does not, then these inequalities in treatment will persist.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we are aware of the concerns expressed by the noble Earl. I wish I could be tempted into being slightly more exact about the terms of the consultative paper which will be issued on the subject. All I can say is that I promise it will not be more than a matter of days, let alone weeks, before such information is available.

Written Answers and e-mail
2.48 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are still unable to reply to Peers' Written Questions by e-mail.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, considerable progress is being made towards implementing a system for delivering electronic Answers to parliamentary Questions. Many issues have needed to be considered, including security. We are getting close to resolving those and hope to be in a position to make an announcement fairly shortly. It will be our intention to consult noble Lords on any proposals.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that Answer, which is a great deal better than I expected, having asked a similar Question in written form over many months. It is astonishing that it has taken 13 months for a government who claim to be cool, with it and wired to produce such a complicated Answer to a simple Question. Can the noble Lord assure me that when this announcement is made after such a long gestation we will receive a live-born infant and not just wind?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps I may turn away wrath with a soft answer by expressing

1445
my gratitude to the noble Lord for pursuing this matter over a number of months, even though he now seems to be getting a little impatient. I can assure him that the announcement, when it comes, will address the issues, which are not simple, involved in providing Answers to Written Questions by electronic mail. For example, it is important that any Answers which are sent to noble Lords should have their provenance well established. In other words, it should be as clear that they come from the Minister as a signed Written Answer. It is also important that they should arrive on time and not be delayed by, for example, a server going down.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, in view of the fact that all Written Answers appear in Hansard, what is the secrecy problem?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say there was a secrecy problem; I said there was a security problem, which is not quite the same thing. It is important that an Answer should go first to the noble Lord who has asked the Question before it goes anywhere else.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Minute Room already welcomes Questions for Written Answer by e-mail? If the Member wants the Answers in electronic form, he or she can get them from the PDVN the day after they are published. Is the Minister prepared to say that Ministers will answer correspondence by e-mail; and, if so, where can Members find the e-mail addresses of Ministers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first question, Questions are available electronically after they have been replied to and received by the noble Lord asking the Question. There is no issue of secrecy or security on that. As to the question of correspondence, I think that will naturally follow from the solution to the problems I have described. When that time comes, there will be no difficulty in providing noble Lords with e-mail addresses.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is not exactly the brightest spark on the Opposition Front Bench who has asked the Question today? In relation to Answers by electronic mail, as I look round your Lordships' House, is there not a strong argument for slowing life down rather than speeding it up?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not agree with my noble friend on either of the points that he makes. I do not think unnecessary delay in administrative procedures is to anyone's benefit.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I have some Questions outstanding with the MoD since the beginning of May? I have had a stalling letter, but I still regard six weeks as being a little too
1446
long to receive an Answer. Can he say whether putting the Answers on e-mail will expedite the actions of the MoD?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have to be honest about these things. The provision of Answers by e-mail, which is the subject of the Question, does not bring with it, alas, any greater speed in decision-making in government departments. Any complaints which the noble Countess has should be addressed to the department concerned, although I will certainly pass them on.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in Britain now a number of companies are paperless? I had the opportunity of visiting Andersen Consulting in Paris a few months ago. It has no paper at all. What consideration have the Government given to having a paperless Parliament; or if not that, how about having a less paper-using Parliament?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are a long way from a paperless society. The Government have well advanced plans, which will be announced fairly shortly, for an improvement in electronic communications between government and citizens and of course parliamentarians as well. But anyone who thinks that that will result in a paperless society has another think coming.

Criminal Memoirs: "Cries Unheard"
2.53 p.m.
Lord McNally Lord McNally asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the outcome of their inquiry into the events surrounding the publication of Cries Unheard concerning the case of Mary Bell, with particular reference to any lessons to be learned by the supervising authorities and the media.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the Home Secretary announced on 30th April that he had asked the Permanent Secretary to investigate the circumstances in which Home Office officials had become aware that Mary Bell was proposing to co-operate in the writing of a book about her life. My right honourable friend has asked for the investigation to be completed by the end of this month and will publish the main findings. A separate internal review of the legal position concerning criminal memoirs is continuing. I understand that the Press Complaints Commission is still considering a complaint that the newspaper serialisation of this book was in breach of the industry's code of practice.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is still a great deal of public concern about the

1447
issues raised back in April by the publication of that book and that kicking the matter into the long grass in Whitehall is not an adequate response; neither is it for us to rely on the Press Complaints Commission, which seems to be adept at slamming the stable door rather than dealing with press abuses? Can the Minister give an assurance that the House will return to this issue constantly until we have a proper response from government and from the Press Complaints Commission and better behaviour from the media themselves?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no question of kicking the issue into the long grass. The investigation was announced on 30th April and I have just indicated that the Home Secretary has directed that he wants it concluded by the end of this month. That is two months, which is not a bad effort. As regards the PCC, I know from my conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, that it is considering this matter. But it is not an easy matter, capable of a simplistic answer.
Lord Henley: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that if the Government are contemplating legislation—I do not know whether they are: we shall have to wait until the end of the month—the matter may be difficult to resolve without contravening the provisions of the Human Rights Bill which was recently passed by this House and is now going through another place? Will he give a commitment that the Government will consider carefully the relevant aspects of the Human Rights Bill in relation to these matters?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords. It is important to bear in mind that I drew a careful distinction between the internal investigation to which I referred in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and a review of the legal position. If one wants a review of the legal position, legislation may be required which would have to bear carefully in mind Article 10 on freedom of expression. However, other articles are important; namely, the right to decent respect for private and family life.
Lord McNally: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify a point about an often repeated desire by Ministers not to see criminals profit from their criminal past? Does this apply to those who have been convicted of criminal offences abroad?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not think one can give a global answer to that question. Some people will have been convicted of criminal offences abroad which neither the noble Lord nor the rest of your Lordships would think ought to be correctly designated as crime. Therefore, one cannot produce a simplistic answer. It is our view that it is morally wrong for criminals who have been convicted in this country of what is properly described in a civilised jurisdiction as crime should profit from crime. But the noble Lord will know that the ability to recover funds from those
1448
sources is limited to six years. In the case of Mary Bell, she committed her crimes and was convicted of them as long ago as 1968.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the distressing aspects of this case was the way in which journalists hounded Mary Bell and her daughter, who was under age? Is that to be part of the PCC investigation?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my reference in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about a decent respect for privacy and family life was directed to the daughter of Mary Bell, who is wholly innocent of any wrong-doing and has had her life irredeemably damaged. Whether or not the Press Complaints Commission will consider that aspect I do not know. However, knowing the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, as I do, I think it more likely than not that it will.

Electronic Tagging: Contracts
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why Geografix was not included in the shortlist of companies who have been invited to submit formal tenders for electronic tagging contracts.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have selected four companies to bid to operate electronic monitoring services for home detention curfew and other uses throughout England and Wales. Geografix Limited did not score sufficiently highly in comparison to the other expressions of interest which were evaluated against financial and technical criteria designed with the new contract requirements in mind. This decision is in no way a criticism of the service which the company has delivered during the trials of electronically enforced curfew orders since 1995, which has been excellent. But the needs of the new contracts are different from those required for the trials.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that at a conference of probation officers in November, the Home Secretary singled out Geografix for high praise for the quality of its work, and more particularly, for its offender management practice, which achieved an unparalleled 90 per cent. compliance with curfew orders? Will the Minister say more as to why a company with such a remarkable track record, which has been so effective and successful, was rejected and why the criteria for selection were inconsistent with the information pack issued and signed by the Home Secretary?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that the criteria were inconsistent. I repeat with great pleasure that the performance of Geografix has been extremely good. What we did properly and in the usual way was to advertise openly for expressions of interest. The noble Baroness shakes her head. We advertised for expressions of interest in the Official Journal of the

1449
European Communities. In fact, 11 companies submitted expressions of interest and four have been invited to submit bids. Geografix was not one of them because it did not do sufficiently well on the assessment of criteria which were specifically designed not to discriminate against smaller companies.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, whoever provides the electronic tagging equipment, can my noble friend say how greatly its use is to be increased and what effect it will have on the horrendous increase in the number of people in prison?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as I believe my noble friend will know, under the Crime and Disorder Bill presently going through Parliament, a home detention curfew will be introduced. At any one time that is estimated to produce a reduction in the number of prison places required—and I stress at any one time—of about 3,000. Thereafter, if sentences are developed to include a curfew or a tracking element, then it is open to the courts, whose discretion it is, not to pass prison sentences but to use the alternatives which will be available.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, does the Minister agree that electronic tagging will play a very useful part in the early release scheme for inmates? Is he aware that there is a drawback in the sense that those who do not have a home to go to will not benefit? There are a number of groups of people in prison who may not necessarily benefit. Will the Minister ensure that there is some kind of contractual arrangement provided by those who are contracted to produce electronic tagging to show that such facilities are available in voluntary hostels and probation hostels so that vulnerable groups will also benefit from the early release schemes?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, are valid. There has to be a risk assessment before a prisoner is released. If a prisoner has somewhere settled to go, I would have thought that that would feature in the balance. There have been over 1,400 curfew orders made and a gratifyingly high success rate of 80 per cent. successful completions.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many of the companies are British? What are the implications in accepting one of the estimates for British employment? Will it increase employment prospects by a certain number of jobs or will there be a loss of jobs if the successful applicant is not British?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, from their descriptions and judging by their names, the majority of the companies appear to be British. Obviously, I cannot know immediately as to where the holding company may lie. If it is of assistance I shall research all 11 companies and find out exactly in which jurisdiction
1450
the holding company resides. I do not know that at the moment; but I shall certainly do what I have said and write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords. perhaps I may come back on that. I understand that none of the four companies which finally submitted bids is British. I shall be very grateful if the answer can be given to me in due course.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall do better than that. I shall research all 11 companies. I believe that two at least of the four are British. I shall obviously check that with care and cast the net wider than the noble Baroness has asked.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I believe the noble Lord said that 11 companies expressed interest initially and that from them a list of four was selected. That sounds very good practice. However, what happens in the case of a company which has not tendered before but which has a specific interest in putting in a tender? Will such a company have any difficulty getting on to the list? To close the list, even if it is a long one, has inherent dangers in it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the Government have to adopt prudent commercial practice. If one advertises and asks for expressions of interest and there are 11 replies, and that number is whittled down to four, it seems to me that that is a proper way to behave and also a fair way if the opportunities have been publicly advertised.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister spoke about drafting the specification in such a manner which would allow smaller companies to tender. That is very welcome. Is he aware of certain anxieties that contracts have been awarded preferentially to some of the bigger companies in the past thereby reducing the amount of competition in the future? Is he satisfied that the procedures for tendering are now such as to ensure that all government tenders do not finish up with a few companies?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I repeat that one has to put the matter out to advertisement. We did that. One has then to wait for expressions of interest, and we did that. Thereafter we used criteria which do not discriminate against small firms. Four have been invited to tender. In due time, bearing in mind the respective interests, the best of those four will be chosen. I believe that to be fair.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's answers somewhat surprising. We have heard that Geografix is already doing this kind of work. It has been praised by the Home Secretary for the work it has done. Surely it would have been fair to allow that company to move from the list of 11, on which, presumably its name

1451
appeared, to the final shortlist of four so that it could have another chance of proving, as it has done already, that it can do the job.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no. We advertised and asked for expressions of interest. There was then a careful assessment in the public interest—bearing in mind that public funds are involved—to see which companies should move from the 11 to the four. The mere fact that Geografix did extremely well on a limited basis and in a limited geographic area is no guarantee nor an overwhelming indication that it would be one of the best companies to get on the list of four companies.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, there has been some concern expressed about parts of the criminal justice system being privatised. I believe that that is now accepted. Can my noble friend advise us whether those parts of the system which are in the private sector will be owned and controlled within British jurisdiction at least?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have already indicated to the noble Baroness that as regards the 11 companies I shall research her questions. I cannot say that forever and a day all aspects of privatised activity in the prison estate are bound to be within the ultimate control of a company within this jurisdiction.

Business
3.9 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the Business Statement last Thursday and further discussions by the usual channels, it has been agreed that two full days will now be set aside for the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill. Those two days will be tomorrow and Thursday. The draft of the list of speakers, produced after consultation within the usual channels, is now available in the Government Whips' Office. It had been hoped to accommodate on Thursday the debate set down in the name of my noble friend Lord Barnett, but, given the number of Peers who now wish to speak on the Scotland Bill, that is no longer realistic and a further date will be found for that debate.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, perhaps I may say how grateful I am that the Government Chief Whip has come to that conclusion. It shows admirable wisdom on his part. On the question of the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, as the House will know, the noble Lord had the prime slot on Thursday afternoon immediately after Questions, so will the Government try to find an equally prominent slot as quickly as possible for that important debate on the report on the European Central Bank, produced by the Select Committee on the European Communities?
Lord Carter: My Lords, all reports from your Lordships' Select Committees are important, not least
1452
when they are on a topic such as the European Central Bank. The chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, has today written to my noble friend the Leader of the House asking for time to be found to debate that report. Every effort will be made in that regard. The points that the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip has just made will certainly be taken into account.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, perhaps I may express my appreciation of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I know that he did not press any noble Lord to put down his name to speak on the Scotland Bill! Indeed, I wondered whether I should speak on the Barnett formula on Second Reading, but decided against that. Perhaps I may advise my noble friend Lord Carter that I recognise that he has problems with the timetable. However, there has not been a debate on the European Central Bank in your Lordships' House for a very long time, if ever, and it is an important issue. I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure us of an early debate in prime time on that vital subject on which I know that many noble Lords on all sides of the House would like to speak.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I always listen with very great interest to everything that my noble friend Lord Barnett says. I shall read Hansard very carefully and bear in mind all that he has said.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept my congratulations on having come to that decision? The document in question is the finest piece of speculative soothsaying since the first publication of Old Moore's Almanac and ought to be studied with great care by all Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, if I have managed to please both the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I am not doing too badly.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, from what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said, it was not clear whether he was referring to the report produced by my noble friend or to the Scotland Bill.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, on behalf of at least six Peers on these Benches, perhaps I may express what I hope will not prove to be premature appreciation of the consideration presently being given to our modest request for an alternative day for the Northern Ireland release of terrorists Bill, which was scheduled, I understand, for consideration on what is polling day for the assembly. On those grounds, I am afraid that our absence from the polling stations might have been misunderstood.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am aware of that. In fact, I have taken fully into account the points made last Thursday. Active discussions are proceeding through the usual channels to see whether we can resolve the situation.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.12 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 119 [Code of practice for securing effective relationships between LEAs and maintained schools]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 241N:
Page 90, line 37, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Section 80 shall apply in relation to the code as it applies in relation to a code of practice under section 79.").
The noble Lord said: Government Amendment No. 241N provides for the code of practice on LEA-school relations to be subject to parliamentary approval. This meets the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which suggested that the code be subject to approval by the House.
I am happy to accept the recommendation of the committee. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for tabling Amendment No. 243, which would have the same effect as this amendment.
It is vitally important that all the partners in the education service work together effectively if we are to achieve the challenging targets we have set ourselves for raising standards. The code will play a key role in establishing and maintaining a positive relationship between local education authorities and schools in the new framework. Getting this relationship right will be essential to our success.
Making the code subject to parliamentary approval will allow a further opportunity to ensure that the detail of the code is right. The government amendment achieves this by applying the procedure set out for the parliamentary scrutiny of the code of practice on admissions to any codes made under Clause 119. This will allow Parliament a full opportunity to comment on the draft of the code—as revised following our current wide consultation exercise—before it can be put into force.
The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord is slightly less economical in its approach and would require a couple of additional consequential amendments. I hope, therefore, that they feel able to withdraw their amendment in favour of the approach taken by the Government's amendment.
Amendment No. 241G has been included in this group, but perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to it after it has been spoken to by either the noble Lord, Lord Tope, or the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The noble Lord has invited us to speak to our amendment now. If that is not thought to be the wrong way round, that is what I propose to do.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the code of practice for securing effective relationships between LEAs and the maintained schools takes account of the functions of an LEA in relation to children with special educational needs. As it stands, the draft code of practice on LEA-school relations specifically excludes SEN responsibilities, indicating that they are covered elsewhere in the code of practice. However, the code of practice looks at special educational needs from the point of view of the process of the child's various stages of assessment. It does not look at the whole interface between the school and the LEA with regard to special educational needs.
In addition, in paragraph 8 of the draft code, one of the criteria for including particular functions in the code on LEA school relations is stated as its relevance to raising school standards with a reminder that that is government policy. In the debates on Clause 6 on the education development plan, repeated assurances were given about the importance attached to addressing special educational needs as part of the agenda on raising standards for all children. To omit SEN from the code would be to undermine those assurances.
In addition, the relationship between schools and LEAs on the subject of special educational needs and the curriculum is complex. Those are the three reasons why we thought it important to table our modest amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My amendment, Amendment No. 243, is grouped with Amendment No. 241N. I thank the noble Lord for what he said and for the fact that the Government have tabled their own amendment, which the noble Lord claims is more effective and more economic than mine.
I have one question. The penultimate part of my amendment asks that for the purposes of counting the 40 days no account should be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued. In other words, the counting of the 40-day period should be frozen during that time. May I be assured that those provisions of subsection (7) are subsumed by the government amendment?
There are now a number of questions about the status of the code in relation to, for example, education action zones. It appears to cut across some of the rhetoric used about the establishment of the action zones. It seems extraordinary that there is not more mention of the roles of the school organisation committees and of the adjudicator. It seems extraordinary that a document, to which local authorities will have to have regard, is to be on the face of the Bill when that is not the case for the most undemocratic of the Government's proposals.

1455
I refer to the establishment of the school organisation committees and to the role of the adjudicator. They will take upon themselves a great deal of the work which has hitherto been the remit of the local authorities. It would be helpful if something could be said about the interaction of that and about the fact that nothing on the face of the Bill subsumes the interaction between the LEAs and the roles of the adjudicator and of the school organisation committees.
As to special needs, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, the functions of local authorities are enormously enhanced by the Bill. In almost every clause there is a new function for local education authorities, particularly in planning. We now have the interim admissions document. There are even more hares running in terms of the functions of local authorities and the way in which LEAs relate to schools and the education establishment generally. The code of practice will be a particularly important document.
My final point displays my depression about the whole of this matter. The code of practice is no more than exhortation. In reality, the law will require local education authorities only to have regard to the code of practice. There is no obligation upon them whatsoever to do anything other than have regard to the code. All one has is exhortation about a light touch, no intervention without good cause and what I would regard as a requirement about the way in which LEAs relate to their schools to achieve what the Government want; namely, to give as much autonomy at school level with as light a touch as possible at LEA level. It adds up to no more than exhortation, with some kind of threat that if the Secretary of State is not impressed with the way in which local education authorities behave he will not take power under this Bill but will rely on an old power. That will be invoked only if it can be proven that the LEA has no good reason for exercising its functions.
It will not take an LEA very long to realise that the scope for intervention and taking a slightly heavier hand as opposed to a light touch in approaching schools is considerable. All it must do is prove that it is concerned about a school on the grounds that people in the community may be complaining, or there are articles in the newspapers, or there is a hint that something is going on in a particular department, or perhaps a teacher is not marking work—the kinds of operational matters that should be for the governors and the school itself. I believe that the import of the code of practice, being no more than exhortation, is deeply worrying given the enormous number of new functions for LEAs and in particular the practice and work of the organisational committees and the adjudicator.
Lord Swinfen: I support what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I urge the Government to accept Amendment No. 241G. As I understand it, the special educational needs code of practice is designed to show how the assessments are worked through, not the relationship between schools and the local education authorities. It is important that this amendment is included in the Bill and that schools do not start with one code of practice for their
1456
relationships with local education authorities which must be amended in a few months' time to take account of special educational needs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that I have three tasks to perform. The first simple task is to assure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that the Government's amendment will achieve exactly what her amendment seeks to achieve in relation to the calculation of the 40-day period. Indeed, the amendment of the noble Baroness is taken word for word from Clause 80. That is what the government amendment applies to the code of practice. As in her amendment, so Clause 80 provides:
"(7) In this section '40-day period' … means … no account being taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days".
I refer next to Amendment No. 241G as spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment. It draws attention to the fact that special educational needs are an important dimension of LEA-school relations. The principles which are set out in the code of practice will certainly apply to the relationship between LEAs and special schools and to the provision that mainstream schools make for statemented pupils. Those principles include raising standards; intervention in inverse proportion to success; partnership and co-operation; and zero tolerance of under-performance.
Our starting point with the draft code for England has been that in most circumstances the way LEAs, head teachers and governors use their powers and fulfil their responsibilities will apply equally to mainstream and SEN provision. But we also recognise that some special schools and children with special needs in mainstream schools require additional or different kinds of support from their LEA. When considering our consultation responses we shall look particularly carefully at those which suggest areas where different treatment may be needed. We shall certainly take account of these in preparing the final version of the code. However, I do not want to rule out the possibility of having separate guidance relating specifically to SEN provision if in the light of responses to our consultation that seems to be the most appropriate way to cover it.
I can assure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that SEN issues will be given full and proper consideration. This is a very important part of the role of LEAs and we recognise the need to get the arrangements absolutely right. The list in subsection (6) of this clause is not intended to be exhaustive. It is therefore already open to us to include SEN issues in the code of practice in whatever way is considered most appropriate. As already discussed, noble Lords will have another opportunity to comment, if they are dissatisfied with the approach we decide to adopt, when the revised version of the code is laid before both Houses. In view of these assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment. In the meantime, I shall be happy to receive any further advice that she or the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, wishes to offer on this subject.

1457
My third task is to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, about the nature of the code of practice. First, I assure her that the code will apply to the relationship between local education authorities in all circumstances, including education action zones. It is comprehensive in that respect. The noble Baroness claimed that the code was only exhortation and clearly wished, although she did not spell it out, greater central control than the approach taken by the Government. It will be open to schools to appeal against unreasonable action by local education authorities, and the Secretary of State in considering any such appeal must have regard to the code. Therefore, the code is a good deal more than exhortation; it applies to all parties and provides a procedure for the resolution of disputes. The Government do not fear either that this code will depart from the light touch that has been discussed or that it will be unworkable in the sense that it is only exhortation, as the noble Baroness believes. On that basis, I beg to move Amendment No. 241N.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord formally moves the amendment, I do not seek greater central control. My amendment seeks the opposite: greater autonomy at school level. I suggest that schools that are successful and improve year on year should be left to get on with it and there should not be any intervention at all by the local education authority.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a point of view. If the noble Baroness says that there should be no intervention whatsoever, we would argue the contrary. However successful the school, the need for a properly thought out education provision in any area involves a local education authority. If the accusation is more limited—that there would be unreasonable intervention by the local education authority—that is answered by the provisions for appeal to which I referred.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I do not find myself entirely satisfied with the response from the Minister. During this Committee stage, there has been a long struggle to get the special requirements of pupils with special educational needs on to the face of the Bill. That process has occurred with other education Bills as they have passed through this House. My recollection is that more often than not that recognition was put on the face of the Bill.
It is not terribly consoling to find that some reference will be made in accordance with requests made by other people during the consultation process on the code, even given the fact that the code will be discussed in your Lordships' House. The code will include—I sought to write the list down; I have not completed it yet—the education development plan, warnings to schools on standards, the suspended rights to a delegated budget, reports from governors, staffing of schools and discipline within schools. In all those areas there should be specific responsibilities, for example, on governors, to account for how they have dealt with pupils with special needs. I do not include pupils with statements because those pupils are usually accompanied by a small
1458
amount of money—it may not be a large amount—and some additional help. However, a large number of children have special educational needs. A wide range of different needs are covered. I believe, as do others, that those children's needs are as important as the needs of children with statements.
This would be an excellent place to insert on the face of the Bill the Government's concern for the well-being of children with special educational needs. It is no good saying, as the Minister has done in the past, that this is a special interest. It is not a special interest in the ordinary recognisable sense of the word. We are talking of up to 20 per cent. of the population and their parents. This may be one of the two best places to put the Government's concern on the face of the Bill. The code will cover many of the relations between LEAs and schools. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out the increased responsibilities of schools for the curriculum. Many on this side share the Government's concern. This is the ideal place to put that concern on the face of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I confess that I did not expect to satisfy the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. The noble Baroness knows that whenever the issue has been raised—it has been raised properly on a number of occasions as we have considered the Bill—the Government have tried to listen to, and evaluate, the relative merits of the different amendments relating to special educational needs. We have sought to consider, as we undertook to do, what might best be done between now and Report stage. We have undertaken to talk to any noble Lords who wish to discuss these issues. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, in company with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, have already visited the department to set out their stall, so to speak, and to discuss the matter with officials. That offer is open to anyone who wishes to discuss with Ministers or officials the issues of special educational needs.
I understand the noble Baroness's disappointment over what I said. I understand her point that the provision of parliamentary scrutiny for a draft code of practice does not meet what she intended to achieve. The six considerations set out in the draft code of practice, as I said, are not intended to be exhaustive. The consultation process has only just begun. I hope that that process will meet the points the noble Baroness raises. In any case there will be an opportunity for further debate on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 241G not moved.]
[Amendment No. 242 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 119, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 243 and 244 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment 244A:
After Clause 119, insert the following new clause—
("Inspection of voluntary aided and foundation schools

INSPECTION OF VOLUNTARY AIDED AND FOUNDATION SCHOOLS
.—(1) The School Inspections Act 1996 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 25 (power of local education authority to inspect maintained school for specific purpose), before "Where" there shall be inserted "Subject to section 25A below,".
(3) After that section there shall be inserted—
"Inspection of voluntary aided and foundation schools.
25A.—(1) In the case of a voluntary aided or foundation school to which the special measures provisions of this Act do not apply at the time, a local education authority may only exercise their powers under section 25 above with the agreement of the governing body.
(2) Where the governing body of a school does not agree to a request by a local education authority to exercise their powers under section 25, the authority may appeal against the decision of the governing body to the Secretary of State.
(3) Where a local education authority make an appeal under subsection (2) the decision of the Secretary of State shall be binding on both parties.".").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment aims to put on the face of the Bill the precise meaning of what we understand the Secretary of State to be saying about local authorities carrying out their functions. The draft code and the School Inspections Act make it absolutely clear that a local education authority may exercise its rights under Section 25 only for the purpose of exercising statutory functions. LEA functions are considerable. I have catalogued some. One has only to read through this considerable Bill to realise that. They will be even greater when the Bill is enacted. Many are very general. A large number are left open to wide interpretation.
Not only does the provision undermine the autonomy of good schools—a point I made a moment ago—but a local education authority could make life difficult for a school and still keep within the provisions of the code of practice. The LEA has only to argue that it is doing something in the interest of raising standards or school improvement under the functions in the Bill and that would pass muster.
The education development plan is one example. It is a new function which will open up many opportunities for LEAs to intervene in school life. As is well known, grant-maintained schools have functioned successfully without being subject to those provisions. We understand there to be a willingness in the department to sustain the level of autonomy that has been enjoyed by grant-maintained schools and to build on that. The Government have said that they want schools to be able to exercise greater autonomy. That is set out in paragraph 2 of the code of practice. The first words in that paragraph are the Government's starting point: there is a presumption in favour of school autonomy.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 refer to the need for that autonomy to be matched by accountability and the need to build in the necessary checks and balances. That is understood. My amendment will give statutory force to the Government's sentiments while providing a right of appeal to the Secretary of State by a local education
1460
authority which felt that a school was being unreasonable and hindering its ability to fulfil its statutory duty. It builds in the safeguard that where a local authority believes that it has a good case for intervention where the school is being difficult, it is possible to have that case considered.
The Minister will note that I have restricted the amendment to voluntary aided and foundation schools. There might be difficulty extending the provision to other types of schools, especially community schools, which under the provisions of the Bill have opted to remain community schools. From what the Minister said at a previous stage of the Bill I understand that about a year or so after Royal Assent community schools will have an option to become foundation schools. In other words, they will opt for yet more autonomy. If they remain community schools they are directly accountable to the local education authority.
I have restricted the amendment to foundation schools for the reasons I have set out. As other schools have a statutory relationship with the LEA, the right of access will work differently.
It may be that my amendment is in the wrong place in the Bill. If that is the case I shall be advised by the noble Lord. However, the point I wish to make is this. Schools which are performing well and are achieving at a high level, and schools which are showing discernible improvement year on year and are showing no grounds for concern, should be protected from an LEA which might wish to move in for inspectorial reasons. My amendment does no more than codify on the face of the Bill an important protection for the present grant-maintained schools and what will become foundation schools.
Whether the foundations come from the cohort of grant-maintained schools or from the cohort of community schools when that part of the Bill is implemented makes no odds. It is an important way of allaying some of the fears behind some of the press comment we have seen in the past few days about the Oratory School. It is no secret that Hammersmith and Fulham LEA is looking forward with relish to seeing the school return to it, the LEA having increased powers under the Bill. If the Government are serious, the amendment will protect such schools from undue interference from the local education authorities. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness in introducing the amendment expressed doubt about whether it is in the proper place in the Bill. She also commented on its scope. They are matters of fact to which I must respond. So far as we understand, there is no problem about the amendment's place in the Bill. It would have the effect which the noble Baroness intends. However, I must remind her about the provisions of the School Inspections Act 1996. Under that Act local education authorities have a right of access to any school maintained by them where they require information about the school for the purposes of exercising any of their functions and where it is not reasonably practicable to gain the information in any

1461
other manner. The Bill provides that that right of access shall be extended to voluntary-aided and foundation schools.
The proposed new clause would give the governing bodies of voluntary-aided and foundation schools almost total discretion over the extent to which the local authority was allowed access to the school. I accept that under the noble Baroness's amendment local authorities would have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State and that the Secretary of State's decision would be final. But our view is that the approach provided for in existing legislation and the draft code of practice on LEA-school relations will give schools adequate safeguards against the risk of unreasonable action on the part of the LEA. The code takes a much more positive view of LEA-school relations. It encourages collaborative working arrangements rather than assuming that there will be disputes and relying on rights of appeal to the Secretary of State to resolve disputes.
The present draft of the code uses Section 25 of the School Inspections Act 1996 as the starting point on LEA rights of access into schools. This gives them the right to inspect any school maintained by them where they require information about the school for the purpose of exercising any of their functions and where it is not reasonably practicable for them to obtain the information in any other manner. The code also makes it clear that LEAs have no general legal power to insist on entry to schools against the wishes of the school. These arrangements have been in place for some time for existing categories of maintained school, except grant-maintained schools which are not maintained by the LEA. We are not aware that they have caused problems.
If a school at any time believes that the LEA is using those powers unreasonably, it can appeal to the Secretary of State. It would be open to the Secretary of State to issue a direction under Section 496 of the Education Act 1996. But, in general, we would expect the LEA and school to resolve any differences of view and to reach an agreed way of working which suits both parties without recourse to the appeals process. The present draft of the code offers appropriate guidance.
I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that the policy which is being implemented in this part of the Bill is predicated on agreement and consensus rather than on conflict. We do not want to see a significant number of appeals, although the right to appeal has been properly observed.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of community schools and their right to choose a new category. It is true that community schools will be able to choose a different category one year after implementation of the new framework. I stress that that is not one year after Royal Assent, as the noble Baroness appears to believe.
I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that there is nothing particularly new in the nature of the access which is provided. It is already provided in the School Inspections Act 1996 and the appeals procedure is already provided in the Education Act 1996. I hope that on that basis, and on the basis of our determination
1462
to put school standards at the heart of the new schools framework, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Local authorities do not intervene in grant-maintained schools, but as they are to become foundation schools that situation will change considerably. In reply, the Minister referred to the right of access being extended to local education authorities, but he went on to say that schools will have "total discretion". When a school and its governors reject the LEA case for intervention, does the school have total discretion to refuse to allow it to intervene?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that we should examine the kind of occasions when it might be necessary for a local education authority to seek access to a school. It might be necessary when a school's performance falls below an acceptable level. The LEA must have access to the school to know how best to support its improvement. The same is true in respect of an issue of health and safety, for example. The responsibility on the LEA is to promote high standards in all the schools for which it has responsibility.
The noble Baroness is right in saying that we are returning grant-maintained schools to a relationship with the local education authority which was removed by previous Conservative legislation. That political decision was taken before the election, announced before the election and included in the manifesto on which the people of this country decided to elect a Labour Government.
We do not intend to back down on our commitment to return grant-maintained schools to LEAs and to set up the foundation process. If we were to do so on an issue of this kind we would be betraying the whole purpose of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to improve standards in our schools and a main agent for that purpose is the local education authority.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister has still not answered my question so I wish to put it again. Perhaps he will relate his answer to schools such as the Oratory School and many others which have been in touch with us and are concerned about this issue.
First, the noble Lord referred to "total discretion". Can he explain over what? Secondly, I agree that reaching agreement is a better course. If the LEA, the governors of a school and the staff believe that there is a good case for intervention, for providing information or whatever, that is the best way in which to move forward. Certainly on past records, there will be occasions when the school believes that the case for LEA intervention is not strong, and will take issue with it and resist it. Does "total discretion" come in there? Is it possible for a school to resist intervention by the LEA?
I return to a point made by the noble Lord about the previous government. They put a measure in an Act of Parliament which allows schools to opt voluntarily for grant-maintained status. Every single grant-maintained

1463
school did so because the parents, by popular consent, voted that the school should become a grant-maintained school. It was never imposed by the government. The government never took a power to impose grant-maintained status on any school.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have looked carefully at my speaking notes and the only time that I used the phrase "total discretion" was when I referred to the effect of the noble Baroness's amendment. I said that the amendment would give the governing bodies of voluntary-aided and foundation schools almost total discretion over the extent to which the local authority was allowed access to the school.
The only other reference which could possibly justify the noble Baroness's intervention is when I said that the code makes it clear that LEAs have no general legal power to insist on entry to a school against the wishes of the school. That must be what the noble Baroness was referring to.
I used the phrase "almost total discretion" with reference to the amendment because it provides that there shall be reference to the Secretary of State in the course of dispute. I used the phrase that there is no general legal power to insist on entry because the code of conduct sets out quite clearly the circumstances in which entry might be necessary and, of course, provides that there is a system for appeal to the Secretary of State by any school which claims that entry is not necessary. Therefore, the description of a general power is entirely inaccurate.
If the noble Baroness suggests that there is a total discretion in relation to governors, the answer is that if access to the school were refused unreasonably—in other words, not in accordance with a code of practice—it would be open to the LEA to seek a direction from the Secretary of State. It would also be open to the LEA to issue a formal warning notice if it has concerns about a school's performance.
However, I repeat that it is important—and I am sure that it will be adhered to in 99.9 per cent. of cases—for schools and local education authorities to work together to promote standards rather than setting up a system of institutionalised conflict which could be brought about by the amendment which has been moved.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I may make a point in relation to voluntary-aided schools. I take it that those schools are included in the amendment because they have that degree of autonomy to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred.
I make three simple points. First, church schools, not least aided schools, have always maintained that they do not wish for separate or special treatment in those ordinary provisions. This appears to me to be a special provision for aided schools which the majority of them would reject.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, our experience is that there are inhibitors in place. There is the code of practice and, on the whole, aided schools
1464
have not found any difficulty in abiding by that code of practice. They have found it a good code to which to work.
Thirdly, I make the point made already by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Good relationships lie clearly at the heart of building up standards. The experience of the vast bulk of schools—aided as well as controlled schools—is that there are those good relationships. As I said, aided schools have a measure of autonomy. There is no necessary reason why that autonomy should lead to any kind of conflict. It is possible to have the autonomy that aided and foundation schools will have in the future and still to work closely with LEAs. I hope that that will be the outcome.
Baroness Blatch: I am surprised that the right reverend Prelate said that the voluntary-aided schools have had no difficulty abiding by the code of practice because it is not yet in being. The document is out for consultation; the first draft has not yet come back to the department; and we shall not know what the final document looks like until it comes before the House.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I apologise if I used the wrong phrase but I understand that there are already agreed constraints within which this whole matter is carried out. Am I not right about that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The right reverend Prelate is quite right. Although the code of practice to which we have referred is not yet in force, I can confirm on the part of the local education authorities that they value the constructive co-operation which exists with voluntary-aided schools.
Baroness Blatch: So do I, but I believe that we are talking about two different things. We are talking about a code of practice which refers to many statutes which are not yet on the statute book. Therefore, it is not yet in being. The autonomy which grant-maintained and voluntary-aided schools enjoy at this moment is greater than that which they will enjoy under the Bill when it is enacted. That is the point I was making.
I return to the fundamental point that I was making. The code of practice is no more than an exhortation. We all applaud when things are going right and are going as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, describes. That is very important. It is far better to have harmony and agreement. But we know that when a large number of schools obtained grant-maintained status they did not enjoy a very good relationship with their LEAs. Many will now come together again. We want that to work and we shall applaud if it does work.
However, we must think of the most difficult scenario; namely, where the situation does not work out. We must ensure that the rights of a school are protected in this Bill. My amendment refers to the schools which are performing very well indeed. They are successful and are improving year on year. My amendment asks that they should be left alone. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. Where a school is claiming to be successful and improving year on year but the LEA takes a different view, then it is possible

1465
for the LEA to appeal, to make its case and to have the decision overturned. That is entirely accepted within the amendment.
The noble Lord has not given me a satisfactory answer and I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
3.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 244A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 139.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Ailsa, M.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Alport, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Long, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lucas, L.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Berners, B.

McConnell, L.

Biffen, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Blyth, L.

Marlesford, L.

Bowness, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mersey, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Miller of Hendon, B. [Teller.]

Broadbridge, L.

Milverton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Butterworth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Byford, B.

Moyne, L.

Cadman, L.

Nickson, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Northesk, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Chesham, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Coleridge, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cox, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Cross, V.

Quinton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Davidson, V.

Rawlings, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Reay, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Elibank, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Elles, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Exmouth, V.

Sandford, L.

Foley, L.

Savile, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gainford, L.

Selborne, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Hemphill, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Holderness, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

HolmPatrick, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Hothfield, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Howe, E.

Torrington, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ullswater, V.

Inglewood, L.

Wakeham, L.

Kimball, L.

Warnock, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wharton, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Young, B.

1466

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Addington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Judd, L.

Annan, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kintore, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Avebury, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Barnett, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Blackstone, B.

Ludford, B.

Blease, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Borrie, L.

Brightman, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McNair, L.

Burlison, L.

McNally, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carlisle, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Meston, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

David, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nathan, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Nicol, B.

Dearing, L.

Orme, L.

Desai, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Dholakia, L.

Palmer, L.

Diamond, L.

Parry, L.

Dixon, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Randall of St Budeaux, L.

Ezra, L.

Rea, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Falkland, V.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Gallacher, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Rogers, of Riverside, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Gilbert, L.

Glenamara, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Goodhart, L.

Sandberg, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grenfell, L.

Serota, B.

Sewel, L.

Hamwee, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hardie, L.

Simon, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Stallard, L.

Haskel, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hattersley, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Taverne, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tope, L.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hoyle, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hughes, L.

Varley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Weatherill, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Whitty, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Islwyn, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.7 p.m.
Clause 120 [Restrictions on financial assistance to non-maintained schools]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved amendment No. 245:
Page 91, line 24, leave out ("Subject to subsection (2),").
The noble Lord said: It was not so very long ago in terms of memories in this place when Labour Party policy was expressed as:
"Private schools are a major obstacle to a free and fair education system able to serve the needs of the whole community. We will integrate private schools with the local authority sector where necessary."
That was the Labour Party manifesto of 1993. The words have changed. Now we hear:
"The time has come for old prejudices to be buried. I want independent schools to know that the Government is looking forward to working in partnership with independent schools to raise standards."
That was Mr. Stephen Byers writing in the magazine Prep School, which I am sure is required reading for all members of the Government Benches these days. Mr. Byers goes on to say:
"The Government has made it clear that we wish to build bridges wherever we can across education divides. The education apartheid created by the public/private divide diminishes the whole education system. The independent sector plays a vital role within our education system. That is why we are fully committed to fostering closer links between the state and private sector. Through partnership we will be able to raise standards for all our children."
Fine words. Suddenly, with Clause 120, when the Government discover that there is a prospect of actual co-operation between local authorities and private sector schools, they react like some schoolgirl who has discovered a snail in her salad. They shriek and shriek and want to do everything that they can to remove that offending object as quickly as possible.
In addressing the last amendment the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, heaped considerable praise and indeed responsibility on LEAs. However, in this next clause, we find that the Government are desperately trying to claw back any responsibility from those authorities for concluding deals in the interests of their children with neighbouring schools in the private sector in case they should, unhappily, come to an arrangement which might involve some active co-operation with the hated independent schools. I find that disturbing; indeed, it suggests to me that, although the words may have changed, the sentiments remain the same.
In abolishing assisted places and by the other action that they have taken towards the independent sector, it seems to me that the Government have demonstrated their true feelings which are against private education. The fine words of Mr. Byers are merely that: just words. I hope the noble Baroness will be able to prove me wrong and that she will be able to show that this clause is intended to allow for greater co-operation and to provide new avenues for co-operation. That is not evident from the face of the Bill, but I am willing to be convinced. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This is another example of the mean-spirited politics of envy. We have yet another
1468
rung of the ladder being taken away from able young people coming from low-income families. We have lost the assisted places scheme and, with the introduction of the work of the adjudicator, we are about to lose selection. We understand that children cannot be selected on the grounds of ability, but that, according to yesterday's statement,
"bright children can be selected on the grounds of ability for Master Classes".
We now have the most incredible dog's breakfast of what it is that the Government believe or think about bright children: tinkering at the edges with gimmicky schemes and yet removing the bread-and-butter schemes which have been such a lifeline to bright young people from low-income families.
As I understand it, having abolished the assisted places scheme, the Government discovered one day to their horror that at least one LEA, thinking very much about the children in its area who were bright and who were suited to a fast-stream academic education, resolved to do something about it. The moment that the Government got wind of that they rushed into the back room and brought out counsel to draft them some words to ensure that no LEA could provide such a scheme. I cannot imagine a more mean-spirited action on the part of the Government.
Now that we have had the admissions document and are putting some flesh on the bones of the Bill as we go through it, we are beginning to see the real colour of the Government; indeed, the real intention behind the Bill. It is a levelling down and it is a dumbing down. In other words, you can have any colour car as long as it is black. They have removed all the chances that were there for children—autonomy of schools, assisted places schemes—and have attacked Oxford and Cambridge. All those actions add up to a comprehensive system and a levelling down and, ultimately, offer no chances for our bright young people.
I wholeheartedly support my noble friend's amendments. As the Minister knows, it is my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 120 should stand part of the Bill. I do not mind whether the clause is removed by that means or whether it is done by means of my noble friend's amendments. I believe that the amendments should succeed.
We had a most interesting debate the other day between the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and the Government Front Bench about what the Liberals would do if they were masters of this Bill. They would have been unequivocal in addressing and getting out of the system the selection of bright children in this way. The assisted places scheme certainly received their support. They would have been much more clear cut about how they dealt with grammar schools in the Bill. The Government talk and use the rhetoric of high standards. They use the rhetoric of looking to raise standards in education and, indeed, they use the rhetoric of being concerned about bright, able young children. However, when one looks at their actions, they simply do not match the rhetoric. Young people throughout the country will lose such opportunities.

1469
I was deeply saddened the other day to hear about a young boy attending a school in East Anglia under the assisted places scheme who has a disabled father. So that the father could better cope with the situation, an application was made for the young boy to be transferred to a school under the assisted places scheme which was nearer to his home. A school was found and it was willing to accept him. However, what happened? The DfEE said that, once the link is broken with the assisted places scheme, that is an end to the matter. In fact, if the boy had been placed in the other school which was willing to accept him, it would have saved the Government £5,000. Nevertheless, it counted for nothing. Those concerned rather cold-heartedly said that the boy must stay at the school which is not appropriate in terms of the logistics of the family or he must leave and take his chance in another local school. That is my understanding of the Government's intentions. I do not like what I see. I most warmly support my noble friend's amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, briefly but accurately described my party's position on assisted places schemes, selection, grammar schools, and so on. I believe that I have made no secret of that in this Chamber or elsewhere. However, I have considerable sympathy with the amendment, although not necessarily with all that was said in moving it. Indeed, I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was making a sexist remark about snails in lettuce or launching an attack on organic farming. Either way, I do not wish to be associated with those remarks.
In supporting the abolition of the assisted places scheme, it was part of my party's policy that it is right and proper for LEAs to be able to determine what they do with the money they have in exercising their responsibility to ensure the proper education of the children in their area. I personally have a view about that, but I do not wish to impose it on other LEAs which may feel that there is another and more appropriate way in certain circumstances for particular children.
Therefore, for those reasons, although I start almost from the opposite point of view to the mover, I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. I certainly feel that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is tackling the issue more appropriately with his amendment than the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will in her desire to remove the clause from the Bill.
Baroness Young: I very much support my noble friend Lord Lucas in his amendment. Shortly after the general election there was a great deal of press coverage about a consensus on education as regards raising standards, together with agreement on the national curriculum, testing and assessment, and so on. As the year has progressed and the education Bills have come before us, we have clearly seen a widening rather than a coming together. The saddest part about this clause is the fact that it does not actually support the individual child. I take perhaps a very simple view of education, but I believe that it is about the pupils; indeed, each individual pupil.
1470
I shall not repeat all the arguments about the assisted places scheme, but perhaps I may give Members of the Committee just two examples about two assisted-place pupils who are well known to me. One has just obtained a place at Cambridge. I do not believe that she would ever have been able to achieve such a place coming from the area in which she lived with the education normally available to her. She is an extremely clever girl and comes from a very poor home. The other pupil has, as I understand it, become part of a team which has won a gold medal for rowing internationally. That is an opportunity which she certainly would never have had if she had not been on an assisted places scheme. I quote those instances because they concern actual children who have benefited from the scheme.
The other argument is the one which was made very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. Those in local government have an education budget, but it is a matter for the relevant committee to determine how that money should be spent. There has been a great deal of argument about the cost of sending a child to an independent school as compared with the cost of sending that child to a maintained school. However, if you compare like with like and include administrative costs and other such costs in a maintained school, the difference is not that great. If an opportunity can be offered to a child to develop a talent or a skill where the local authority for one reason or another cannot provide an appropriate course—that may apply to a course in a modern language, or Latin or Greek—and the child and the child's parents want that opportunity, and the local education authority is prepared to offer it, I believe it should have the right to do so. After all, the local education authority comprises democratically elected councillors who make these decisions.
The whole matter rests on the needs of the child concerned. I do not believe that we should say that local education authorities should not make these opportunities available under any circumstances. It may be a case of a special needs child who requires a particular course. It is extraordinary that we are debating this matter on a day when we hear on the radio and read in the newspapers that the Government will publish a paper on gifted children who will be singled out at primary school to attend special schools. I am not in the least against that. It is sensible that able children should be selected in that way. However, it is completely the opposite of what the Government said only last week in this Chamber. If we are seriously interested in helping the individual child, I hope very much that the Committee will support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lucas.
Baroness Warnock: I speak in support of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. It is extraordinary that we hear so much about collaboration between the private sector and the public sector—I am very much in favour of it—except in the field of education. I do not wish to discuss at length two highly successful schemes that existed in the past which illustrated that co-operation. One was the direct grant schools and, later, there was the assisted places scheme. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I can think of

1471
innumerable cases of the successful use of assisted places. The Girls' Public Dayschool Trust with which I am associated has the largest number of assisted places in the country. Therefore, I know that that scheme worked.
However, let us forget about those two excellent systems that have now gone and ask why collaboration between the private sector and the public sector should not be permitted in this case. Although it is frequently thought that independent schools are somehow privileged, wonderful places which are rich by some curious means and which continue to exist through some kind of miracle, but which will die some day, the facts are different. Independent schools are kept going almost entirely by the private money of parents. Those parents make an enormous contribution to education in this country, even if we consider the matter from a numerical aspect and forget about what the schools offer. The private sector is educating an increasing number of our young people at the moment. To rule out collaboration between people who are putting their private money into the education of the country and the public sector seems to me an act of folly. It centres around an age old ambiguity surrounding the word "élite". There is an absolute endemic failure to distinguish between "élite" in the sense of a well selected, meritocratic number of people and an unjustly privileged number of people, as it were. Those people may overlap but the meaning of the word is not the same in those two contexts.
It is paradoxical that the Government are perfectly prepared to talk about centres of excellence but are not prepared to permit any élite institutions where this excellence may exist. Therefore I very much support the amendment. Alternatively, I would support omitting the clause altogether.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: In speaking against the amendment I am interested to hear what the Government's plans are to achieve greater co-operation with the private sector. I recognise the point the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made, and I wonder what the Government's plans are in this area. I also wish to respond to some of the extreme language of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The noble Baroness used the expressions, "removing all chances" and "dumbing down". We are talking about sending children to schools in the state sector. The noble Baroness often goes out of her way to say that some comprehensive schools are excellent. She has said on a number of occasions that her own children attended a good comprehensive school. Therefore I do not understand how she can use such extreme language with regard to children attending state schools. That is quite out of keeping with many of the points she makes on the more detailed aspects of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I was not expressing outrage at sending children to state schools. I was concerned that an opportunity should be given to certain children to attend private schools.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Nevertheless the noble Baroness used the expression "dumbing down".
1472
Presumably she meant that in the context of sending children to a state school. Further, there seems to be no recognition at all on the Opposition Benches that the Bill before us introduces a diversity of schools. Although some of my colleagues on this side of the Chamber do not like to admit it, the Bill takes on board many of the developments of grant-maintained schools, local management of schools and other such issues that we have seen develop over the past 10 years. We are far from going back to a fully comprehensive system. It is a shame that the Opposition are not addressing the nitty-gritty of the Bill and are choosing to have an argument with old Labour, as it were, about an issue that is really not on the table. They are not arguing about the details and the diversity of the system which the Bill seeks to put in place. Those are the points I wish to make. I believe that the Bill as a whole seeks to introduce equality for all children rather than protecting quality for those who are most privileged.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I have been an enthusiastic supporter of maintained education but I am also an enthusiastic supporter of collaboration between the public and private sectors. At a time in the National Health Service when the Government are attempting to reduce waiting lists it has been well recognised that health authorities may, when circumstances allow, purchase surgical procedures in the private sector. The question I pose to the Government is the following. Will this clause as it stands prevent any local authority, which recognises that particular pupils with special aptitudes cannot receive the education they deserve in the state sector, from purchasing education facilities in the independent sector, thereby furthering that kind of collaboration? My reading of the clause is that that will be the case and therefore I am in sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the Minister responds I hope I may put a particular gloss on the question that the noble Lord, Lord Detchant, asked. What about pupils who are sent to ballet schools, for the sake of argument, none of which, as far as I know, is maintained in the public sector? They are all private. Yet, without the support provided by local education authorities to pupils who attend ballet and acting schools, many who need that education and could benefit from it will not be able to receive it.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: There has been a great deal of misunderstanding about this clause in today's debate. The Government gave a clear manifesto commitment to phase out the assisted places scheme. Indeed, they were elected with a large majority to do so. The Education (Schools) Act 1997 gave effect to that commitment. Resources freed as a result have already been allocated to allow the appointment of 1,500 teachers to keep over 100,000 pupils out of large infant classes. Funding previously allocated to benefit a favoured few will now be used to secure that many children make a strong and positive start to their school education. As more resources are freed they will further support the

1473
reduction in infant class sizes. I challenge Members of the Committee to suggest that that is not a good use of those resources.
Clause 120 seeks to achieve the same positive benefits at local level. It provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the circumstances under which LEAs will be permitted to buy places at independent schools and preventing LEAs buying such places under any other circumstances. The key objective is to prevent LEAs establishing the assisted places scheme at local level. Again, we are absolutely committed to that manifesto pledge.
The clause has no effect on LEAs' powers to buy places at independent schools for pupils with special educational needs. Section 348 of the Education Act 1996 covers such provision and is not amended by the Bill.
The noble Lord's amendments would entirely wreck the purpose of the clause by giving LEAs an unrestricted ability to buy places at independent schools. I stress that is simply not consistent with the commitment given in our manifesto. We are clear that we want the regulations to enable LEAs to develop genuine partnerships—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock—between the maintained and independent sectors similar to those which we are already supporting. Invitations to apply for support for partnership projects which were given out last year attracted an excellent response, with nearly 300 applications seeking over £5 million of support. We are presently providing a total of £600,000, of which £350,000 was government money, the rest supported by a trust, to support 48 projects covering a wide range of activities which bring independent and state schools together as equal partners. Projects involving numeracy, arts and science subjects, as well as sports and the performing arts, are being supported. All types of schools are involved and schemes will run in inner city, rural and urban settings.
Let me give just a few examples of the projects bidding for this support which were successful. First, there is a project involving one maintained and two independent schools in Bromley where the schools are sharing their different expertise to improve provision for modern foreign languages at all three schools, the type of project mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. There is a project promoted by Wakefield local education authority in which pupils from five secondary schools—three maintained and two independent—in the town are working together in cross-sector groups and attending joint lectures and master classes. Pairs of maintained and independent schools in north Somerset and separately in Wiltshire are collaborating to provide an A-level in music technology where small numbers of pupils in the individual schools make it more effective to run the course jointly. Simultaneous timetabling will support joint working, and there will be joint teaching.
We are making funding available for one year only (1998–99) at present in order to assess the impact before deciding on future arrangements. So in a sense those are pilot projects. The partnerships scheme will help pupils, staff and schools in both sectors through the sharing of expertise, skills and facilities. That is a long way from
1474
the assisted places scheme which was of no benefit to the maintained sector, did not represent a genuine partnership between the sectors, and was poor value for taxpayers' money.
Of course this is not an overnight solution: change will have to be incremental and at a pace that both sectors set. We are looking long term for much increased interaction between independent and maintained schools based on a recognition that both sectors working together can make an impact greater than they would by working separately. Regulations made under this clause will allow LEAs to develop that sort of co-operation locally. I hope that that is of some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant.
We shall consult in detail during the autumn on the provisions of the regulations to be made under Clause 120. Those regulations would be made by April 1999. We shall not commence the provisions of Clause 120 until regulations are ready to be laid. The existing provisions of the Education Act 1996 which give LEAs power to provide financial assistance to independent schools and to pay the fees of children attending such schools will remain in place until that time.
But we are clear that genuine partnership must involve at least two parties, and that there must be benefit to both sides. A scheme which would pay independent school fees in order to take a child wholly out of the maintained sector and place him or her full time in an independent school is in no sense a partnership between the two sectors. In those circumstances, where is the involvement of, or benefit to, the maintained sector? An LEA proposing such a course of action would be abdicating its responsibilities for its more able pupils and should be concentrating its resources on ensuring that all children, including the very able, can flourish within the maintained sector.
I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. The language used by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, gave her position away. She simply wants to retain the assisted places scheme so that certain numbers of pupils for whom the state sector ought to be able to provide properly can receive a private education. It is not dumbing down for able pupils to be properly educated in the state sector. The noble Baroness said that her own children were properly educated in the state sector. So were mine. And that can be so for all pupils except those who have special needs and require special provision which not all local authorities are able to make.
I hope, in the light of my remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will be able to welcome the building of bridges referred to in the article he quoted by my honourable friend the Minister for School Standards. I hope that the noble Lord can feel pleased with the partnership schemes that we are now developing and intend to take further. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this amendment. I am particularly

1475
grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope. I have so often found myself in disagreement with amendments that they have proposed, and have probably said so in no uncertain terms. So I am conscious of the honour they do me on this occasion. I am indebted finally to the immense wisdom of my noble friend Lady Young. What this matter should be about is not systems and which system benefits, but about the children and what is best for the individual children.
The noble Baroness mentioned a range of products and I welcome them. I am delighted that the Government are turning their faces in this direction. I can think of a number of projects involving relationships between Dauntsey's and its neighbouring school in West Lavington which had to be abandoned when the colour of that particular local education authority changed. I hope that the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in that part of the world will be listening to what the Government are proposing and perhaps reviving the sort of co-operation which used to exist. Whatever criticisms the Government may have of the assisted places scheme, within that scheme were a number of schools in the independent sector, particularly the Girls' Public Dayschool Trust and the likes of Manchester Grammar, which were committed to it heart and soul because it enabled them to fulfil their ambition, which was to educate the children of the poor—or at least the needy—rather than just the children of the rich, which is the prospect they now have to face returning to.
I give particular praise to the efforts that the Girls' Public Dayschool Trust is making to raise funds to enable it to continue to offer full fee scholarships to those who need them. It has done extremely well to date and I wish it every continued success. However, what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said is also important. Local authorities are democratically elected bodies, and it seems to me they can quite reasonably be trusted to take these kinds of decisions themselves. If they start behaving unfairly and doing something which most of their electors will consider to be to the disadvantage of their children, they will not be long in office. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, if he found himself in an opposition party in such a council, would be very sanguine of his prospects at the next election. I do not think there is any danger of creating something which will be unpopular locally, and if it is popular locally and if it is what the people want I do not see why the Government should be afraid of it.
There is a lot to be said for looking at the needs of the individual child and recognising that in some circumstances the independent schools will have the particular facilities and the particular resources which can enable particular children to benefit in a way that they could not in state sector schools which are necessarily constrained as to resources and the variety of experience they can provide. Like my noble friend Lady Blatch, I am a user of the state sector and extremely happy to be so, but I can certainly appreciate that there are some children who would be better off if they could have the benefit of the
1476
facilities of an independent school. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, pointed out that in medicine the National Health Service is free to go private when it wishes and where it is best for the patient. That is the principle which should apply to these cases. I know that the noble Baroness the Minister is coming from a position and a commitment which makes this difficult for her, but I think the Government are in error here. I do not see that they can offer me anything by way of concessions or conversations until Report stage, and so I would very much like to test the opinion of the Committee.
4.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 245) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hothfield, L.

Addison, V.

Howe, E.

Ailsa, M.

Jopling, L.

Alport, L.

Kitchener, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Avebury, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lauderdale, E,

Beloff, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Berners, B.

Lindsay, E.

Blatch, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Blyth, L.

Long, V.

Bowness, L.

Lucas, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Ludford, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Byford, B.

McNair, L.

Cadman, L.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mersey, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Milverton, L.

Courtown, E.

Monson, L.

Cox, B.

Montrose, D.

Cross, V.

Moyne, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Nickson, L.

Davidson, V.

Norrie, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northbourne, L.

Dholakia, L.

Northesk, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elibank, L.

Palmer, L.

Elles, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Ezra, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Foley, L.

Reay, L.

Gainford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Geraint, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Grey, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hampton, L.

Rennell, L.

Hamwee, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Hemphill, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Henley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

1477

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Teviot, L.

Sandford, L.

Teynham, L.

Savile, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Sharples, B.

Tope, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Torrington, V.

Skidelsky, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Ullswater, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Warnock, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Sudeley, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Judd, L.

Annan, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kennet, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Barnett, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Blackstone, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Blease, L.

Longford, E.

Borrie, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Burlison, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Milner of Leeds, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Molloy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

David, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Orme, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Dearing, L.

Parry, L.

Desai, L.

Peston, L.

Diamond, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Dixon, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Rea, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Gilbert, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Grenfell, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Hanworth, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hardie, L.

Serota, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sewel, L.

Haskel, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hattersley, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hayman, B.

Simon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Stallard, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Strafford, E.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Taverne, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Islwyn, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Whitty, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.51 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): Amendment No. 246 should be agreed to as it is coupled with Amendment No. 245.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 246:
Page 91, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 10 on page 92.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 120, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 246F:
After Clause 120, insert the following new clause—

PAYMENT OF SCHOOL EXPENSES; GRANT OF SCHOLARSHIPS, ETC
(" . For section 518 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be substituted—
"Payment of school expenses; grant of scholarships, etc.
518.— (1) A local education authority, for the purpose of enabling persons to take advantage of any educational facilities available to them, may in such circumstances as may be specified in or determined in accordance with regulations—

(a) pay such expenses of children attending community, foundation, voluntary or special schools as may be necessary to enable them to take part in any school activities,

(b) grant scholarships, exhibitions, bursaries and other allowances in respect of persons over compulsory school age.

(2) Regulations may make provision—

(a) for requiring a local education authority to make, in relation to each financial year, a determination relating to the extent to which they propose to exercise their power under subsection (1)(b) in that year; and

(b) for authorising an authority to determine not to exercise that power in a financial year—

(i) generally,

(ii) in such cases as may be prescribed, or

(iii) in such cases as may be determined by the authority." ").

The noble Baroness said: The new clause replaces Section 518 of the Education Act 1996, which was partially amended in the Commons at Report stage by the removal of Section 518(1)(b). It confers a power on the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow LEAs to pay expenses of pupils attending maintained schools to take part in school activities such as school trips, and to assist with the cost of items such as school uniform and sports equipment. This reproduces—with only minor changes to reflect the new school structure—the provisions of existing Section 518(a) of the 1996 Act. It repeats the repeal of existing Section 518(1)(b) agreed elsewhere, which allows LEAs to pay the whole or any part of the fees or expenses for a child attending an independent school so as to avoid hardship on the part of the parents. The circumstances in which LEAs may pay all or part of such expenses will be dealt with under regulations to be made under Clause 120. As I have said, we shall consult in detail during the autumn on the provisions of these regulations, which would be

1479
made by April 1999. I have also made clear that we shall not commence the provisions of Clause 120 until regulations are ready to be laid. The existing provisions of the Education Act 1996 which give LEAs the power to provide financial assistance to independent schools and to pay fees of children attending such schools will remain in place until that time.
This amendment also contains a provision on financial support for students which is supplementary to that included under the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. That other Bill will allow the Secretary of State to remove discretionary awards for further and higher education students and put new arrangements in their place. The new clause gives the Secretary of State a power to make regulations to allow LEAs to offer additional financial support to students, if they so choose. It will, however, leave it open to LEAs to decide whether or not to do so, although they will have to review their decisions annually.
The current arrangements for post-16 LEA discretionary awards fail many students. Overall LEA expenditure on awards has declined steadily over a number of years and availability of support increasingly depends on where a student happens to live. Shoring up these discredited arrangements will not allow us to deliver lasting reform. That is why we introduced provisions in the Teaching and Higher Education Bill which will allow us to discontinue LEA discretionary awards under Section 1(6) and Section 2 of the Education Act 1962 and replace them with a new system of post-16 student support which is more consistent across the country and more effective in helping those most in need.
I should make clear that the new arrangements to replace LEA discretionary awards are quite separate and distinct from the system of student support which will replace mandatory awards for students in higher education.
To inform our decisions about the new support arrangements for post-16 students in schools and FE colleges, I asked an advisory group, chaired by Graham Lane of the Local Government Association, and including representatives from LEAs, the FEFC, colleges, the NUS and other interested bodies, for its advice. The group's remit was to consider a simpler, fairer, better targeted system for financial support to replace LEA discretionary awards for FE students. The group's report, which is part of our wider review of post-16 student support, will be published very shortly and we will be consulting on its recommendations.
I have, however, listened carefully to LEA representations about the need to retain a power to offer financial help to students in exceptional circumstances, in addition to the new arrangements which we will introduce. I have accepted that no system of student support, however well designed, will be able specifically to address the potential needs of every student facing financial difficulties. LEAs have a key role in their communities and some have argued that their ability to make exceptional payments to students can be an
1480
important part of that role. We agree. This new clause will enable LEAs to make such payments, where they so choose.
Where LEAs determine that the new arrangements are sufficient for the students in their areas, it will be open to them to decide not to make such payments. I believe it would be unreasonable in these circumstances to require authorities to consider applications and appeals from all-corners, including some who might apply for "exceptional" payments on top of their entitlement to support under the new system. This amendment will relieve LEAs of that burden, subject to the annual review. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: I have a particular concern about this amendment, on which I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me. A few months ago I initiated a debate in your Lordships' House about the funding of drama students and, by association, dance students, art students and so on. The present Arts Council funding system is clearly not working. Can the Minister tell me more about whether the new arrangements are likely to improve the current situation or, as I fear, make it worse? In particular, is she able to tell me, either now or later, when the Government expect to announce their new plans in respect of drama students?
Baroness Blackstone: I cannot give a precise date as to when we shall be able to announce our new plans. As I said in the debate on the noble Lord's Motion, we are working on a scheme to replace the interim scheme. But those arrangements will in no way impinge on the interim scheme; it will be a totally different scheme.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 121 [Abolition of corporal punishment in schools etc.]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 246FA:
Page 92, line 22, after ("school") insert ("except those schools to which section 548A below applies").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 246FA, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 246FB. Perhaps I should make it clear at the outset of this debate—I have no doubt that my intentions will be misinterpreted—that I am not supporting mindless beatings of children, ritual punishment, unlawful punishment or punishment that would be decreed unlawful under the European Convention on Human Rights. I am supporting the freedom of parents to choose independent education and to sign up voluntarily to a specific regime of firm discipline within a caring and loving ethos of a school. That is from where I start.
The two largest postbags I received on this Bill involve parish councils being represented on governing bodies of schools—a matter about which they felt strongly—and discipline. Many schools, particularly schools with a Christian ethos, have been concerned that the sensible regimes they operate and the supportive parent bodies of those schools where parents wish their children to be

1481
brought up with a disciplinary regime which is both fair and firm, are now in jeopardy because of the amendment moved in the House of Commons.
An organisation called Families for Discipline does not support unnecessary punishment for children, but supports the firm and fair approach. It wrote to a number of Members of the Committee and made some cogent points. It argued that the new clause should be opposed because it undermines parental responsibility. Indeed it does. It is based on false assumptions about school corporal punishment. As the headmaster of an independent school in Liverpool explained, corporal discipline is based on the guiding principles of love and correction. The school ethos is an extension of discipline in the home and I am saddened to see, having heard the protestations of the present Ministers in the Department for Education saying that they had no intention of extending the abolition of corporal punishment to the home—the smacking of children—that that extension is now to emanate from the European Community and no doubt there will be an extension to the home.
The clause should be opposed because it fails to recognise the religious basis of many independent schools. It fails to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 2, Protocol 1 requires a state to,
"respect the rights of parents to ensure that such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions".
The European Court of Human Rights established that such corporal punishment falls within the ambit of this clause. It also exposes pupils and teachers to the risk of increased violence.
It is no good our going around wringing our hands about the behaviour of some young people in our schools; about the rise in expulsions; about the rise in disruptive behaviour in the classroom and the lack of response to the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers. Its members are concerned about the protection of teachers in the classroom. How can we wring our hands about that and not allow the teachers to exercise some form of corporal punishment? Indeed, the Government distributed a guidance document to schools arguing that some force can be used and some of that force, when one reads the guidance, is a form of corporal punishment.
The clause disregards the views of the majority of the United Kingdom public. The Government make much play of saying that people think this or that. But by a considerable majority people believe that there should be corporal punishment in the context of firm but fair discipline. The clause paves the way for legislation against parents using corporal discipline in the home and we are now hearing interesting mutterings from the European Union on that subject.
The Minister in another place, Mrs. Morris, said that it is,
"the personal responsibility of parents to decide for themselves what disciplinary arrangements are appropriate for their child. It would not be appropriate for the State to impose its own view".
That is precisely what the state is proposing to do in the new clause in relation to independent schools. The state is removing from parents the responsibility to decide for themselves. School is an extension of loco parentis. It is acting in loco parentis while the children are at school.
I have no doubt that we will hear much of the Swedish case, which was declared inadmissible by the European Court of Human Rights. Of the two cases therefore only Costello-Roberts was referred to the European Court. Neither the Commission nor the court opposed corporal punishment in schools in either case. I can expand on that if it is brought up during the course of the debate.
The Minister appears to consider that the European court would be unlikely to uphold any argument that the new clause would result in a violation of the rights of parents under Article 2 of Protocol 1. However, legal advice received on the matter from a barrister specialising in human rights suggests otherwise. In his view, Campbell and Cousins v. The United Kingdom is a case for positive respect by the state for religious and philosophical convictions to which pluralism in education is fundamental to a democratic society. In Campbell and Cousins the court established that,
"corporal punishment of children in schools falls within the ambit of Article 2 of Protocol 1".
The British public think otherwise. In polls taken towards the end of 1996 two-thirds of the general public registered support for the restoration of corporal punishment in state schools. That subject has been dealt with by Parliament and I have no wish to restore that debate today. However, I wish to argue strongly that we are talking about parents who freely enter into a contract with an independent school. I believe that they have a human right not only to do that, but also to enter voluntarily into an agreement with that school, knowing what the régime running that school is and knowing that corporal punishment is administered within the law and certainly within what is acceptable under the European Convention on Human Rights. The amendment I tabled makes it clear that the intention is to be lawful at all times.
In the independent sector many schools have the support of governors, teachers and parents to retain the right to use moderate and reasonable corporal punishment in appropriate circumstances. Many of those schools are relatively small; some are faith based and seek to provide an education and disciplinary ethos in harmony with the homes from which the children come. Who are we to deny them that right? These are parents who are not opting for state education over which the Department for Education has control. They opted for independent education and take what comes with it in a voluntary way, entering into a contract voluntarily.
Such a desire is in keeping with national law; it is certainly in keeping with international instruments and conforms to the Department of Health Guidance to the Children Act 1989. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Is the noble Baroness speaking for the Official Opposition? She speaks from the Opposition Front Bench. It would be nice to know whether or not she is speaking for the Opposition and, indeed, whether a free vote will be allowed on all Benches, especially the Benches of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: I can confirm that there will be a totally free vote in relation to these Benches. I can add

1483
that, when the subject came up in this Chamber, as an official government party we supported, as long as it was within reasonable bounds and conformed to the European Convention on Human Rights, corporal punishment as a good thing in schools. For the purposes of this amendment, the vote will be a free vote.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: The noble Baroness was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. Is what she said Official Opposition policy?
Baroness Blatch: I was speaking to the amendment in a personal capacity. I have made it clear that when the subject came up when we were on the Government Benches we certainly supported that. Nevertheless, at that time there was a free vote and some noble Lords on our Benches took a contrary view. We believe that this is a subject for a free vote, and there will indeed be a free vote on the subject this evening.
Baroness David: If there is to be a free vote on the Opposition side of the Committee, I find it strange that the noble Baroness did not make that clear when she started to speak from her position as the Opposition's official spokesman for education.
When this amendment was put into the Bill in another place, there was a free vote on all sides of the House. The Government won by a substantial majority on a free vote—by 211 to 15. We now understand that there is to be a free vote. I am delighted to hear that. We are certainly having a free vote on this side of the Committee.
The aim of the clause is to extend the abolition of corporal punishment to cover all pupils in private schools and also those in nursery education. Its purpose is to close a sordid and embarrassing chapter in the history of our education system and to end the form of discrimination which has allowed some schools to go on beating some pupils whose parents were paying fees but not others where the state was paying the fees. These amendments are wrecking amendments intended to remove the clause altogether or to keep corporal punishment for some schools and for some pupils in the private sector. I do not know how many Members of the Committee remember Sir Keith Joseph's Bill in the Session 1984–85 which proposed in the state sector that if parents chose they could have their children beaten but that parents could choose not to. That Bill was voted out of the House at Report stage and had to be withdrawn by the then government.
Baroness Blatch: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She referred to this as a wrecking amendment. This clause was not in the Bill when the Bill was published in another place. In fact the clause was added to the Bill not by the Government, but with the support of the Government, by a Liberal Democrat Member in another place. Therefore, in the sense that we are just taking a different view about that clause, it is not a wrecking amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may clarify something. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will
1484
confuse everyone if she continues in this vein. A decision was made in another place not by the Government but by Parliament. The Government did not support this amendment. Members of the Government took a personal position on it and decided to vote in favour of the amendment, but that is quite different from saying that this is in any way a government amendment. The noble Baroness referred a little earlier to the state imposing certain constraints in relation to corporal punishment. That, again, is inaccurate. This is a decision of Parliament, which wishes to see this practice come to an end. Perhaps I may also confirm what my noble friend Lady David said. The Government believe that there should be a free vote on this important issue.
Baroness Young: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she clarify one point? She said twice that this is a decision of Parliament. It is in fact a decision of the House of Commons. There is a distinction.
Baroness Blackstone: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is of course a decision of the House of Commons—of another place.
Baroness Blatch: I would have made the same point. But perhaps I may also add that I did not say that it was a government amendment. I rose to make that very point. I rose to say that it would have been a wrecking amendment had it been a government amendment. It was actually an amendment of a member of another party in another place which received the support of the majority of the House of Commons. Many on the Government Benches supported the amendment. I have looked down the list. But it is not a government amendment. It was not put as a government amendment and it was not spoken to as a government amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: When the noble Baroness reads Hansard, she will see that just two or three minutes ago she said that the amendment had the support of the Government. That is not accurate. It did have the support of individual members of the Government who voted in favour of it, but that is a completely different matter.
Baroness David: Perhaps I may now get on with what I was saying. On several occasions in the past this House has taken the initiative to rid our school system of this abhorrent, anti-education and dangerous practice. I have had a great deal to do with getting as far as we have in this House. I have supported all the Bills and was the opposition spokesman on some of those Bills when we won amendments which sought to abolish corporal punishment in the state system.
The private schools associations want abolition. That is an important point. On 5th March, Ian Beer, who is the chairman of the Independent Schools Council, issued a statement in which he said that the independent schools welcome the proposal to ban all corporate punishment. The statement said that many private

1485
schools had concluded long before any form of legal ban was contemplated that,
"corporal punishment impeded good education".
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, talked about parents sending their children to independent schools. If parents want to send their children to independent schools, they are quite free to do so. But if they send their children to an independent school which has banned corporal punishment, that is settled. That is the policy of the school and they can either send their children to it or not.
The teachers want abolition. Full prohibition is supported by all the teacher unions, by the other education organisations and, of course, by all child welfare and child protection groups. In particular, effective child protection demands full abolition. The national committee of inquiry into the prevention of child abuse, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and Sir William Utting's recent review of safeguards for all looked-after children—children in care—including those in boarding schools, also strongly recommended full prohibition.
Our obligations under international human rights law demand full abolition. Three United Nations human rights treaty bodies—the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee on the Rights of the Child—had formally recommended that the Government should extend prohibition to cover all pupils. Each committee expressed concern at the continued legality of corporal punishment for some pupils.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, attempts to define—
Lord Skidelsky: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Why does she believe that her views and the views of other people, which are worthy of the greatest respect, should be imposed on the population of this country?
Baroness David: I do not know whether the noble Lord is referring to the European rights committees.
Lord Skidelsky: I am referring to the noble Baroness's personal views, which she has expressed most eloquently.
Baroness David: I believe that corporal punishment is a bad thing in all our schools. I am hoping to persuade noble Lords that this clause should remain part of the Bill and help to abolish corporal punishment in our schools and in our nursery schools.
In its most recent judgment on this issue, the European Court of Human Rights stated unanimously that it did not wish to be taken to approve in any way the retention of corporal punishment as part of the disciplinary regime for schools. The noble Baroness forgets our clear obligation to remove corporal punishment from our school system altogether under the other international human rights treaties. For years
1486
private schools in the UK have been the only educational institutions in Europe. east or west, in which corporal punishment of children has remained lawful.
I hope that the Committee will decisively reject the amendments and thus ensure at long last that our school system—the whole of our school system—is rid of this sordid practice. It was 35 years ago that Baroness Wootton of Abinger, whom we all admired enormously, sought to get this House to accept full abolition. She said then, "If a thing is wrong today it should be put right today and not tomorrow or the day after". It has taken a very long time to get as far as this, but I hope that today we shall clear that up.
By adopting this clause in another place by such a huge majority on a free vote, the Bill has achieved for what so many of us have pleaded for a long time. I hope that this Committee will show its strong support for this clause in the Bill. We have a free vote.
Lord Tope: It is a privilege for me to be able follow the noble Baroness, Lady David, on this subject. In my comparatively short time in your Lordships' House I have seen how she has campaigned tirelessly on this issue. I know that she has been campaigning for many years before I came here. In that sense I am very pleased and very proud to be able to follow her in this debate. I am sure that she will understand that it is a privilege that I hoped very much I would not have. During the Second Reading debate on the Bill I commented that I hoped that we had heard the end of the issue of corporal punishment when it had been determined in the other place. When I said that there were murmurs of agreement around your Lordships' House. If I remember rightly, in her reply the Minister echoed my sentiments although I am sure that she was speaking solely in a personal capacity.
So I was surprised and very disappointed to find at the last possible moment in the Committee stage of this Bill that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, the Opposition education spokesperson, had tabled this amendment. I do not know why she waited until the last possible moment and I do not propose to speculate on that today. She mentioned that it was the second largest issue in her postbag. That must say something for the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and for the image that her party still has because I have not had a single letter on this subject until today. The letters I have received expressed the horror and alarm that I feel that we are again debating this issue.
I am astonished that the Conservative Party education spokesperson in this House should table this amendment. I do not understand how that fits into the image of the modern Conservative Party which her leader is apparently so keen to promote. Much has been said about public opinion outside this House. I believe when it is heard that the Conservative Party has chosen at the last minute to reintroduce this issue determined overwhelmingly in another place, it will agree that is different from taking a view when the issue was first introduced in the other place.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I have said that there will be a free vote on

1487
these Benches. I have already said that there are Members on these Benches who will not support this amendment and therefore there is a free vote. The amendment was tabled last week. As we have gone through the Bill, and given the fact that we have no back-up and we have had to deal with amendments on a very complicated Bill, at every stage I have tabled amendments for the next day of the Committee stage. The noble Lord will know that this amendment was tabled last week and not yesterday at the last minute.
Lord Tope: I believe I referred specifically to last Friday and not to yesterday. Nevertheless, it is at the last minute. I am not going to enter into an argument with the noble Baroness as to why and when she did what she did. Of course it is a free vote. I should say—although I thought it was unnecessary—that it is a free vote for my party as it always is on an issue of this kind and that is as it should be.
I still express astonishment that the Conservative Party should wish to project this image. That is a matter for that party and I care very little about it, but I care quite a lot about the reputation of your Lordships' House. Were this amendment to be accepted today, I cannot believe that we would be doing anything to enhance the reputation of this House or to suggest that we were ready to face the 21st century and not to be still steeped in the 19th century as some people mistakenly believe.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, made all the right points in opposition to the amendment. I agree with her that the Independent Schools Joint Council, which represents 80 per cent. of the independent schools, was very clear and unequivocal in its support of the successful amendment in the other place. It is a point of interest to me that Ian Beer, the chairman of that organisation, whom the noble Baroness, Lady David, mentioned, and I went to the same school and, I imagine, a few years before me. He suffered—if that is the right word—the same regime as I did. I am interested that he now takes the same view.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made reference to the issue of human rights and the legal position. It seems to me that that was something of a perversion of a view of human rights. I am enormously encouraged that I have sitting behind me my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill who is an acknowledged expert and authority on such matters. I know that he intends to speak shortly. I am sure that he will have something very important and wise to say on the issue. I would not presume to dwell further on it in his presence.
Not surprisingly, all the child care organisations oppose corporal punishment. The noble Baroness, Lady David, has referred to various commissions including the one chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. They have all come out against corporal punishment. We are the only country in Europe which still condones corporal punishment. There are many things about the uniqueness of Britain which should make us very proud, but corporal punishment is not one of them.
1488
The noble Baroness spoke about the need for fair and firm discipline. I do not believe that any of us would argue with that as a statement. But to suggest that firm discipline means hitting small children—or even large ones for that matter—with a cane (that is corporal punishment) is a view that is rejected overwhelmingly by teachers, child care professionals and by most other informed opinion on the subject.
Discipline in the home was mentioned. I hope that we shall not be distracted by that debate. It is entirely outside the scope of this Bill. I have a view on it, as I am sure all Members of the Committee have. It is not the issue that we are talking about here. Needless to say, I shall oppose this amendment most strongly. I deeply regret that it has been introduced into your Lordships' House. On a free vote the other place determined the issue and, I hoped, once and for all. There was an overwhelming vote of 211 to only 15. I had hoped that that was the last word, but clearly it was not. I hope that this afternoon this House will show that we are ready to move into the 21st century and that we will have the last word on this issue by rejecting this amendment at least as overwhelmingly as in the other place.
Lord Wilberforce: I rise as calmly and dispassionately as one can to support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. As the Committee will have seen from the Marshalled List, I put my name to oppose the Question that this clause stand part of the Bill. I was motivated to do that by a sense of considerable disquiet as to the legislative process which has taken place on this matter. I need not go into it at length because Members of the Committee know quite well what happened. We have a very elaborate and important Bill which we are now considering. It was put forward by the Government without any mention whatever of corporal punishment. At a very late stage; namely, five o'clock in the morning, at the instance of a Member, two clauses were put in, of which this is one, dealing with this matter. It was voted on in a free vote.
I felt that such a process in relation to a matter of civil liberties, importantly affecting the rights of parents and schools, should receive further consideration, at any rate in this House. I was very much disturbed that until last Thursday, I believe it was, although we had had six days in Committee and about 300 amendments, no mention appeared to have been made of this important subject. Therefore I was very much relieved when the noble Lady, Baroness Blatch, tabled this amendment enabling us to discuss this problem calmly and dispassionately as we ought.
No more than the noble Baroness am I arguing in favour of corporal punishment or against it. I am completely agnostic on the subject and so I should be. Between the age of six and 17 I attended no fewer than six independent schools and at five of those there was some degree of corporal punishment, ranging right down the scale from a slap on the wrist from a woman teacher to what I may call the "full Monty" meaning thereby one administered by Monty Rendall, our headmaster.

1489
Those experiences led me to realise that what matters in schools is the disciplinary ethos—some call it the disciplinary code—which exists and which is built up by agreement between the headmaster or headteacher, the board of governors and above all, the parents. It may or may not contain an element of corporal punishment. My position—I believe that I am in agreement with the noble Baroness on this—is that, as a matter of freedom, we ought not interfere with that sort of bargain of choice, freely made, unless there is some manifest public interest which requires to be safeguarded.
We all agree that children have to be protected from abuse. That is an overriding consideration. However, let us consider the position. We are not arguing here about ritualistic flogging. I know that that phrase creeps in from time to time; it did in the other place. We are not arguing about that; we are arguing about reasonable measures of correction or, as they are called in Australia, reasonable measures of chastisement.
The child is well protected by the common law under the law of battery. As your Lordships know, "battery" is widely interpreted even to go beyond physical contact. The child will now also protected by the Human Rights Bill 1998, which makes the European Convention on Human Rights part of our law. Article 3 of that convention prohibits inhuman and degrading punishment. Your Lordships have already been told by the noble Baroness—I believe this to be correct—that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has so far been cautious about what it says in relation to corporal punishment in schools. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, will correct any imbalance in that statement. I believe it to be correct that the court has left open the question of whether corporal punishment in schools should be prohibited. It depends on the circumstances. Those considerations are reflected in the amendment of the noble Baroness. I refer to the case of Costello-Roberts in 1993.
What is the scale of the problem with which we are dealing? It is a very small-scale problem. Many of the larger schools—I mention in correct order, Winchester, Eton and Harrow—have already disposed of it, as have others. We were told by speakers in the other place that fewer than 200 private schools have some measure of corporal punishment. There is no evidence of any scandal or excess. No research has been carried out into what is done in those schools and what effect it has. There is no perceived demand for the abolition of corporal punishment in those schools.
I submit that it is absolutely contrary to the sound principles of legislation that one should interfere with the reasonable choices of persons unless there is clear evidence of some public interest.
One other consideration has already been mentioned. I refer to the relationship between corporal punishment in schools and in the home. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, says that that has nothing to do with this case, but the two situations are closely related. Once one begins to attempt to legislate about punishment in schools, one runs up against the question of what is going to happen in the home. If, in the home, it is legitimate to give reasonable and moderate
1490
chastisement—I think that most people would accept that—it is difficult to see why, when a parent has delegated that responsibility to a school, it should be prohibited. After all, many parents—they may be lone parents without a man in the house—who have an unruly child with whom they cannot cope decide that the only thing to do is to send that child to an independent boarding school, as to which they have verified that the disciplinary situation is sound and well thought out. How can the one remain separated from the other? Conversely, if one prohibits any such punishment in schools, one is faced with the question of how far one can justify allowing it in the home. That will arouse some difficulties.
That point was perfectly well perceived in the discussions in the other place where opinions were expressed, which I think have been quoted. that the original clause—it was then Clause 21—would create difficulties and a dangerous thin end of the wedge in relation to the situation in the home. Therefore, at the very last moment, at about 6 a.m., Clause 23—it is now Clause 121—was substituted for the original clause; namely, Clause 21.
However, the matter does not stop there. We are again running into difficulties with the European Court of Human Rights. I understand that a case is before it at the moment of corporal punishment in the home involving a step-father who caned his boy on the legs with a cane. I understand that judgment may be given in the course of next week. If that were to be so, the Government would have at least to consider adjusting the law in this country. I respectfully ask whether it would not be wiser to leave the matter for consideration until we know what the European Court has to say, when we can then consider with greater calm and detachment and away from the difficulties of this Bill the whole question of control and discipline in the home and its relation to a small number of independent schools. I support the attempt of the noble Baroness to regulate the situation in a calm and moderate way and in accordance with the European convention. I hope that her amendment will be carried.
Perhaps I may draw attention finally to two good points about the amendment. First, it contains definitions of both "corporal punishment" and of "lawful corporal punishment". Those are helpful. Secondly, the amendment refers to the reasons why corporal punishment may be administered in certain circumstances, taken pretty well directly from the judgment of the court in the case of Costello-Roberts. I support the amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Annan: I am extremely sorry to be in disagreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, whose words of wisdom I have always admired enormously. The noble and learned Lord said that we are not talking about ritual punishment. All corporal punishment in a school inevitably becomes ritualised. Curious tremors go through a school when corporal punishment is to be administered.

1491
I must ask the noble Baroness what she means by "lawful corporal punishment". Does the noble Baroness favour the tawse, the riding crop, the cane or perhaps the birch, which used to be a great cry from the women at Conservative Party conferences long ago? Does the noble Baroness favour the mode of punishment that I remember from my own prep school, which was administered by what was called "Punishment Bat No. 1" on sale at Harrods? We must have some response on this matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said that "corporal punishment" is defined in the amendment, but it does not seem to me to be defined at all. I should like an answer to that question.
I turn now to subsection (2)(b) and to the position of two pupils committing an offence. Of course, we have had this discussion before in the debate on, I believe, the 1996 Bill. What happens if two pupils commit an offence and one, by his parents' permission, is soundly caned while the other who is "an assisted pupil" is therefore not allowed to submit to corporal punishment? Is that a fair way of dealing with the two children? The second child will no doubt be punished by many hours of physical drill or detention, but is that really fair? What if the assisted pupil is so disgusted by the unfair differentiation that he or she insists that he or she suffers the fate of the fellow delinquent? Note that I say "he or she". Nothing in this amendment differentiates between boys and girls. Will girls be subjected to corporal punishment? Under many recent Acts that have been passed to outlaw discrimination of any kind, that will happen. Who is to administer the punishment to the girls? Will it be administered by a male member of staff? That is perfectly possible within the terms of this amendment. The sexual implications of that have not been made clear, and I hope that they will not escape the attention of the Committee.
Lord Monson: I thank my noble friend for allowing me to intervene. The noble Baroness does not introduce any new principle. The amendment simply permits the continuation of what happens at the moment.
Lord Annan: I do not address the principle but the legal document before us by which these things will be possible. Is this punishment to be administered only by members of the staff or by the boys and girls themselves? Perhaps the only good thing that came out of the Public Schools Commission was its recommendation that the beating of boys by boys was something that schools should abolish. I am glad that many of them have done so. But under this amendment it is perfectly possible for a school to say that the prefects shall have power to beat the boys.
I remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, of what happened to a near-contemporary of his, Lord Clark. When Kenneth Clark boarded the school train at Waterloo as a new boy, unaware of any of the Winchester "notions", i.e. the rules about how boys should behave towards one another, he chatted away to a lot of the other boys. When he arrived he was summoned by the head of his house and told—I use the Wykehamist phrase—to "sport an arse" and he was
1492
soundly beaten. Of course, that disappeared from Winchester and enlightened public schools long ago. Nevertheless, in the terms of this amendment it is possible for that to happen.
In an amendment of this kind should we not make it perfectly clear who is entitled to administer corporal punishment to other pupils in the school? For example, referring to subsection (4), what form of corporal punishment does not involve inhuman and degrading treatment and contravene the pupil's convention rights? I should very much like to be enlightened on that point. Nearly all corporal punishment involves degrading treatment; indeed, that is one of its main purposes. I pose that question because I believe that in view of subsections (5)(d), (e) and (f) the court would be almost bound to conclude that the punishment was degrading.
There may be parents who still believe that to spare the rod spoils the child. In that respect I am very much on the side of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Wilberforce. I believe that parental rights should not be invaded. If they want to flog and beat their children—of course within the law—they are entitled to do so. But when one is considering a school the state has a right to interfere and to lay down exactly what should and should not be done. This practice should not be legalised.
It is often said that it never did anyone any harm, but can one number the autobiographies written in the past 40 to 50 years that have made perfectly plain that such a practice caused harm? It is also responsible for a good deal of perverse conduct. Some years ago I recall going up Wellington Road and observing among the graffiti the statement "Bring back the birch!" Underneath it some willing suppliant had written "Please!" This kind of conduct is encouraged by the continuation of beating in schools. I have no wish to interfere with the right of anyone who gets pleasure from being whipped or whipping another, but there is no doubt that from the poet Swinburne onwards what stimulates this in the first place is corporal punishment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: As so often when the noble Lord, Lord Annan, intervenes in an education debate, I am confirmed in my belief that there is no island so remote from the generality as King's College Cambridge. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, points out, this amendment does not legalise anything but merely prevents something that has gone on for a long time from being made illegal.
I return to the more central point. I am one of those noble Lords—not many—who took part in the debate when the noble Baroness, Lady David, managed to persuade this House to abolish corporal punishment in state schools. I said at the time that the results would be disastrous, and so it has proved. We have seen endless assaults by young hooligans and pupils—it is now fashionable to refer to them as students—upon their teachers. We have seen them backed up by parents who have assaulted teachers. We have removed a protection from the teaching profession and have not substituted anything else. Whether the current leaders of the teachers' unions take a different view is another matter.

1493
It goes further than that. We have seen a general reluctance in our society to check behaviour, however bad. One of the consequences of the success of the noble Baroness, Lady David, is the recent events in the streets of Marseilles. That is how the young English who have been freed from corporal punishment find it easy and profitable to behave. This is a fact.
We are told that corporal punishment does not happen in other countries. No doubt they have other forms of penalty. For instance, we have not devised appropriate penalties for parents who allow their children to play truant from school and when in school to obstruct the teaching of others. We have become a totally undisciplined society and it is beginning to make Britain look foolish in the eyes of the world. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady David, and even that absurd institution, the European Court of Human Rights, did not intend to bring that about, but they have done so. Although I believe that the question whether a few independent schools are or are not allowed to inflict corporal punishment is a relatively minor matter, the passing of this amendment will show that at least some Members of this House know what is going on and regret it.
Baroness David: I should like to make one response in regard to football hooligans. The fact is that in no other country in Europe is corporal punishment allowed in schools. They have had some trouble on the cricket pitches and in other places.
Lord Hardy of Wath: I do not wish to detain the Committee long, but it may be appropriate for me to make a few observations based on my long experience as a schoolmaster rather a long time ago. The boys I taught did not frequently go to Oxford or Cambridge. They attended schools which sometimes presented the teachers with severe challenges.
As the years passed, my experience of 17 years in education in a mining area led me to become less and less enthusiastic or supportive of the case for corporal punishment. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, has given examples of the sheer impracticality which surrounds the amendment. The noble Lord referred to the situation where two boys commit an offence and the parents of one say, "Yes, cane him", and the parents of the other say, "You cannot cane my son". Do you cane one and not the other?
Even worse, if a boy commits an offence at school and is caned, and another boy commits a similar offence the following week and his parents object to caning, is that boy caned? What does the Committee think will happen to relationships in schools if some boys are caned for one offence and others are not caned for committing a similar offence? What will be the relationship between boy and teacher, or boy and boy? It will be impossible to operate a school in an effective and fair manner without experiencing a quite corrosive effect on relationships.
I share the distaste, horror and abhorrence of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for the events in Marseilles. Perhaps we need more order in our society. It is a pity that the noble Lord did not offer those examples to the
1494
House over the past decade or more, and was less enthusiastic than he might have been about the new initiatives of Jack Straw which I think are already beginning to have an effect. It is an effect which this society needs after it has espoused greed and all its consequences for the past decade and a half.
One has to be practical about the law and the requirements of discipline. But we shall not beat children into good behaviour. We have to apply common sense; and I do not see much common sense in the amendments.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I have listened carefully to all the speeches. I do not understand any noble Lord to be arguing that it is in the nature of liberalism or libertarianism that children should be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by teachers in state or private schools. All Members of the Committee seem to agree that the universal human right proclaimed 50 years ago in the universal declaration, in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and subsequently defined in all the international human rights codes—that there should be no inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment—is one with which every Member of this House would agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, asked how it is the business of this House (or of another place, I suppose he would argue) to impose standards in the circumstances of the amendment. I shall try to answer him.
I have only two qualifications for making this speech. First, I inflicted corporal punishment as a prefect in a boys' school in front of a group of other prefects. I did so only once. It degraded me; it degraded the pupil; and it convinced me that corporal punishment is inherently degrading. But I would not seek to inflict that view on the population at large for obvious libertarian reasons, if that were all.
My only other qualification is that I argued one of the first corporal punishment cases. I should like briefly to recall what it was about. It answers the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who argued that the common law perfectly protects pupils in this country against inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. At least, I think that that is what he submitted, among other things.
Lord Wilberforce: Not "perfectly".
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: Certainly in the case of Karen it was far from perfect. The story of Karen could apply equally to any independent private school. She had been smoking outside the school premises. I think that she was 15. She was caned by a male deputy headmaster in the presence of another master. We took the case to Strasbourg and had no difficulty in showing that le vice anglais, as it is called by the rest of Europe—the vice that the English and Irish, unlike the rest of Europe, have enthusiastically and less enthusiastically indulged in for a long time—had led to her degrading punishment. As a result the government of the day had to settle the case. As we know, corporal punishment in state schools had eventually to be

1495
abolished by Parliament in order to comply with Article 3 of the human rights convention which forbids inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Meanwhile the steady evolution of the European court's case law—the court of which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, so disapproved but which has been so careful in gradually moving in this area—has made it clear that states have a positive obligation to protect children against inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, whether in state or private schools.
In the early cases there was concern about freedom of choice. In cases where parents did not want their children to be subjected to corporal punishment, the court said that it was an interference with their freedom of choice not to be able to protect their children. But then the court became stronger and said in some of its cases that there would be breach of the guarantee against ill treatment in Article 3 of the convention. I have little doubt that quite soon the court will hold that corporal punishment in any circumstances except those provided for in Clause 121 of the Bill, where one is dealing with imminent threats to the person or property, is inherently degrading and in breach of Article 3.
My difficulty about the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness is this. Although I know that it is not the noble Baroness's intention, I believe that the amendment would authorise breaches of Article 3 of the convention; or at best be so confusing as to make it difficult to know what the law was. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said that the amendment was agnostic. With respect, I do not think that that is right. It is not an agnostic amendment. It authorises corporal punishment in the circumstances set out in the amendment.
What is wrong with the provision in a nutshell is that it does not embody the criteria needed to guarantee against inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Perhaps I may explain. First, it does not refer to the nature and gravity of the pupil's misconduct. It does not refer to the proportionality of the punishment to the nature and gravity of the pupil's misconduct—a crucial principle being that the punishment must fit the crime. As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, pointed out, it does not refer to the gender or age of the pupil, and of the teacher inflicting the punishment. Under the amendment, it is perfectly possible to authorise Karen's example: a male teacher, perhaps in the presence of another male teacher, inflicting corporal punishment on a 15 year-old girl. And it assumes that corporal punishment is not inherently degrading. As I explained, I believe that it is; and I believe that the European Court will say so.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, asked how it is our business to give effect to international human rights guarantees to which we must give effect under international human rights law. What is the business of the state or the legislature in giving effect to those safeguards? The answer is, first, that there are universal human rights to which all civilised countries adhere and recognise, of which the prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is one of the most fundamental.
1496
Secondly, the state has a positive obligation to protect its citizens, especially its children, against ill treatment. That is not paternalism, it is not a breach of the John Stuart Mill principles, it is simply a recognition that the state has a responsibility to protect against the ill treatment of children.
Thirdly, it does not matter whether 66 per cent. of the British people are or are not in favour of corporal punishment in schools. It does not matter because, I suggest, basic human rights and their protection do not depend on the outcome of elections or the determination of majoritarian beliefs. Furthermore, if the democratic branch of the legislature by an overwhelming vote—that is, the elected representatives of the people—find it possible on a free vote in accordance with their consciences to disregard the beliefs of the majority, it does not behove us, the unelected part of the legislature, to disregard that massive vote in another place and make ourselves look somewhat older than we are and somewhat more outmoded and ridiculous than we would like to be.
I do not criticise the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment. To that extent, I respectfully disagree with my noble friend Lord Tope. The noble Baroness is perfectly entitled to table the amendment and we have had a healthy debate. However, I very much hope that she will not press it to a vote, but that if she does the answer will be the same as in another place.
6 p.m.
Lord Monson: I am glad to support my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. Clause 121, which was not in the Labour Party manifesto—and rightly so because it would have done it no good—is wholly illiberal in that it seeks to force progressive prejudices—or "trendy Leftist prejudices", to use a populist description—on those who in all sincerity and honesty take a different view. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will agree that we are not talking about inhuman treatment. No one advocates that. Nor are we talking about boys beating other boys, a practice which rightly disappeared a long time ago.
Why should not thoughtful and caring parents who want their children to receive fair but firm discipline—firmer than they would receive at a state school and which may involve in extremis corporal punishment administered by those in loco parentis (a point that has been forgotten all too often in the debate)—be allowed to continue to make that choice? We are not talking only about conventional public and prep schools, many of which have already abolished corporal punishment; we are talking also, for example, about private day schools with a strong religious influence catering largely for children of West Indian descent. As anyone with any knowledge of the Caribbean will confirm, discipline in schools in the English-speaking West Indies is as strict as it used to be in this country prior to the 1960s. Many West Indian parents know that their children thrive on such firm discipline and are prepared to make

1497
considerable financial sacrifices to ensure that their children benefit from it. Once again, in a free country the choice should be theirs.
Lord Walton of Detchant: In many respects, I find the debate extremely distressing. It is extraordinary that one should hear arguments supporting the retention of a degrading and demeaning form of punishment if only because it is thought by some that the application of corporal punishment has a deterrent effect. Surely, that can be the only justification for proposing that it be retained in any sector of our educational establishment. Over the years, a great deal of evidence has accumulated to the effect that, for instance, capital punishment has no deterrent effect in relation to violent crime. The same arguments have been adduced in relation to the deterrent effect of corporal punishment in schools.
Discipline can be introduced and maintained in schools without any suggestion of applying some demeaning treatment. It is a mechanism which breeds hostility and resentment. I recall my early school days in an elementary council school in Durham County of which my father was the head teacher. His senior assistant master caned every child in the class for failure to complete a mathematical programme. I confess that I deeply resented that and even now recall it with a sense of resentment.
It seems to me that we are looking at an anachronistic clause in a Bill which, if added to by the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will allow the retention in our society of a punishment which is no deterrent and which I believe was properly removed from the maintained school sector a considerable number of years ago.
I found it astonishing that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in talking about the desperately offensive and degrading behaviour of English fans in Marseilles, should suggest that corporal punishment would have prevented that. Surely, there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that punishment such as the restriction of liberty, the removal of passports and even a life long ban on attending football matches would be a much more effective deterrent than corporal punishment. I cannot believe that to treat those individuals with the birch, to which reference has already been made, would have had any effect other than to increase violence on their part and to breed increasing hostility. The delivery of a violent form of punishment will in my view breed violence in return. For that reason, I trust that the Committee will reject the amendment.
Lord Skidelsky: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend and so cogently and eloquently supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I found the arguments in support of the amendment much more convincing than the list of hypothetical cases put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. It seems to have fewer reference to contemporary circumstances than to those of his own childhood. Neither did I find convincing the list of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, of organisations which supported his view. I was not brought up to believe that trotting out a list of people who agree with one is an argument.
1498
Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, appears to be unable to distinguish between his right to hold his opinions and his right to enforce them on everyone else. That is the nub of our disagreement. We all repudiate the right of people to inflict barbarous and inhuman punishment on their own children. However, our opinions differ as to what constitutes barbarous and degrading punishment. We are arguing for the right of parents to inflict lawful punishment.
My argument is based passionately on my belief in liberty, on the absolute lexicographical priority of liberty; that is to say, that we do not trade-off liberty against certain other goods; that liberty is prior and must be upheld at all costs unless a clear harm is being done to others. That is John Stuart Mill's argument.
The question I wish to ask is: what is the difference in law between allowing parents to administer certain punishments in their own homes and delegating that right to others to administer them? What is the relevant difference? It seems to me that the logical consequence of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lester—and he admitted it—is that because there is no logical difference the law will be driven by steps to control the right of parents to administer punishments which they deem right in their own homes. In other words, the parental slap will sooner or later become a battery as far as the law is concerned.
What is the consequence of that? Children will be encouraged to report on their parents. Neighbours will be encouraged to report on what is going on next door, possibly by a special line to Esther Rantzen. We shall gradually creep into a position which we so deplored when it happened in the Soviet Union. It will be said that that is impossible; that it cannot happen in England. But it can happen because things which seem reasonable in themselves, if continued by small steps, can lead to a situation which no one would wish. That is why I emphasise the priority of liberty. Of course the Minister understands that argument. But does she believe in it?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: I am sure I must be right about this but in his argument about liberty, the noble Lord is not arguing, is he, that liberty justifies infringement of basic human rights and freedoms, including the ill treatment of children even by their own parents, any more than it justifies, for example, slavery or racial discrimination? He is not an absolutist about liberty. Does he then accept that if the international human rights codes forbid a certain level of punishment as being inhuman or degrading it is our obligation to make sure that we protect our children from the possibility that their basic rights will be infringed by institutions, whether state or independent, when those children are at school?
Lord Skidelsky: I believe that we have a right to make up our own minds as to what constitutes barbarous and inhuman treatment. No one is arguing on this side of the Committee that any kind of physical violence by parents or schools against children is justified. We are arguing for forms of punishment within the law. I do

1499
not believe that corporal punishment administered in the kind of environment specified in the amendment constitutes a violation of children's rights.
I conclude by saying that if Members of the Committee opposite believe in liberty, they should have no difficulty in accepting the amendment. It does not introduce any new principles or laws. It simply safeguards a liberty which exists. I do not believe that corporal punishment will have a long and glorious future. Most people already do not believe in it very much. I believe that it has its uses under exceptional and special circumstances and that the right to it should be retained.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I cannot support the amendment but I see difficulties and understand some of the thinking that prompted it. First, I am afraid that I warmly support the spanking of children by their parents, particularly when they are small. Very often, a spank and a kiss solves everything whereas cold-hearted treatment and reasoning leaves a much greater mark on a child. It is much better to administer a brisk spank and then to make up and say sorry. I believe in that, but I do not support what the amendment proposes to retain. However, I acknowledge the major difficulty raised by my noble friend Lord Beloff. I do not yet see what will be done to enable teachers to keep order now that they have lost a rather simple remedy when dealing with violent children.
I know an excellent Somerville graduate who became a teacher. She was the daughter of teachers and the only thing she wanted to do was to teach. She achieved a first in physics and I rejoiced to think that a good scientist would be teaching in our schools. After six years and three schools she gave up, because, as she told me, in each school she had encountered one hard core of children in a class—sometimes there could be more—who were not only determined not to learn but who were also determined to prevent others from learning. They were violent and impossible to control. In each case when she asked her headmaster what sanctions she had, she was told there were none. She was not allowed to send them home. In one case she was told, "Don't, for God's sake, do anything or we shall have the parents coming and beating us up." That situation is extremely dangerous and something must be done to solve it. It may be one reason for suggesting the retention of the power, but I cannot support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: It seems to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred to situations which do not relate to independent schools. First, staff in independent schools have the power of expulsion and therefore the situation is quite different from that which pertains in the cases to which the noble Baroness referred.
I support wholeheartedly what the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, said about discipline not necessarily having to be associated with corporal punishment. Indeed, it seems to me that corporal
1500
punishment is frequently the easy way out when one is talking of discipline. There are other ways of disciplining which are far more effective. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, talked about discipline within a caring ethos. There are ways of disciplining within a caring ethos which are far more demanding both for those who administer the discipline and for those who receive it.
Earlier, there was mention of the association between corporal discipline and religion. I found that rather difficult to follow. I am not clear quite what forms of religion were being referred to. Certainly, the religious tradition in which I stand goes back to the gospels. I should find it difficult to find in the gospels any mention of corporal punishment. In the gospels there is a strong sense of discipline and I should point out that the word "discipline" is related to the word "disciple". A disciple is one who learns and discipline is to enable us to learn. But it is difficult to find in my religious tradition the notion of corporal punishment.
I always understood the phrase in loco parentis to mean those who took over responsibility and care of children, not that those who took over that particular role could do whatever parents do. It seems to me that there is a distinction between what institutions do and what a parent does. Again, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said. There is an immediacy about parental involvement, held as it is within a strong framework of affection which is different from discipline administered by an institution.
Finally, I make the point that many people these days choose to send their children to Church schools because they believe that in such schools there is precisely that strong, firm discipline within a caring ethos. But within Church schools, certainly those in the maintained sector, corporal punishment is not allowed.
Lord Milverton: I am afraid that I cannot support my noble friend's amendment. Perhaps my wife and I have been fortunate. We never wanted to smack. We never found it necessary and we never wanted to do it. To me, it seems senseless and pointless just as it seems to me to be pointless to have caning in some schools. I was caned. Why? Just because one had a half-cross mark for some misdemeanour. If one reached four crosses, one knew that meant the cane. One was caned by a sixth former, with the rest of the sixth form watching. Although it was meant to be hush-hush in the house, everybody knew that it would happen after prayers. One went to one's study and knew that there would be knock, knock, knock, and one would be told to go along to the library to receive one's punishment. It seems pointless.
In all this, surely discipline comes from winning respect. One knows that it is dashed hard for teachers in many state schools. Is one of the reasons for nuisance children who prevent others from learning that their parents have not been able to win their children's respect, or that those children have not seen their parents give respect to others? Surely the core of discipline is respect, not only towards others but towards oneself.

1501
Children will respect adults who respect them. That is how it must be done. That is a hard task. At the school where my wife teaches, Marlborough College, a girl from a state school is attending for her sixth form years. She and her sister found it dashed hard to learn at the state school because it was made hard for them to do so. The staff were, in a sense, tired out by doing what they had to do. It was difficult for those girls to get the staff to help them. All credit to that girl's sister: she got through it and went to university. Discipline comes from respect between all.
Baroness Warnock: I hope that this debate will turn out satisfactorily for me. I hope that we shall not be high on the concept of liberty—that we are depriving people of their liberty by refusing to continue to permit corporal punishment in independent schools. It is clear that we are divided morally—that is, whether we think corporal punishment is right or wrong is a moral question. There is also a tremendous amount of evidence in schools that violence breeds violence. The best schools are those where corporal punishment has not for a long time been used even if it is permitted.
There is a huge difference between passing and enforcing a law that is intrusive and would in any case be difficult to enforce—such as one making it illegal to exercise corporal punishment in the home. The concept of corporal punishment in an institution, be it a private school or maintained school, is ultimately under the eye of the law. What happens there can be discovered without undue intrusiveness or spying. It is one of those frequent cases where, for example, one might wish for a law against adultery but to have such a law would be obviously and hopelessly intrusive. The evils that came from such a law would be far worse than any good that could come of it. One must always take into account the difference between private morality and public morality. We are undoubtedly debating what is public morality.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, knows, I am not much enamoured of the concept of human rights but, where we are prepared to talk about human rights, we are talking about a consensus of what is evil and bad for human beings in general. If we must talk about human rights, there is a consensus—as demonstrated in another place, against corporal punishment. We would be utterly wrong to go against that consensus—although we are all perfectly entitled to express our own moral opinions.
Lord Skidelsky: If the noble Baroness believes that corporal punishment, however humanely administered or however loving the environment, harms the child, how can she say that such punishment can be justified at home but not at school—especially at private school?
Baroness Warnock: I do not believe that corporal punishment is justified in the home. I was merely saying that it would be extremely contrary to the general public good to have a law against it, because that would be too intrusive. Respect for privacy would tell against such a law. I would not say that corporal punishment is justified in the home. On the contrary. We are in a
1502
position to prevent corporal punishment in schools. We are probably not in a position to prevent corporal punishment in the home. It is not that corporal punishment is good in one case and bad in the other. It is bad in all cases. In my view, modern morality must be taught largely by example. The exercise of violence is no way to encourage inner discipline and goodness. I certainly do not think that by law there should be the freedom to commit that kind of harm on a child.
Lord Gisborough: I apologise to the Committee for rising to speak, having just come in. I had a public duty in the North and I have just arrived.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Meston: I want the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to amplify her remark that many schools want the exemption that she advocates in her amendment. Just how many private independent schools want exemption? What proportion of the private independent educational sector supports the noble Baroness? I understood my noble friend, Lord Tope, to say that level of support has not been reflected in the representative body of private independent schools.
I spend much of my professional life involved in cases concerning the physical abuse of children. That abuse is often inflicted in the home, by a parent or step-parent. They are people who, with the best will in the world, do not know where to draw the line, then seek to justify their actions after the event by saying that they were exercising reasonable chastisement—sometimes, with quite dreadful results.
Of course there is a distinction to be drawn between what happens and can be regulated in the home and what can happen in a school. The common theme is that violence begets violence and does so from one generation to another. Quite the wrong message will go out from this Committee if we support the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: Debates on corporal punishment always demonstrate a very wide range of personal views, most of them irreconcilable. This debate is no exception. It would be quite wrong for me to try to respond to the debate or indeed in any way to sum it up. As I said earlier, this is a matter for a free vote. All I want to do is make a few brief points where I understand that the factual position may not be entirely clear.
It is perhaps worth noting that very few independent schools still use corporal punishment and that there was broad support from the independent schools associations for the intent of Clause 121. Moreover, I should also like to mention that there is continuing international criticism of the UK's seemingly inconsistent position: both the UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended in 1995 that corporal punishment in independent schools should be outlawed completely.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has called for the restoration of corporal punishment following its abolition in another place on a free vote. As Her

1503
Majesty's Chief Inspector has reported, we should remember that most schools are orderly communities, although there were one or two purple passages in this debate which suggested otherwise. Where there are serious problems of indiscipline, Section 4 of the Education Act 1997, which comes into force on 1st September of this year, will allow teachers to use "reasonable force" to restrain a pupil from doing certain things; for example, committing an offence, causing personal injury to himself and others, or causing serious disruption. It is also the case that there are powers for schools to exclude extremely difficult and disruptive pupils. In the independent sector, which we are discussing today, there are powers, as has already been mentioned, to expel pupils.
Most teachers do not believe that corporal punishment is the answer or that it would have any practical impact on enforcing discipline or maintaining high standards of behaviour. There have been no demands from school governors or the teacher associations to restore corporal punishment in maintained schools since the amendment was passed in another place. Noble Lords will also recall that attempts during the last Parliament to do so were also soundly defeated on a free vote.
Under this clause a member of staff at a school or a nursery education institution would no longer be able to rely in any type of criminal proceedings—for example, a prosecution for assault—on the common law defence of "reasonable chastisement" to justify the use of corporal punishment. This would affect maintained as well as independent schools.
The provision as it affects nursery education is very tightly drawn: it would not extend to institutions, groups or premises (such as private homes) where only childcare services are provided, or to parents who teach their children at home. I am advised that these are outside the scope of the Bill.
I should like to reiterate what my honourable friend Estelle Morris said in another place. The Government have no intention of using the new clause or any other provision to extend the ban on corporal punishment into the family setting. If I understood the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, correctly, she seemed to imply that the Government would seek such a ban at some point. It is the personal responsibility of parents to decide for themselves what disciplinary arrangements are appropriate for their child at home. As the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, said, it would be extremely intrusive to try to impose a ban on corporal punishment in the home.
It has also been argued that Clause 121 would contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. I understand that similar arguments were used in a case brought against Sweden in 1982, which prohibited corporal punishment in all its schools. The case failed. The European Court of Human Rights has on several occasions made it absolutely clear that it is against corporal punishment in schools. I have received legal advice to the effect that the European Court would therefore be most unlikely to uphold any argument that
1504
the new clause would violate the rights of parents, under Article 2 of Protocol 1, who wanted to send their child to a school where corporal punishment was used.
I shall simply end by saying that I personally support this clause and oppose the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to pick up one of the points made by the Minister about the department's view on punishment. There is much concern among teachers about unruly behaviour in schools and actual damage done to teaching staff. Indeed, one only has to remember the awful death of Mr. Lawrence, because we understand that the young people involved were of school age. In only February of this year the Department for Education and Employment felt compelled to issue draft guidance permitting schools,
"in the most exceptional circumstances"—
and we are talking about in extremis—
"to use force in a way that might reasonably be expected to cause injury".
Examples were given in that respect, such as: holding a pupil around the neck by the collar or in any other way that might restrict the pupil's ability to breathe; slapping, punching or kicking a pupil; twisting or forcing limbs against a joint; tripping up a pupil and holding or pulling a pupil by the hair. I understand those are very exceptional circumstances. They are situations where teachers have to intervene in what might be an extreme fight and where someone is in danger of being seriously hurt. I understand the context in which those examples were outlined; nevertheless, they do constitute a form of corporal punishment.
In answer to many points that have been made by Members of the Committee during the course of the debate, I should point out that the Department of Health issued guidance to independent schools following the abolition of corporal punishment in state schools. I shall read from the document because it is important and will answer a number of points that have been raised. I shall quote from paragraphs 391 to 395 of the Children Act Guidance, Volume 5, for independent schools:
"In normal circumstances children should be encouraged to behave well by the frequent expression of approval by staff and by the generous use of awards rather than by the extensive imposition of sanctions. The latter might reasonably include: temporary removal of privileges. mild or moderate verbal reprimand, additional household chores and restriction of leisure activities. Sanctions which are unproductive, eg writing out of lines, or which involve the use of educational activities, such as essay-writing, should be avoided as a means of punishment. If in exceptional circumstances it is decided to use corporal punishment, it should not be unreasonable (for trivial offences or applied indiscriminately to whole classes) or excessive. In all circumstances punishments and sanctions need to be applied fairly and consistently, making the distinction between minor and serious offences clear, yet at the same time allowing a degree of flexibility for individual circumstances.
"In deciding how these criteria are to be applied some allowance needs to be made for the cultural ethos and declared policy of the school. Corporal punishment is widely regarded as particularly inappropriate for children with sensory, physical and intellectual impairment and those with emotional and behavioural difficulties. Details of corporal punishment—date, nature of offence, nature of punishment—should be recorded in the punishment book and the record witnessed by another adult. In normal circumstances corporal

1505
punishment should only be administered by the head teacher. The imposition of sanctions (but not corporal punishment) by prefects or teachers is permissible".
In other words, to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, no one other than the head teacher can administer corporal punishment but other sanctions can be administered by teachers or prefects, including the minor sanctions to which I have already referred. The document goes on to say:
"Sanctions administered or imposed should be recorded stating clearly the nature of the transgression and the nature of the sanction, and be subject to monitoring by a senior member of staff who is concerned with care of children within the school. The record should be available to parents".
That is the end of the quotation from the guidance document. Independent schools are bound by that. That is the guidance to independent schools. All those who have written to me have argued strongly that they are entirely happy to live within the guidance of our health department.
The schools are also subject to external inspection. The records and the regime of the school are made available for inspectors to make a judgment on that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that I am not in any way supporting something comparable to the abuse of children in the home. Many of the letters I have received state movingly that abolishing corporal punishment in schools will not lessen the incidence of abuse in the home, which we all certainly abhor.
I refer to the point on the European Convention on Human Rights mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. I defer to his expertise in these matters. In the Costello-Roberts v. United Kingdom case the court stressed that,
"in order for punishment to be 'degrading' and in breach of Article 3, the humiliation and debasement involved must attain a particular level of severity and must in any event be other than that usual element of humiliation inherent in any punishment. Indeed, Article 3, by expressly prohibiting 'inhuman' and 'degrading' punishment, implies that there is a distinction between such punishment and punishment more generally".
In the case of Costello-Roberts, the court expressed,
"'certain misgivings about the automatic nature of the punishment and the three-day wait before its imposition', but still considered that the minimum level of severity had not been reached".
We are not talking about excessive severity. We are talking about legal punishment. I wish to quote extracts from letters I have received,
"I write as a former parent of a Christian Independent School where I now teach. Never have I taught in a school where there was more loving concern for the whole child.
When our child was admitted to the school we gave our written consent, giving the school the authority to exercise corporal discipline if it should be deemed necessary. We love our daughter dearly and we felt confident in the staff being just, loving and merciful, and knew that this type of discipline was only used in cases of persistent disobedience or the breaking of the moral code.
I am glad to say that this type of discipline was never necessary, but I have seen the positive effects of corporal discipline being used. When children choose to cross boundaries set they, like all of us, need to know there is a cost. In our school (very much as it is at home) when the punishment is over the slate is wiped clean and the children have a fresh start. They know they are loved and their value as human beings is undiminished. We trust that they have learned from the episode".
1506
Another letter states,
"Having taught in state schools I was (and am) concerned over the unruly behaviour of some pupils and the erosion of options open to a teacher for disciplining such unacceptable behaviour".
Another letter states,
"While not wishing to denigrate the importance of ensuring that children are not subject to abuse or put at risk we believe it is important to respect the religious convictions of parents who consider that under certain circumstances and after careful consideration, it may be necessary for a school to apply corporal discipline … The ethos of a school should be an extension of the discipline used in the home where corporal discipline is based on the guiding principles of love and correction. If the amendment is carried, it opens the way for further legislation against any parent using corporal discipline in the home".
Yet another letter states,
"As a parent I feel this is an infringement on my belief and rights as a parent on how I feel my child should be brought up. The lack of discipline in schools in general is alarming and it is evident for all to see the decline of behaviour since 1986, when corporal punishment was outlawed in maintained schools.
My son is now 16 years and has benefited greatly from standards and boundaries being set which then had a punishment appropriate that was carried out if he did not stay within the limits set. This was always done in a loving environment not when a teacher was enraged and lashed out, always with the parents' support.
I feel this is the thin end of the wedge. Next … the home. All of these rules will make no difference to the child battering parents—"
I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston—
"I feel these are two completely different issues.
I feel as a parent my need for 'respect of my rights to ensure education and teaching in conformity with my own religious and philosophical convictions' as the European Convention on Human Rights allows".
We are not talking here about inhuman and degrading treatment; that is ruled out by the European Convention on Human Rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, criticised me for tabling this amendment at the last minute. However, it was tabled on Thursday. If one compares that with the tail end stages of the Bill in another place discussed at 5 o'clock in the morning, I think I probably win as regards having a fuller Chamber to debate this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, asked me about my preference in terms of punishment. Even if I were against corporal punishment, I would support this amendment. I have no preference. I do not wish to choose between a tawse and something else. In fact I think a tawse would be totally outlawed under the present law. I support the right of parents to choose independent education and to choose within the law a punishment regime that they believe is right for their child.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, made clear, this amendment is not about the merits or demerits of corporal punishment. It is about defending the right of parents to send their children to a school that in extremis applies corporal punishment fairly and within the limits of the European Convention on Human Rights, if that is what they choose.
6.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 246FA) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Not-Contents, 150.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lyell, L.

Beloff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Bowness, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Monson, L.

Byford, B.

Mountevans, L.

Cadman, L.

Norrie, L.

Caithness, E.

Northesk, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Carnock, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Coleraine, L.

Palmer, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cross, V.

Pike, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Reay, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rennell, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rowallan, L.

Gray, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Greenway, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller.]

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sharples, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Hooper, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Skidelsky, L. [Teller.]

Kitchener, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Leigh, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lindsay, E.

Teviot, L.

Liverpool, E.

Wilberforce, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wilcox, B.

Luke, L.

Wise, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Eatwell, L.

Addington, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Amos, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ampthill, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Annan, L.

Falkland, V.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gallacher, L.

Barnett, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Berners, B.

Geraint, L.

Birdwood, L.

Gilbert, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Blease, L.

Glenamara, L.

Borrie, L.

Goodhart, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Burlison, L.

Gregson, L.

Carlisle, E.

Grenfell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hampton, L.

Carter, L.

Hamwee, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hanworth, V.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hardie, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Haskel, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hattersley, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hayman, B.

Dearing, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L. [Teller.]

Desai, L.

Diamond, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Dixon, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Donoughue, L.

Hollick, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

1508

Hoyle, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hughes, L.

Puttnam, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Randall of St Budeaux, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Redesdale, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Islwyn, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Jeger, B.

Ripon, Bp.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Judd, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Kennet, L.

Russell, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Lawrence, L.

Sandberg, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sandwich, E.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lockwood, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Serota, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Sewel, L.

Ludford, B.

Shepherd, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Simon, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

McNair, L.

Southwell, Bp.

McNally, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Meston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taverne, L.

Milverton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Molloy, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Monkswell, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Tope, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Tordoff, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Newby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Nicol, B.

Wakefield, Bp.

Orme, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Parry, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Paul, L.

Warnock, B.

Peston, L.

Weatherill, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Whitty, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.55 p.m.
[Amendment No. 246FB not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 121 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Wilberforce: I have already made my submissions. I do not wish to trouble the Committee with any further observations.
Clause 121 agreed to.
Clauses 122 to 125 agreed to.
Schedule 28 agreed to.
Clause 126 agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 246G:
After Clause 126, insert the following new clause—

EDUCATION TRANSFER COUNCIL: ALTERATION OF FUNCTIONS AND PROVISION FOR DISSOLUTION
(" .—(1) Schedule (Amendments relating to functions of Education Transfer Council) (which amends section 198 of, and Schedule 10 to, the Education Reform Act 1988, which relate to the functions of the Education Transfer Council) shall have effect.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order make such further amendments of those provisions of that Act as he considers expedient.
(3) Regulations may make provision—

(a) for the dissolution of the Education Transfer Council by order of the Secretary of State and for enabling him to determine how any property, rights and liabilities of the Council are to be dealt with in connection with their dissolution;

(b) for the subsequent establishment of a new body with such name as may be prescribed and constituted in the same manner as, or similarly to, the Council:

(c) for dealing with transfers of property, rights and liabilities under this Act or under the Education Reform Act 1988 at a time when the Council has been dissolved and either—

(i) a body has been subsequently established under paragraph (b), or

(ii) no such body has been so established.

(4) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in connection with any matters falling within paragraph (b) or (c) of that subsection—

(a) modify any of the provisions of section 197 or 198 of, or Schedule 8 or 10 to, the Education Reform Act 1988;

(b) apply any of those provisions with or without modifications;

(c) make provision corresponding or similar to any of those provisions.").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 257AA and 257AC, 258P and 258S.
These amendments relate to the functions of the Education Transfer Council, which will take over from the Education Assets Board. They are mainly technical and seek to apply the existing transfer provisions in Section 198 of, and Schedule 10 to, the 1988 Act to those transfers that may be necessary under the new framework. Those sections set out the functions of the Education Assets Board (EAB), which is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the department and is responsible for effecting those transfers of property, rights and liabilities required under the 1988 Act. The EAB will be renamed the Education Transfer Council under Clause 126 of this Bill and will have responsibility for effecting those transfers of land required under the new framework.
Amendment No. 246G will also enable the Secretary of State to make such amendments to the transfer provisions as he considers appropriate. If, for example, he were persuaded at a later date that the transfer provisions should be amended, then he could do so. However, in those circumstances I assure the Committee that he would consult fully.
Schedule 10 to the 1988 Act deals with the ownership of shared property. The new schedule introduces those amendments necessary to apply the provisions of Schedule 10 to the 1988 Act to those transfers required under this Bill.
At present the EAB acts on behalf of the transferee (for example, a GM school) but we envisage that under the new framework the Education Transfer Council should in most cases have a more neutral role. Its duties would be to assist all parties in their negotiations. The one exception is where the transferor is an LEA and the transferee is a foundation school. In such cases the ETC
1510
will continue to act on behalf of the school. This amendment also changes the way in which transfer disputes are resolved.
Under provisions contained in Schedule 8 to the 1988 Act, the Secretary of State may determine the pension arrangements and remuneration payable to staff and members of the Education Transfer Council. The Treasury has indicated that such decisions should be delegated to departments, and Amendments Nos. 257AC and 258P formalise that arrangement.
The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 contains a number of references that will have to be repealed because they will no longer be needed when the Bill becomes law. They are mainly references to grant-maintained schools.
This is a fairly straightforward set of amendments to deal with the new framework. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 127 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 246B and 246C:
Page 96, line 16, leave out ("48(4),").
Page 96, line 18, after ("3(5)") insert ("or 4").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 246D:
Page 96, line 19, leave out ("or paragraph 4(2)") and insert (", paragraph 4(2) or 7(3)(c)").
The noble Lord said: This amendment forms part of a whole batch of 30 amendments and in moving this amendment I will speak to the others in this group. Of the 30 amendments, only three amend substantive clauses. Amendment No. 246D refers to Clause 127, Amendment No. 257R refers to Clause 131 and Amendment No. 257Z refers to Clause 133. The remaining amendments are minor and consequential upon other amendments or to existing legislation. I have provided to the two Front Benches a full and detailed letter, explaining these clauses. I hesitate to risk this procedure, but in view of that fairly full explanation and in the temporary, no doubt, absence of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I suggest, subject to any questions there may be, that, since the two Front Benches are fairly well informed about these proposals, I should move this amendment without further details, full details having been provided. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: A good try! First of all, I should like to say that had it not been for the pressure that we put on the Government earlier during the passage of this Bill, we would not even have these explanatory notes. For earlier amendments, which came in prolific numbers at the beginning stages, we received no technical notes. The first we knew of what they were about was on the Floor of the Committee and it was only as a result of pressure that we have now received them. I received these this morning and I have had some difficulty in going through the notes and understanding them. I am afraid that, although they are full, they are not quite full enough for my purposes and I have a number of questions.

1511
I have to say to the noble Lord that, although this Bill has been through all the procedures of the House of Commons and is now at the end of the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, we are receiving masses of amendments. I believe that the Liberal Democrats have already made a tally of the number of amendments that have come through—and these are not amendments which have arisen in response to concerns that have been voiced during the course of our deliberations on the Bill. Many of them constitute a rewriting of the Bill and actually putting it right as we go along. One wonders just when this is going to end. Are we going to end up at Report stage with more batches of amendments which alter main schedules or add schedules and alter the technicalities of the Bill? Most of the amendments represent omissions, because this Bill was badly drafted when it was submitted in another place, but how it is that the department has waited until this late stage of the Bill to present so many technical amendments to your Lordships is difficult to understand. I do think we should have an explanation from the Minister.
On Amendment No. 246D, why will the order not be a statutory instrument? On Amendment No. 255D, the explanatory note says that some provisions listed in Schedule 30 will be repealed. I would ask: which of them will be repealed? On Amendment No. 257Z, the noble Lord said that the amendment provides for regulations to be made enabling governing bodies to reconstitute in advance of the appointed day and prepare for the new framework and that there will be consultations. Again, may I ask: when?
I have a query about Amendments Nos. 257AE and 258R. There appears to be no mention of Catholic or other denominational schools. I just wonder if that is an oversight or if there is a technical reason why this should be so.
On Section 25 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, under Amendment No. 257AF, I understand this to be a section which concerns the transfer of property rights. I simply want to ask about Sections 25 and 26 in relation to the reorganisation of schools in response to a successful ballot to take all grammar schools out of an LEA where perhaps there are a very large number which will require reorganisation. I do not know how this will inter-relate. Interestingly, the amendment talks about movements from the school sector into the further education sector. I would ask: in what situation could that be so? Are we saying that a grammar school could be closed and opened up as a further education college or part of one. If so, we are talking about a very different form of reorganisation from the rather mild form of reorganisation which the noble Baroness hinted at when we talked about grant-maintained schools on a previous occasion.
Section 28(2)(a) refers to options. Why is it intended that the options designated should not be open to former county or community schools which are now part of a group of schools for which a foundation acts under Clause 21 of the Bill? On Section 37, again I understand that this concerns the attribution of surpluses and deficits and applies to institutions entering the FE sector.
1512
Again we are talking about movement into the FE sector by institutions which are maintained by an LEA or designated assisted institutions dependent on assistance from a local education authority. How will surpluses and deficits be attributed or allocated?
Section 44 relates to provision for collective worship in further education colleges. Where a grant-maintained school or a grammar school is part of a reorganisation, how is the religious ethos in a grant-maintained school which will become a foundation school, or indeed a voluntary aided school, to be protected if it becomes part of a further education institution? Presumably it will now jump to becoming a further education college which does not have a religious ethos. It is almost inconceivable that a school could become a further education college in itself and so the likelihood is that it would become an adjunct to another one—but, again, what about the protection of the religious ethos?
Turning to Section 58 and seeing how that dovetails with reorganisation plans, this is the one that deals with the reorganisation of schools needed as a result of some local authority land being transferred to or possibly shared with a further education corporation. Again the whole point about reorganisations comes into that. Amendments Nos. 257AG and 258F, together with Amendment No. 258T, will remove the references to instruments and articles of government contained in the Education Act 1994. May I ask: why are these being removed?
Turning to Amendments Nos. 257AH and 257AJ, I should like to have some clarification here. The amendments relate to Section 324(5) of the Education Act 1996, which provides that if a maintained school is named in a child's statement of special educational needs the governing body of the school must admit the child. This, as I understand it, is about the class size pledge. Where that happens, it means that a school that already has 30 children in a class will be forced to take a child who is statemented, and that will add a considerable burden to the load of the teacher in the classroom, given that teachers who have in a class 30 children who do not have special needs, or at least the sort of special needs which will be subject to a statement, are deemed to have too many children in that class. I should like some clarification that resources, in that eventuality, are guaranteed to the school that would be forced to take such a child.
My final point concerns Amendment No. 259E, which refers to the last paragraph, which states that there will not be provision for interest which is accrued on the proceeds of sale to be included in the compensation. Why?
Lord Whitty: I was about to say that I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for raising these issues, but I do not think she would believe me! The noble Baroness was referring to sections in the schedule, where it is quite difficult to relate to the different amendments, but I shall do my best. She raised, on Amendment No. 246D, the question as to why the order will not be a statutory instrument. Such an order will be of particularly limited interest and we have had no recommendations from the delegated powers scrutiny

1513
committee or anyone else on this issue. We do not consider that it would require the statutory instrument procedure.
On Amendment No. 255D, relating to the repeal of provisions because they have been spent, they will only become spent when they have accomplished the purpose for which they were enacted. The amendments relate to a number of the clauses. I take the point the noble Baroness made.
Baroness Blatch: My question on the amendment was, which provisions?
Lord Whitty: On that clause, they relate to enactments on frameworks under the Education Reform Act 1988 and other legislation which no longer relates to the framework under this Act. A number of other amendments relate to spent amendments. I can go through them if the noble Baroness wishes. Perhaps I may take them together with the other issues she raised.
The spent amendments are as follows. Amendments Nos. 258M and 258N relate to the local government Acts and deal with the Inner London Education Authority, which is clearly no longer with us. Amendment No. 259J is consequential on other changes. Amendment No. 259K is relevant to the point in respect of spent Acts. The 1966 Act contains transitional arrangements which are deleted. Lastly, Amendment No. 259N relates to the Audit Commission Act, whose provisions are changed by the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Baroness asked why we did not come forward with these amendments or better drafting earlier. However, they are all clearly redundant provisions.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord refers to amendments which I have not raised. The ones I raised are quite clear. I gave the numbers of the amendments but so far I have raised no query at all on three of those to which the noble Lord spoke.
Lord Whitty: No doubt I should be grateful for that. The noble Baroness referred to spent amendments, spent provisions and spent enactments. She started with Amendment No. 255D. She has in fact received information for which she did not ask, and I shall check whether I have covered Amendment No. 255D in my remarks and come back to her in writing, if I may.
The noble Baroness mentioned Amendment No. 257Z, which relates to the governing bodies being able to be reconstituted in advance of the appointed day. We would wish to consult further on precisely when such a body could be reconstituted. It obviously relates to the point where the new framework comes into effect and further consultation is required as to precisely how that will be done.
As regards Amendment No. 259E, the noble Baroness asked about interest where transfers were made, and it would not be to the benefit of schools if we were to include the interest where transfers were made under the education Act 1996 rather than this Bill. She also mentioned Amendments Nos. 257AE and 258R, which
1514
relate to Church of England schools. She asked why they did not apply also to Catholic schools. The amendments relate to the Diocesan Board of Education Measure 1991 which does not apply to Catholic schools, only to Church of England schools. They have been brought into line to accord with the provisions of the Bill and have been agreed with the Church of England Board of Education.
Amendments Nos. 257AG and 257AF relate to the removal of the instruments and articles of government which we dealt with a few days ago. As articles are being dispensed with, the reference to those instruments will no longer be relevant because they will not contain the relevant information.
Amendments Nos. 257AH and 257AJ relate to the SEN provisions and raise questions of class size, which we dealt with at an earlier stage of the Committee. The question was whether it related to children without statements. The answer is no, not in this provision. We have indicated that provisions for a child with a statement would override the other provisions relating to class size.
As regards funding, we indicated at earlier stages in Committee that funding would meet those provisions. If the noble Baroness requires more detail of that commitment, no doubt we can provide it in writing. That is the principle.
As to the whole question of the FE sector, the noble Baroness went into details, referring to schedules, which I could not entirely follow. Again, it would be better if we dealt with the implications for the FE sector. Amendment No. 257F and other amendments were covered in the noble Baroness's remarks. There are other provisions where I did not fully follow the questions because they related to sections rather than amendments. I need to provide her with more information which we can return to at Report Stage, if she wishes. I hope that I have covered at least some of her queries.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I do not find it at all satisfactory. It was almost impossible to follow some of the noble Lord's answers. When I referred to spent provisions, I referred only to one amendment put down by the noble Lord, Amendment No. 255D, and some of the provisions listed in Schedule 30. I asked which provisions. The noble Lord misunderstood my question on Amendment No. 257Z. I did not want the answer that he would consult on the content of such regulations. I know that because it is stated in the note. I asked when the Government would consult on the regulations. That was my question.
I thank the Minister for his answer on Church of England schools and Catholic schools. On FE, he gave me no answer. He said that, yes, there was an FE sector and perhaps we would deal with it another time. But he did not answer my question as to how the provisions relate to the provisions on the grammar school sector where there may be re-organisations. Nor did he say why it is intended that the option of designation should not be open to former county or community schools or

1515
how services and deficits would be attributed in Section 37 and whether the religious ethos of a school would be protected in the event of re-organisation where a school was closed and became part of an FE college. That was not referred to, nor was Section 58. The noble Lord has not answered all my questions to my satisfaction.
Lord Whitty: In terms of the consultation in relation to Amendment No. 257Z and the reconstitution of the governing bodies, I can indicate that the consultation will be engaged in during the coming months. As for further education, in general it would be helpful for me to provide further information on the FE interface. The reason for the reference to further education is that the Further and Higher Education Act contains references which will be overtaken by the new framework. Most of the amendments relating to FE are therefore consequential.
On Amendment No. 255D, I may have indirectly answered the question by going on to the other amendments which relate to spent enactments. I am informed that those specifically covered by Amendment No. 255D are Section 31 of the London Government Act 1963 and Sections 166 and 167 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It would be sensible for me to deal with any other queries at this stage in writing and perhaps clarify some of the answers I have given so that the noble Baroness can be clear whether or not she needs to come back on any of these matters at Report stage.
Baroness Blatch: I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will write to me. However, it makes my point that to bring forward this number of technical amendments with only an explanatory note is not acceptable. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Tope, received such a note. It is difficult to follow and hard work to look up each clause of the Bill to see exactly what is going on and then be expected to accept a block of 30 amendments which range right across the Bill.
It is difficult to understand the explanations given. I do not blame the noble Lord; he is probably having as much difficulty as I am understanding the amendments. I should like to think that some of them could be held over until Report stage pending the explanatory letter from the noble Lord. The noble Lord was kind enough to do that in relation to the previous block of amendments which we found difficult to understand.
Lord Whitty: This is a different situation. The noble Baroness on the Front Bench opposite received no information on the first block and I therefore withdrew the amendments to return at Report stage. With these amendments, as with some intervening amendments, we have attempted to explain them. The vast majority deal with issues which relate to transfers of property and land; they do not deal with any point of educational substance. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to accept that we shall try to clarify the amendments further between now and Report stage, but at this stage perhaps
1516
the noble Baroness will accept them. I take the general admonition of the noble Baroness that it is a large number of amendments, but they relate to detailed consequential areas and not to the main points of substance of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry to come back on the FE amendments. One of my questions was how Sections 25 and 26 interact with the reorganisation proposals, particularly in the light of some of the changes that will come about as a result of the Bill? In Section 28(2)(a), why is it intended that the option for designation should not be open to former county or community schools? They are now part of the group of schools for which a foundation acts under Clause 21 of the Bill. In relation to Section 37, how will surpluses and deficits be attributed? In Section 44, how will the religious ethos of a school be protected? The school may be closed and taken into an extension of a further education college. As I said earlier, it is inconceivable that a school could be closed and become a further education college. But it is helpful to know that the protection is there.
If I am wrong, fine. However, the noble Lord is not even attempting in a cursory way to answer those questions. My final question concerns Section 58 and the way in which that section interacts with the reorganisation proposals.
Lord Whitty: These amendments relate solely to the areas that I described. Clearly, they are consequent upon changing the framework of the schools. There are some implications for FE. I am happy to provide further explanation. The whole question of the religious ethos of the schools was dealt with under earlier amendments. It is clear that the religious ethos of schools will be protected and the possibility of a religious school being absorbed, as a result of these provisions, into an FE institution is extraordinarily unlikely. However, in earlier amendments—I recall the exchanges but cannot immediately point to the precise clause—provision was made for the religious ethos to be protected by the Bill.
In relation to options on designation, in that sense designation has never been available to county or voluntary controlled schools. The amendments do not make any substantive change to the situation.
Lord Tope: I had not intended to intervene on this batch of amendments and I am not particularly keen to do so now. But this situation is unsatisfactory. We have a large batch of amendments from the Government. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, says; that is, that they are technical. We received nine pages of explanation this morning. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is rather more diligent than I am; I have not had time to go through and understand them all. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is asking a lot of questions about them but I am in no position to judge the merit or otherwise of her questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is clearly struggling to answer the noble Baroness. I say that by way of statement and not criticism. I understand why he is struggling; I would be. But I do not understand why, in all the circumstances, the Government feel that they

1517
cannot defer the amendments until Report stage when even I might have had a chance to understand them. The noble Baroness may well have received answers that satisfy her and at that stage the Minister will have had a better chance to understand them. Why cannot the Government agree to that?
Lord Whitty: I understand why the Opposition Benches are concerned at this number of amendments. However, I can assure Members of the Committee that none of them raises the kind of anxieties which lie behind the questions of the noble Baroness. I offered to provide further information to give further reassurance between now and Report stage.
At Report stage we should be dealing with the central issues of the Bill. I do not believe that there will be sufficient additional information on the content of these amendments to erase anxieties among Members of the Committee. When there was no written information available earlier to noble Lords, it was sensible for me to withdraw my amendments and suggest that we come back to them at Report stage. On this block, it is not sensible. Far less central issues are involved than on many amendments we agreed earlier. The position was that the noble Baroness would not oppose the amendments at this stage but would reserve her opposition until Report stage. I hope that the noble Baroness will do the same for this set of amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I regard this situation as extremely serious. In practice we have had almost no sight of the explanation at all. I was lucky enough to come in an hour early and was able to skim through the amendments, although I have only just done so. The noble Lord has made no serious attempt to offer a satisfactory explanation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I am not making a personal criticism of the noble Lord. However, he made no attempt to answer my queries. We are asked to take the amendments on trust. We are told that we should not be anxious. Yet there has been no attempt to answer the points I raised.
The noble Lord cannot treat the Committee with that kind of contempt. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, has not even had an opportunity to read the amendments. To send a nine-page explanatory note on the day of the Bill when we are already busy—we do not have the back-up that the Minister has and are doing most of the work on our own—is not on. It is not part of our democratic process and is certainly not in keeping with the character of this Chamber to ask us to accept 30 amendments on trust with no proper explanation.
My questions are fairly detailed and concern eventualities that will happen after the Bill has gone through. For example, Section 28(2) says that it is intended that the options for designation should not be open for county or community schools. But they do not even exist at the moment. They are now part of a group of schools. Section 44 relates to voluntary schools within the meaning of the Bill which need to be included because a number of them will have entered the FE sector before 1st September 1999.
The explanation goes on to say that the provision also covers those foundation and voluntary schools which may enter the FE sector on or after that date but
1518
excludes those foundation schools which might be ex-county GM schools because they will not have denominational status. I asked a question in relation to religious ethos protection and that does not relate to the discussions we had earlier about a school changing within a school sector; this relates to a school moving into the FE sector. We have not had a proper answer to any of those questions.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: On the noble Baroness's final point, it is clear that any change of status of a school, whether by reorganisation, absorption or any other method, is protected by the earlier clause which relates to protection. That would include absorption in the extremely unlikely situation of absorption into an FE institution.
Most of the rest of the noble Baroness's questions will easily be clarified in written information, but not on the basis of exchanges across the Floor, either now or at Report stage. I accept that, in relation to the whole batch of provisions raised by Amendment No. 257AF, which relates to the further education sector, I was not able to follow all the noble Baroness's questions. Therefore, I would be content to withdraw that amendment and its implications and come back to it at Report. However, the rest of the points raised by the noble Baroness on the amendments are highly technical and hypothetical. I do not think it would be sensible for me to withdraw the amendments at this stage. I hope the Committee will accept those amendments on the basis of my withdrawing Amendment No. 257AF relating to the whole of the FE sector and the interface with that.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that, because that is where my concerns lie and that is what I understand the noble Lord is going to write to us about. If Amendment No. 257AF, with all its sections, is remitted until the next stage of the Bill, I shall be happy. However, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has already said that he has not had an opportunity even to consider the other amendments. If he is happy with the proposition, we can move on.
Lord Tope: I would accept that, but I would do so unhappily. I asked the Minister directly why this cannot be deferred until Report stage. His only answer was that the purpose of Report stage is to consider the broader issues and matters of substance. Of course it is, but the situation we face now is not of our making; it is entirely of the Government's making. If the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is prepared to accept the Government's word on the matter, I am as well. However, we are supposed to be here to scrutinise a Bill and we are supposed to be scrutinising amendments. Frankly, we have not had an opportunity to do so on a large batch of government amendments. Although that is not the primary purpose of Report stage, I was suggesting that it would at least allow us the opportunity to do that.
I will accept, as others will, what the Minister is proposing. However, I still have not had an answer as to why the Government are not prepared to give us the two weeks—perhaps slightly more than that by the time

1519
we reach Report stage—to enable us to do that, and probably to reach the same conclusion the Minister is assuring us we will reach, but at least to be reassured and to know that we have done the job we are put here to do.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may add to that because I think the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and his colleagues are at a disadvantage. What is the problem with delay? Once we have had an explanatory letter, this should have a fairly smooth passage at the next stage. What is to be lost between this stage of the Bill and Report stage? I really cannot see the Government's problem.
Lord Whitty: We would have a very distorted Report stage if we had to come back with these amendments at that stage. We are moving into a grave difficulty if we are not prepared to accept the technical amendments which appear on every Bill. They appeared on the previous government's Bills and they will appear on our Bills. Even if the noble Baroness was not personally responsible for some of those Bills, she will find that there were late amendments to a large number of Bills, both in this House and another place, during the previous 18 years. I fear that the draftsmanship of Whitehall has not dramatically improved in the past 12 months, for which I apologise, but it was not one of our early pledges. I hope it will improve over the course of this Parliament.
I believe it will be more sensible for the proceedings of the House if we study carefully the issue which the noble Baroness indicates is her major concern—the inadequacies of my answers and her main substantive concern which is the interface with the FE sector—and try to reassure her between now and Report stage. Clearly, she will still have the right to bring back issues at Report stage if she is still unhappy. The whole proceedings at Report stage would make more sense if we accepted the amendments now, subject to the commitments I have given and the withdrawal of Amendment No. 257AF. Then we can make some sensible progress at Report stage on what I think are the more substantive issues.
Baroness Blatch: This is becoming more absurd as we go on. If the noble Lord is really saying that we will have a distorted Report stage if these amendments are put on ice until then, that is just the most bizarre statement I have heard today. If the noble Lord is not prepared to give us, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and his colleagues, and indeed other Members of the Committee, a proper explanation of what the amendments are about and answer some of the questions I asked and perhaps some of the questions the noble Lord, Lord Tope, when he has read them, may also raise, the only course left for us would be to ask for a recommittal of this part of the Bill. That really would hold up the Report stage. To say that what I have proposed would distort the Report stage is nonsense. I overheard the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, saying from a sedentary position that the Report stage would not make sense. I have to say that I am not sure that the
1520
Bill makes sense. But if it does not make sense, the whole idea of the Report stage is to put the Bill into a state in which it does make sense. Therefore, the amendments could be put forward at Report stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not say from a sedentary position that the Report stage would not make sense. I said that the Bill would not make sense. It would make more sense if noble Lords opposite saw the amendments in their place together with the explanation which will be provided. It will simply be easier at Report stage if we proceed in the way that my noble friend proposes.
Baroness Blatch: I am not prepared to accept that. That would leave us looking at 30 detailed amendments and having to start changing, modifying and bringing forward amendments in order to address our own concerns. Once the amendments are passed, they are passed and they are in the Bill. We have things to do other than trying to work on these amendments.
The noble Lord should simply withdraw the amendments and give us proper explanations and some answers to the questions we have asked. He should also give the noble Lord, Lord Tope, an opportunity to study the amendments. After all, a nine-page letter was delivered today to explain 30 technical amendments. All the questions that were put on the amendments have not been answered satisfactorily. That is not acceptable. Either we will ask for a recommittal or the noble Lord will find that we have great difficulty at the next stage. If the noble Lord is minded to put this to the vote now, it will create a distasteful atmosphere in the Chamber, in that we in the Opposition were not privy to a full explanation of what the amendments are about. That is unacceptable.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Having spent a number of years on the Opposition Front Bench when the party opposite were in government, I had the privilege of receiving 50 new clauses on the Financial Services Bill at Report stage in this House without receiving any explanation at all. The only solution was to move amendments on Third Reading. When the noble Baroness is objecting to what my noble friend is saying, I hope she will bear in mind that she is perfectly entitled to move amendments on Report. There is no problem about that. But please do not waste the time of the House in quarrelling about government amendments that come forward in Committee.
Baroness Byford: As a newcomer to the House, I am slightly appalled by the noble Lord's comments. I happened to be in the office this morning when we received the letter. It was very complex and very full. Just to say that that happened in the past and it is therefore acceptable seems completely irrelevant. We should have plenty of time to discuss these complex matters. My noble friend Lady Blatch has done extremely well to come up with as much as she has today, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has honestly

1521
admitted that he has not had a chance to study the amendments. I do think that that kind of intervention is most unwise.
Lord Williams of Elvel: If the noble Baroness thinks that the intervention is unwise, I would just refer her to Hansard under the previous government, which will show that the Opposition had exactly the same problem. I accept that this is a problem, but this is the Committee stage. If the amendments are, in my view rightly, written into the Bill, it is perfectly possible for the Opposition, in whatever capacity they may be—Liberal Democrats or Conservatives—to move amendments to the Bill when it is reprinted for Report stage. There is no problem with that.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Before the noble Baroness replies, I rise to confirm what my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said about the passage of business under the previous government. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is in her place. She will recall, as I do, that over 90 amendments were tabled on a health service Bill at Third Reading a week prior to the dissolution of the last Parliament.
Baroness Blatch: Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness make my point. There are two distinctions. The first is that where the Opposition were very concerned they won recommittals as regards some Bills where the House took the view that there had not been sufficient discussion. Secondly, I can say hand on heart that in the years when I took Bills through this House I did most of the work on those Bills myself, being the lead Minister. I was never left wanting in order to answer questions on technical amendments. If I had come into the Chamber armed with 30 amendments in one batch, I would have made absolutely certain that I had the answers to all the devil's advocate questions which might have been put to me.
The distinction here is that there is not a Minister on the Government Front Bench who can answer the questions that I have put on this Bill and these amendments. As I said, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and his colleagues only had sight of the explanatory letter this morning. I am simply saying that if the noble Lord had been able to answer our questions today the situation would be different.
I know that my colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and others, with whom I have worked on the Front Bench, and indeed my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, were assiduous in being prepared. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege was assiduous in always having answers to technical questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, shakes her head. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege had a very high reputation and was much respected for the way in which she took legislation through this House. She was usually able to handle questions about her Bills.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Perhaps I may respond to that point. I was not in any way attempting to undermine any confidence that the House rightly has in the competence of the noble Baroness,
1522
Lady Cumberlege. She was indeed kind in her explanations to the Opposition. But it is true that there were many occasions on which business of a complex kind was tabled at a very late stage and that is the point under discussion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: May I make what I hope is a constructive suggestion? If we allow these amendments, with the exception of Amendment No. 251AF, to go into the Bill it will then be possible to prepare two versions of the Bill, one with the amendments and one without. In Opposition I would have found that enormously more helpful than having to do what an Opposition have to do now, which is to put the amendments into the Bill in order to understand what difference they make. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and I had that experience on Home Office Bills.
I suggest to the noble Baroness that we have the two Bills side by side, both amended and unamended, and that we have a full explanation for each amendment. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord Tope will be invited to spend as much time as they think appropriate after receiving the written briefing. The noble Baroness was good enough to say earlier on—the noble Lord, Lord Tope, agreed reluctantly with her—that she was prepared to let these amendments go through without that particular amendment. On the basis of what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have already agreed, I hope that we can now make progress.
Baroness Blatch: I am mainly concerned about the dismissive answers we had from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in reducing this to a trivial matter which we should not bother our pretty little heads about. I am saying that there could be quite important points involved. We have asked specific questions and we have had no answers to them. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is suggesting two Bills. I have transposed the amendments on to my Bill. I do not need someone to print them out in a Bill. I did that work this morning when I received the letter and that is what took such a long time. The amendments are already transposed. We do not need two versions of the Bill, one with the amendments and one without.
The point made by the noble Baroness about Third Reading is very difficult especially if the legislation has to go to the other place. We are talking about the Committee stage in this House. The Report stage is to come and these amendments could easily be dealt at that stage. By the time we fully understand them and we have had our anxieties allayed, there will not be a problem.
Lord Tope: I said at the beginning that I had not intended to intervene in this matter at all. As the Government Front Bench has continued digging, the hole has got deeper and deeper. At first we were assured by the Minister that the amendments were technical and that we would find no objection to them. I cannot find that consistent with why, taking them at Report stage, they would distort that stage of the Bill. If the Minister

1523
is right—and I am prepared to believe him—the amendments would probably have gone through without comment.
The next thing I heard was that this performance is justifiable because the last government may have behaved in a worse manner or in the same way. I do not wish to join in an argument about that, but it is no assurance to me and my colleagues on these Benches that the present Government are as bad as the previous administration.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I am sorry it has taken so long to get to this stage. He has made a helpful and constructive suggestion. I did not get the letter until this afternoon because I did not arrive at the House until then. I have not done all the work that the noble Baroness has done. I find the noble Lord's suggestion very helpful. If we can proceed on that basis, we can bring an end to the matter now. But it has been a very unsatisfactory performance.
Lord Whitty: On the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has just said I hope that we can complete Amendment No. 246D and then move on, as suggested by my noble friend Lord McIntosh.
Baroness Blatch: I am not going to oppose that because it would hold up things even more. I intend to make a complaint through the usual channels because I find the dismissive way in which my questions were treated quite distressing.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 246E and 246A:
Page 96, line 19, at end insert ("or paragraph 4A(3) of Schedule 31").
Page 96, line 20, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("subsections (4) and (4A)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 247 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 248 to 255 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 255A:
Page 96. line 25, at end insert—
("(4A) Subsection (3) also does not apply to—

(a) any order under—

(i) paragraph 19 of Schedule 18, or

(ii) paragraph 16 of Schedule 24 or paragraph 14 of Schedule 25; or

(b) the first regulations to be made under—

(i) section 37(3) or 38(1),

(ii) section 45, 46 or 47(1), or

(iii) section 100 or 101(2);

and no such order or regulations shall be made (whether alone or with other provisions) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order or regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(4B) If a draft of the statutory instrument containing any such regulations under section 100 would, apart from this subsection, be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it shall proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 128 agreed to.
Clause 129 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 255D:
Page 97, line 12, after ("30") insert ("(which include certain spent enactments)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 129, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 255C:
After Clause 129, insert the following new clause—

MINOR AUTHORITIES
(" .—(1) For the purposes of this Act a maintained school serves an area for which there are one or more minor authorities if the area served by the school is—

(a) a parish or community;

(b) an area in England which is not within a parish and is not situated in—

(i) a county for which there is no council, or

(ii) a county in which there are no district councils; or

(c) an area comprising two or more areas each of which falls within paragraph (a) or (b).

(2) Where the area served by the school is a parish—

(a) the parish council (if there is one), or

(b) the parish meeting (if there is no parish council),

is the minor authority in relation to the school.
(3) Where the area served by the school is a community, the community council is the minor authority in relation to the school.
(4) Where the area served by the school is an area falling within subsection (1)(b), any district council for the whole or part of the area is a minor authority in relation to the school.
(5) Where the area served by the school is an area falling within subsection (1)(c), each of the relevant authorities is a minor authority in relation to the school.
(6) In subsection (5) "the relevant authorities" means the bodies which, if the two or more constituent areas referred to in subsection (1)(c) were taken separately, would be minor authorities in relation to the school.
(7) References in this section to the area served by a school are references to the area appearing to the local education authority to be served by the school.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 130 [General interpretation]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 255B:
Page 97, line 22, leave out from beginning to second ("and") in line 23 and insert ("relation to which the religion or religious denomination specified under section 66(4) is 'Church in Wales'").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Seccombe Baroness Seccombe moved Amendment No. 256:
Page 97, line 26, leave out from ("situated") to end of line 27.
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas who apologises for the fact that he cannot be in the Chamber. He would like to know the answer to a very simple question. In Clause 130(1) under "general interpretation" there are two paragraphs

1525
which begin "Church in Wales school" and "Church of England school". The paragraph relating to the Church in Wales school ends by saying that it,
"means the Diocesan Board of Finance for the diocese of the Church in Wales in which the school is situated or such other person as the Secretary of State may by order designate in respect of that diocese".
The definition relating to "Church of England school" ends with,
"the Diocesan Board of Education for the diocese of the Church of England in which the school is situated".
My noble friend Lord Lucas would like to know why the Welsh are being discriminated against and why the Secretary of State should have that power in relation to the Church in Wales. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Church in Wales is different from the Church of England in that every diocese of the Church of England must by law have established a diocesan board of education. While one would expect each diocese of the Church in Wales to have established such a body with specific responsibility for educational matters, there is no legal requirement and also no reason why such a body should be known as,
"the Diocesan Board of Education".
We have to have the provision which the amendment seeks to remove. I understand that the amendment does not have the support of the Church in Wales, and I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
Baroness Seccombe: I am now better informed and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Lucas will enjoy reading in Hansard what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 256A and 256B:
Page 97, line 29, leave out from ("in") to ("and") in line 31 and insert ("relation to which the religion or religious denomination specified under section 66(4) is 'Church of England").
Page 97, line 33, at end insert—
(""community or foundation special school" means a community special school or a foundation special school;").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 257 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 257A, 257Q and 257B:
Page 98, line 6, leave out from ("in") to ("and") in line 8 and insert ("relation to which the religion or religious denomination specified under section 66(4) is 'Roman Catholic").
Page 98, line 11, after ("authority"") insert (", in relation to any time on or after the appointed day,").
Page 98, line 19, at end insert—
("(2A) Any reference in this Act to the religion or religious denomination specified in relation to a school under section 66(4) shall be construed, in a case where more than one religion or religious denomination is so specified, as including a reference to any of those religions or religious denominations.
(2B) As a result of subsection (2A), subsection (1) has the effect that a school may, for example, be both a Church of England school and a Roman Catholic Church school and so have a different appropriate diocesan authority in each of those capacities; and, in the case of a school with two appropriate diocesan authorities, any reference in this Act to "the appropriate diocesan authority" is—

(a) in relation to anything required to be done by or in relation to that authority, a reference to both of the authorities concerned; or

(b) in relation to anything authorised to be done by or in relation to that authority, a reference to either or both of the authorities concerned (or, in the context of section 16(7), to both of them acting together).").

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: These are opposition amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): According to my Marshalled List, they come after Amendment No. 256A which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who I do not think is a member of the Opposition.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 131 [Index]:
[Amendment No. 257C had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 257D, 257E, 257R and 257F:
Page 99, line 22, column 2, at end insert ("and (2B)").
Page 99, line 33, at end insert—

("community or foundation special school

section 130(1)")

Page 99, line 38, at end insert—

("disposing of land

section 130(4)")

Page 100, line 8, column 1, after ("body") insert—

("(in Chapter III of Part I)

section 10(6)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 257G had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 257S and 257H:
Page 100, line 27, at end insert—

("minor authority

section (Minor authorities)")

Page 101, line 20, at end insert—

("specified religion or religious denomination

section 130(2A)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 132 [Transitional provisions etc.]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 257T to 257Y:
Page 101, line 22, leave out ("The Secretary of State may at any time by order") and insert ("Regulations may at any time").
Page 101, line 24, leave out ("him") and insert ("the Secretary of State").
Page 101, line 27, leave out ("An order") and insert ("Regulations").
Page 102, line 7, leave out ("order") and insert "regulations").
Page 102, line 16, leave out ("order") and insert ("regulations").
Page 102, line 21, at end insert—
("(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) or any provision of subsection (2), regulations under subsection (1) may provide—

(a) for any relevant provision to apply (with or without modification) to, or to any description of—

(i) schools maintained by a local education authority within the meaning of the Education Act 1996, or

(ii) grant-maintained or grant-maintained special schools within the meaning of that Act;

(b) for any provision so applied, or any provision of the regulations, to have effect in relation to schools despite anything in their articles or instruments of government;

(c) for any reference in this Act to the appointed day to have effect instead as a reference to such day as is specified in the regulations;

and accordingly references to the appointed day in subsection (2) include, in relation to any purposes for which any provision made by virtue of paragraph (c) above has effect, references to any such other day as is mentioned in that paragraph.
(2B) In paragraph (a) of subsection (2A) "relevant provision" means—

(a) (in relation to sub-paragraph (i) or (ii) of that paragraph) any provision of the Education Acts which is expressed to apply to, or to any description of, schools maintained by a local education authority within the meaning of this Act, or

(b) (in relation only to sub-paragraph (ii) of that paragraph) any provision of the Education Acts which is expressed to apply to, or to any description of, schools maintained by a local education authority within the meaning of the Education Act 1996;

and in that paragraph and this subsection "school" includes a proposed school.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 132, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 133 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 257J had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 257Z:
Page 103, line 11, at end insert ("and the exercise (in relation to those or any other matters) of any power to make regulations").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 257K not moved.]
Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 257AA:
Before Schedule 29, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE

  AMENDMENTS RELATING TO FUNCTIONS OF EDUCATION TRANSFER COUNCIL
  Introductory
  1. In this Schedule "the 1988 Act" means the Education Reform Act 1988.
  General provisions as to transfers
  2.—(1) Section 198 of the 1988 Act (transfers under Parts I and II of that Act) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) For subsections (1) to (4) substitute—
  "(1) This section applies to any transfer under any of the following provisions, namely—

  (a) section 126 or 130 of this Act,

  (b) Schedule 21 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 ("the 1998 Act"), or

  (c) any regulations made—

  (i) under section 21(5) or (12) of that Act, or

  (ii) under paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 4 of Schedule 8 to that Act;

  and those provisions, so far as relating to transfers under them, shall in each case have effect subject to Schedule 10 to this Act.
  (1A) However, nothing in—

  (a) the provisions of that Schedule other than paragraph 2(4), or

  (b) subsection (3) below,

  applies in relation to any transfer agreement falling to be made under paragraph 4 or 7 of Schedule 21 to the 1998 Act or any corresponding provision of regulations under that Act.
  (2) Schedule 10 to this Act has effect for the purpose of—

  (a) dividing and apportioning property, rights and liabilities which fall to be transferred under any transfer to which this section applies by a transferor authority or body where that property has been used or held, or the rights or liabilities have been acquired or incurred, for the purposes of more than one school or other educational institution;

  (b) excluding from transfer in certain circumstances property, rights and liabilities which would otherwise fall to be transferred under any such transfer;

  (c) providing for identifying and defining the property, rights and liabilities which fall to be transferred under a transfer to which this section applies; and

  (d) making supplementary and consequential provisions in relation to such transfers.

  (3) In carrying out the functions conferred or imposed on them by that Schedule—

  (a) the Education Transfer Council—

  (i) shall, subject to subsection (4) below, not act on behalf of the transferor, the transferee or any other interested person, but

  (ii) shall seek to ensure that all such persons' interests are protected; and

  (b) it shall be the duty of the Council, so far as it is reasonably practicable for them to do so, to secure that each transfer to which this section applies is, so far as possible, fully effective on the date on which it takes effect under this Act or under or by virtue of the 1998 Act.

  (4) Where the transferor under any such transfer is a local authority and in accordance with that Schedule anything falls to be or may be

  1529
  done by the Council for the purposes of or in connection with that transfer—

  (a) it may not be done by the transferee; and

  (b) in doing it the Council shall be regarded as acting on behalf and in the name of the transferee;

  and in a case where the transferee is a body corporate established under this Act or the 1998 Act paragraph (b) above applies both in relation to things done before and in relation to things done after that body is established under this Act or the 1998 Act."
  (3) For "the Board", wherever occurring in subsections (5) and (6) of section 198, there is substituted (in accordance with section 126(2) of this Act) "the Council".
  Division and apportionment of property etc.
  3. For paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the 1988 Act (supplementary provisions with respect to transfers) substitute—
  "Division and apportionment of property etc.
  1.—(1) Any property, rights and liabilities of a transferor authority held or used or subsisting—

  (a) for the purposes of more than one relevant institution; or

  (b) partly for the purposes of one or more relevant institutions and partly for other purposes of the transferor authority;

  shall, where the nature of the property, right or liability permits, be divided or apportioned between the transferees, or (as the case may be) between the transferor authority and the transferee or transferees, in such proportions as may be appropriate.
  (2) Any property, rights or liabilities of a transferor body shall, where the nature of the property, right or liability permits, be divided or apportioned between the transferees, or (as the case may be) between the transferor body and the transferee or transferees, in such proportions as may be appropriate.
  (3) Where any estate or interest in land falls to be divided in accordance with either sub-paragraph (1) or sub-paragraph (2) above—

  (a) any rent payable under a lease in respect of that estate or interest; and

  (b) any rent charged on that estate or interest;

  shall be correspondingly divided or apportioned so that each part is payable in respect of, or charged on, only one part of the estate or interest and the other part or parts are payable in respect of, or charged on, only the other part or parts of the estate or interest.
  (4) Any such property, right or liability as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above the nature of which does not permit its division or apportionment as so mentioned shall be transferred to the transferee (or to one or other of the transferees) or retained by the transferor authority or body according to—

  (a) in the case of an estate or interest in land, whether on the transfer date the transferor authority or body or the transferee (or one or other of the transferees) appears to be in greater need of the security afforded by that estate or interest or, where none of them appears to be in greater need of that security, which of them appears on that date to be likely to make use of the land to the greater extent; or

  (b) in the case of any other property or any right or liability, which of them appears on the transfer date to be likely to make use of the property or (as the case may be) to be affected by the right or liability to the greater extent;

  subject (in either case) to such arrangements for the protection of the other person or persons concerned as may be agreed between
  1530
  the transferor authority or body and the relevant person or determined by the Secretary of State under paragraph 3 below.
  (5) In this paragraph—

  (a) "relevant institution" means—

  (i) any institution which a body corporate is established under this Act to conduct;

  (ii) any institution to which section 130 of this Act applies; and

  (iii) any maintained school;

  (b) "the relevant person" means—

  (i) in a case where the transferor is a transferor authority, the Education Transfer Council;

  (ii) in a case where the transferor is a transferor body, the transferee;

  (c) references to a transferor authority are references to a local authority who are the transferor for the purposes of any transfer to which this Schedule applies;

  (d) references to a transferor body are references to any foundation body who are the transferor for the purposes of any transfer to which this Schedule applies;

  and for the purposes of this sub-paragraph references to a maintained school or a foundation body have the same meaning as in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998."
  Identification of property, rights and liabilities
  4. For paragraph 2 of Schedule 10 to the 1988 Act substitute—
  "Identification of property, rights and liabilities
  2.—(1) It shall be the duty of the transferor and the relevant person, whether before or after the transfer date, so far as practicable to arrive at such written agreements, and to execute such other instruments, as are necessary or expedient to identify or define the property, rights and liabilities transferred to the transferee or retained by the transferor or for making any such arrangements as are mentioned in paragraph 1(4) above and as will—

  (a) afford to the transferor and the transferee as against one another such rights and safeguards as they may require for the proper discharge of their respective functions; and

  (b) make as from such date, not being earlier than the transfer date, as may be specified in the agreement or instrument such clarifications and modifications of the effect of the provision of this Act or of the 1998 Act (or any regulations made under it) under which the transfer is required on the property, rights and liabilities of the transferor as will best serve the proper discharge of the respective functions of the transferor and the transferee.

  (2) Any such agreement shall provide so far as it is expedient—

  (a) for the granting of leases and for the creation of other liabilities and rights over land whether amounting in law to interests in land or not, and whether involving the surrender of any existing interest or the creation of a new interest or not;

  (b) for the granting of indemnities in connection with the severance of leases and other matters;

  (c) for responsibility for registration of any matter in any description of statutory register.

  (3) Except in a case where the transferor is a local authority, the Education Transfer Council shall—

  (a) assist the transferor, the transferee and any other interested person in identifying or defining the property, rights and liabilities transferred to the transferee or retained by the transferor;

  (b) advise such persons as to the terms of any agreement or instrument falling to be made under sub-paragraph (1) above;

  (c) assist such persons to negotiate any such agreement or instrument and mediate in any such negotiations;

  (d) prepare drafts of any such agreement or instrument; and

  (e) assist the parties in executing and giving effect to any such agreement or instrument.

  (4) If and to the extent that they are requested to do so by any person falling to make a transfer agreement under paragraph 4 or 7 of Schedule 21 to the 1998 Act or any corresponding provision of regulations under that Act, the Education Transfer Council shall exercise any one or more functions falling within sub-paragraph (3) above in relation to such an agreement, or an instrument made pursuant to such an agreement, as if it were an agreement or instrument falling to be made under sub-paragraph (1) above.
  (5) Any transfer of any estate or interest in land under this paragraph or under paragraph 1 above (whether by virtue of an agreement or instrument entered into before or after the transfer date) shall be regarded as having taken place on the transfer date.
  (6) In this paragraph—
  "the 1998 Act" means the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; and
  "the relevant person" means—

  (a) in a case where the transferor is a local authority, the Education Transfer Council;

  (b) in a case where the transferor is not a local authority, the transferee."

  Resolution of disputes
  5. For paragraph 3 of Schedule 10 to the 1988 Act substitute—
  "Resolution of disputes
  3.—(1) The Education Transfer Council shall notify the Secretary of State if it appears to them that it is unlikely in the case of any matter on which agreement is required to be reached under paragraph 2(1) above that such an agreement will be reached.
  (2) Where the Secretary of State has received a notification from the Council under sub-paragraph (1) above, he may, whether before or after the transfer date, give a direction determining that matter, and may include in the direction any provision which might have been included in an agreement under paragraph 2(1) above.
  (3) Any property, rights or liabilities required by a direction under this paragraph to be transferred to the transferee shall be regarded as having been transferred to, and by virtue of this Act vested in, the transferee on the transfer date.
  (4) The Secretary of State shall consult the transferor, the transferee and any other interested person before giving a direction under this paragraph.
  (5) The Education Transfer Council shall give the Secretary of State such assistance and advice as he may require for the purpose of determining any matter under this paragraph."
  Proof of title by certificate
  6. In paragraph 5 of Schedule 10 to the 1988 Act, for "or of the Education Act 1996" substitute "or of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998".
  Construction of agreements etc.
  7. In paragraph 7 of Schedule 10 to the 1988 Act, for "or of the Education Act 1996", in both places, substitute "or of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998".
  Third parties affected by vesting provisions
  8. In paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 to the 1988 Act—

  (a) in sub-paragraph (6)(a), after "Board" insert "or (as the case may be) the transferee";

  (b) in sub-paragraph (6)(b), for "or of the Education Act 1996" substitute "or of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (or any regulations made under it)"; and

  (c) in sub-paragraph (9), after "Board" insert "or (as the case may be) the transferee".

  Delivery of documents to transferee
  9. In paragraph 10 of Schedule 10 to the 1988 Act, after "transfer" insert "under which the transferor is a local authority".
  Amendment of references to Education Assets Board
  10. For "the Education Assets Board" or "the Board", wherever occurring in Schedule 10 to the 1988 Act, there is substituted (in accordance with section 126(2) of this Act) "the Education Transfer Council" or "the Council" respectively.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 29 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 257AB to 257AE:
  Page 214, line 45, at end insert—
  ("Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (c. 61)
  . In section 49(3) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (appraisal of performance of teachers)—

  (a) for paragraph (b) substitute—

  "(b) at any special school which is not so maintained but is for the time being approved by the Secretary of State under section 342 of the Education Act 1996 (approval of special schools);", and.

  (b) omit paragraph (ba).").

  Page 215, line 18, at end insert—
  (". In Schedule 8 (provisions relating to the body to be known as the Education Transfer Council)—

  (a) omit paragraph 6(3); and

  (b) in paragraph 8—

  (i) in sub-paragraph (4), omit "given with the consent of the Treasury"; and

  (ii) in sub-paragraph (7), for "Treasury" substitute "Secretary of State".").

  Page 216, line 1, leave out ("", where subsection (6) below applies,"") and insert ("from "and, where" to "that subsection"").
  Page 216, line 45, at end insert—
  ("Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 (1991 No. 2)
  . The Diocesan Boards of Education Measure 1991 shall be amended as follows.
  . In section 3 (transactions for which advice or consent of Board is required)—

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words from "before making" to the end substitute "before—

  (a) publishing proposals for any prescribed alteration to the school under section 27(2)(b) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998;

  (b) publishing proposals for the discontinuance of the school under section 28(2) of that Act;

  (c) serving notice of an intention to discontinue the school under section 29(1) of that Act;

  (d) publishing proposals for changing the category of the school under paragraph 2 or 2A of Schedule 8 to that Act; or

  (e) making any application to, or entering into any agreement with, any body or person for or in connection with any disposal (whether by sale or otherwise) of the premises of the school or any part of them.";

  (b) in subsection (2), for "an aided or special agreement school" substitute "a voluntary aided school";

  (c) omit subsections (4) and (5); and

  (d) in subsection (6)—

  (i) omit "or (5)", and

  (ii) for "the secretary of the governing body" substitute "the clerk to the governing body".

  . In section 7 (powers of Board to give directions to governing bodies)—
  (a) for subsection (1) substitute—
  "(1) Where the Board is satisfied that the governing body of a voluntary aided church school in the diocese in discharging, or failing to discharge, its functions so far as relating to—

  (a) the making of any prescribed alteration to the school under Chapter II of Part II of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, or

  (b) the discontinuance of the school under that Chapter, or

  (c) changing the school's category in accordance with paragraph 2 or 2A of Schedule 8 to that Act,

  is acting in a manner which is not in the interests of that school or of church schools generally, the Board may, subject to subsection (1A) below, give directions to the governing body as to the discharge of those functions.
  (1A) The Board may not, under subsection (1) above, give directions as to the publication of proposals under paragraph 2 or 2A of Schedule 8 to that Act which would prevent the publication of proposals for the school to become a foundation school.";

  (b) in subsection (2), for "the secretary of the governing body" substitute "the clerk to the governing body";

  (c) in subsection (3), for the words from the beginning of paragraph (a) onwards substitute—

  "(a) publication of proposals for any prescribed alteration to the school under section 27(2)(b) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998; or

  (b) publication of proposals under paragraph 2 or 2A of Schedule 8 to that Act,

  the Board may itself publish those proposals, and the provisions of that Act shall apply to anything done by the Board by virtue
  1534
  this subsection as if it had been done by the governing body of the school.";

  (d) omit subsection (5); and

  (e) for the sidenote substitute "Powers of Board to give directions to governing bodies of voluntary aided church schools."

  .—(1) Section 10 (interpretation) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)—

  (a) omit the definition of "Church of England voluntary school", and

  (b) for the definition of "church school" substitute—

  ""church school" means a foundation or voluntary school which is a Church of England school as defined by section 130(1) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998;".
  (3) Omit subsection (2).
  (4) For subsection (3) substitute—
  "(3) Expressions used in this Measure which are also used in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 shall, unless the context otherwise requires, have the same meaning as in that Act.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 257AF not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 257L had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 257M:
  Page 217, line 11, after ("applies") insert (", and
  (ii) any Education Action Forum established by virtue of section 10(1) of that Act").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 257N and 257P had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 257AG to 257AJ:
  Page 217, line 44, leave out ("subsection (5)") and insert ("subsections (4) and (5)").
  Page 220, line 31, leave out ("324(5)(b) (statement of special educational needs),") and insert ("324 (statement of special educational needs)—
  (a) in subsection (5)(b),").
  Page 220, line 33, at end insert ("; and
  (b) after subsection (5) insert—
  "(5A) Subsection (5)(b) has effect regardless of any duty imposed on the governing body of a school by section 1(4) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998."").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 258 not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 258D and 258E:
  Page 227, leave out lines 32 to 35 and insert—
  ("112. In section 509 (provision of transport etc.)—

  (a) omit subsection (5)(a); and

  (b) for subsection (6) substitute—

  "(6) Regulations may require a local education authority to publish, at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed, such

  1535
  information as may be prescribed with respect to the authority's policy and arrangements relating to the making of—

  (a) provision under this section for persons attending institutions mentioned in subsection (1)(c) or (d) who are over compulsory school age and have not attained the age of 19; or

  (b) provision under section 509A (travel arrangements for children receiving nursery education otherwise than at school)." ").

  Page 227, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 1 on page 228.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendments Nos. 258A to 258C not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 258F to 258L:
  Page 234, line 4, after ("group",") insert—
  ("( ) in the definition of "proprietor", for "a county, voluntary or grant-maintained school," substitute "a community, foundation or voluntary or community or foundation special school,",").
  Page 234, line 11, after ("units)") insert—
  ("(a) in paragraph 6—
  (i) for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) substitute—
  "(1) In relation to every pupil referral unit, the local education authority, the management committee (where applicable) and the teacher in charge shall exercise their functions with a view to securing that the curriculum for the unit satisfies the requirements of section 351(1) (balanced and broadly based curriculum).
  (2) Regulations may make provision for the determination and organisation of the curriculum in relation to every pupil referral unit, including provision as to making, and keeping up to date, a written statement of the policy in relation to that curriculum for the unit; and such regulations may require—

  (a) the local education authority, the management committee (where applicable), or the teacher in charge to exercise, or

  (b) such of them as may be prescribed to collaborate with each other in exercising,

  such functions in relation to the curriculum as may be prescribed.", and.

  (ii) in sub-paragraph (3)(a), for "or under any enactment referred to in sub-paragraph (2)" substitute "sub-paragraph (1) or (2)";

  (b) omit paragraphs 12 and 13; and

  (c)")

  Page 234, line 31, after ("paragraphs"), insert ("9,").
  Page 234, leave out line 32 and insert (", 42(4)(b), 75, 82(1)(b) and the "and" preceding it, 82(2)(a), 82(2)(c) and the "and" preceding it, 82(3), 96(2), 97, 102, 103, 104(3), 105 to 108, 110(2) and (3)(a), 122 and 125(c) and (d);").
  Page 234, line 34, at end insert ("; and
  (g) Schedule 40 (transitory provisions.)").
  Page 239, line 8, at end insert—
  ("Audit Commission Act 1998 (c. 00)
  197. In section 36(3) of the Audit Commission Act 1998 (studies at request of educational bodies)—

  (a) for the words from "corporation, a" to "school" substitute "corporation or further education corporation", and

  (b) in paragraph (b), omit "or governing body".").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 29, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 30 [Repeals]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 258M to 258T:
  Page 239, line 16, at end insert—

  ("1963 c. 33.

  London Government Act 1963.

  Section 31.")

  Page 240, line 30, column 3, at beginning insert—

  ("Sections 166 and 167.")

  Page 240, line 33, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 8, paragraph 6(3) and in paragraph 8(4) the words "given with the consent of the Treasury".")

  Page 240, line 43, column 3, leave out ("", where subsection (6) below applies,"") and insert ("from "and, where" to "that subsection"").
  Page 241, line 4, column 3, at end insert—

  ("1991 No. 2.

  Diocesan Boards of Education Measure1991.

  In section 3, subsections (4) and (5) and in subsection (6), the words "or (5)".

  Section 5.

  Section 6(2).

  Section 7(5).

  Section 9.

  In section 10, in subsection (1) the definition of "Church of England voluntary school" and subsection (2).")

  Page 241, line 4, column 3, at end insert—

  ("1992 c. 13.

  Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

  In section 2(6), the words "grant-maintained schools,".

  In section 16, in subsection (2), the words "or any grant-maintained school" wherever occurring, and in subsection (3)(a) the words "or is a grant-maintained school".

  In section 21, in subsection (1) paragraph (a) and the words "(b) in any other case,", and in subsection (2) the words "orders and", "grant-maintained school or other" and "grant-maintained schools or other".

  In section 26(1), the words "or was a grant-maintained school".

  In section 54(1)(b), the words "grant-maintained school,".

  In Schedule 8, paragraphs 61 to 64.")

  Page 241, line 12, column 3, leave out ("12(5)") and insert ("12(4) and (5)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 259 not moved.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 259F to 259N:
  Page 243, column 3, leave out line 21.
  Page 244, line 37, column 3, after ("1,") insert ("paragraphs 12 and 13 and").
  Page 244, line 46, column 3, after ("paragraphs"), insert ("9,").
  Page 244, line 47, column 3, leave out ("and 42(4)(b)") and insert (", 42(4)(b), 75, 82(1)(b) and the "and" preceding it, 82(2)(a), 82(2)(c) and the "and" preceding it, 82(3), 96(2), 97, 102, 103, 104(3), 105 to 108, 110(2) and (3)(a), 122 and 125(c) and (d)").
  Page 244, line 49, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Schedule 40.")

  Page 246, line 14, column 3, leave out ("36(1)") and insert ("36, in subsection (1)").
  Page 246, line 20, column 3, at end insert ("and in subsection (3)(b) the words "or governing body".").
  Page 246, line 20, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In Schedule 3, paragraphs 25 and 32.")

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule 31 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 259B to 259D:
  Page 246, line 28, after first ("day"") insert (", in relation to any provision of this Schedule,").
  Page 246, line 28, leave out ("this Schedule") and insert ("that provision").
  Page 247, line 46, at end insert—
  ("Deferment of governing body's right to delegated budget
  4A.—(1) A maintained school falling within section 48(1) shall not have a delegated budget as from the day on which section 48 comes into force if—

  (a) the governing body's right to a delegated budget has been suspended under section 117 of the Education Act 1996 (suspension of financial delegation for mismanagement etc.) or section 28 of the School Inspections Act 1996 (suspension of right to delegated budget); and

  (b) that suspension has not been previously revoked with effect from that or any earlier day.

  (2) Such a school shall, however, have a delegated budget as from the day with effect from which that suspension is revoked.
  (3) The Secretary of State may by order determine that a relevant school shall not have a delegated budget as from the day on which section 48 comes into force where he considers that it would not be expedient for the school to have such a budget as from that day for reasons connected with—

  (a) the financial position, or

  (b) the financial management,

  of the school.
  (4) Where the Secretary of State makes an order under sub-paragraph (3) in relation to a school—

  (a) for the purposes of Part II of this Act the right of the governing body to a delegated budget shall be treated as if it had been suspended by the local education authority under paragraph 1 of Schedule 15 on the day on which section 48 comes into force;

  1538

  (b) paragraphs 2 to 4 (but not 3(1)(a)) of that Schedule shall apply to any such suspension; and

  (c) the school shall have a delegated budget as from the day with effect from which that suspension is revoked.

  (5) Any reference in any of sections 53 to 56 to any suspension of a school's delegated budget under Schedule 15 includes a reference to—

  (a) any suspension of a school's delegated budget by virtue of sub-paragraph (1); and

  (b) (in accordance with sub-paragraph (4)), any such suspension by virtue of sub-paragraph (3).

  (6) Where the day on which section 48 comes into force is earlier than the appointed day (as defined by section 20(6)) any reference in this paragraph to a maintained school is a reference to a school which is (within the meaning of the Education Act 1996)—

  (a) a school maintained by a local education authority, or

  (b) a grant-maintained or grant-maintained special school,

  and to which section 48 applies in accordance with regulations under section 132(1).
  (7) In this paragraph—

  (a) "relevant school" means a maintained school which immediately before the day on which section 48 comes into force was a grant-maintained or grant-maintained special school within the meaning of the Education Act 1996; and

  (b) references to a school having a delegated budget or to a governing body's right to such a budget shall be construed in accordance with section 48(10).").

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 259A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 259E:
  Page 248, line 33, at end insert—
  ("Transfer of sites provided under sections 60 and 61 of the Education Act 1996
  7.—(1) This paragraph applies where—

  (a) before the appointed day a site was provided for a school by a local education authority under section 60 or 61 of the Education Act 1996 (obligation of LEAs to provide new sites and buildings for voluntary schools); but

  (b) no conveyance was made in respect of that site under section 60(2) or (as the case may be) section 61(2) of that Act before that day.

  (2) Where the site was provided under section 60 of that Act, sub-paragraphs (3) to (11) (but not (7)(b)) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act shall apply in relation to the provision of that site as if it had been provided under sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.
  (3) Where the site was provided under section 61 of that Act, sub-paragraphs (3) to (9) of paragraph 4 of Schedule 3 to this Act shall apply in relation to the provision of that site as if it had been provided under sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 31, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

  Nurses in the NHS
  7.59 p.m.
  Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to deal with the problems arising from the recruitment, retention and retirement of nurses in the National Health Service.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not what I seem. I am No. 445590 Morris, Brian, d.o.b. 4.12.30, male, C of E. I know this because it was written on the little plastic bracelet placed on my wrist on 21st January last when I became a patient in The Royal Hospital, Chesterfield, whence I came this morning to ask the Question standing in my name.
  The facts are not in dispute. We are facing the worst nurse shortage crisis in 25 years: the first ever shortfall in applications for nurse education places in England. In 1993/4 there were 18,100 applications for 12,000 places. In 1996/7 there were 15,400 applications for 16,100 places. Turnover among registered nurses was 21 per cent. in 1997, up from 12 per cent. in 1992. Vacancies remain unfilled. One report in 1997 suggested that there was a shortage of more than 8,000 full-time posts across Britain. The Royal College of Nursing reports that the number of nurses aged over 55 will double over the next five years, with 25 per cent. of registered nurses in the NHS eligible for retirement by the year 2000.
  What a boring recital that is. How easy it is to ignore that set of percentages. It will be all right; someone will do something. The Government will find some money. After all, nursing is a vocation, is it not? Nurses will not take industrial action; they care too much about their patients. That is not good enough; it will not do. Try being one of those patients and see how you feel.
  Last March the Nuffield Trust published Improving the Health of the NHS Workforce. That report said that the most commonly cited causes of psychological disturbance among nurses were high workload, workload pressures, the effect of workload on personal life, staff shortages, unpredictable staffing and scheduling, and not enough time to provide emotional support to patients. I have watched that happen every day since 21st January on a medical ward in a typical county hospital. On the morning I was admitted to The Royal Hospital, Chesterfield, my first impression was of nurses hurtling about, moving beds, answering telephones, dishing out meals like waitresses, making beds, dispensing drugs, or sitting at the nurses station writing up reports, requests and readjusting notes, endlessly rushing round or writing. One senior nurse said as she left the ward that she had done a nine-hour shift. She had not had time for a break. She had not had time to eat or go to the loo all day. The reference in the Nuffield Trust report to the "effect of workload on personal life" is euphemistically polite. It means: how does one cope with a physically and emotionally exhausting hospital shift and then go home and look after one's children or dependent relatives, or study for hours to get additional qualifications, or to keep up to date, and then do the housework? One young nurse who
  1540
  had been married for only a year or so summed it up cynically and succinctly when she said that these days nursing did not do much for wedded bliss. I could see what she meant.
  In Shakespeare's "Troilus and Cressida", Agamemnon asks Ulysses:
  "The nature of the sickness found,
  Ulysses, What is the remedy?"
  My noble friend the Minister may well put the same question to me, since I have told her little that she does not already know and I have suggested no solutions. What we can all welcome is the Government's £2.15 million nationwide campaign to recruit nurses. I hope that when my noble friend replies she will be able to give the House an up-to-date report on progress in that initiative. A young woman, or now a young man, aged 18 considering nursing as a career must qualify via a three-year course given or validated by a university, which is equivalent to any other university first degree course. It is true that bursaries worth some £4,000 to £5,000 are available, but upon graduating successfully the nurse will start work with a salary of some £12,000 while her contemporaries entering other professions or businesses will immediately command a much higher figure. Those contemporaries will rarely be called upon to empty bedpans, clean up the incontinent, or mop up vomit in the earliest years of their employment; nor will they often carry life or death responsibility for their clients. A higher starting salary after registration may encourage potential students to view the prospect of nursing as a career with greater equanimity.
  Better career development plans would help. Almost the only way to gain significant promotion is to leave the bedside and go into management or academic work. Is there not a case for establishing a new grade of top rank nurse? That is exactly what is proposed for really good teachers in schools who do not wish to become head teachers because that would remove them from the classroom teaching in which they excel. Something must also be done about the high drop-out rate in pre-registration training. Some areas report 30 per cent. and more. This is surely an avoidable waste of scarce resources. This is closely studied in the attrition formula described on page 123 of the report Project 2000: Fitness for Purpose by the Universities of Liverpool and Warwick. Perhaps the Minister can also bring us up to date on the prospects for that report's recommendations.
  One thing comes through again and again about pre-registration training: practical clinical skills are not sufficiently achieved by the student. The clinical teacher role has gone and quite senior clinicians have to waste their time teaching new nurses how to do things on the wards. Perhaps an internship for the diplomates at the end of their course is necessary. After all, new nurses are in law accountable for their practice from day one.
  The Project 2000 report also discusses the possibility of an entirely new structure for training health service professionals in which medical students, nursing students and others are taught together those basic, elementary things they all need to know, for example how to give injections correctly, and even how to wash

  1541
  hands correctly. I have seen several very dry thumbs in the past five months. An integrated preliminary course could lift the status of the nurse and aid recruitment considerably. Will my noble friend look kindly on the idea?
  Turning to the problems of retention and the awesome 21 per cent. turnover rate, can my noble friend assure me that family-friendly employment policies are being fostered by her department? Forty-eight per cent. of nurses have caring responsibilities for dependent children. Twenty-five per cent. have caring responsibilities for dependent adults. How on earth do they cope? The RCN reports that some 66 per cent. of nurses have no workplace crèche or nursery facilities available. Surely, this must be given higher priority.
  Related to this is the issue of so-called goodwill hours. In the past months I have watched very many nurses due to stop work at the end of a shift work on for several hours simply because there is work to do for one or more of their patients. They cannot and would not charge money for this time, nor could they demand time off in lieu because that would complicate the shift rotas. They simply work the extra hours for nothing. I tried to find out the national figures for this voluntary work and was told they were not recorded, no doubt on the fine old Civil Service principle of "do not ask a question if you think you might be appalled at the answer". Can my noble friend give us some idea of the extent to which the NHS is dependent on this free service?
  I am sure that the retention of nurses is being improved by the developments that this Government are bringing in: skillmix, the NHS Direct Scheme, nurse prescribing, primary care groups and clinical governance. They will make the job more challenging and responsible, but there is still a long way to go.
  To solve the retirement problem is in a way much simpler. Either you let most nurses retire at 55 and concentrate on recruitment and retention to maintain the workforce, which is simple but risky, or you make the final decade of employment a period in which the physical workload is reduced and these experienced nurses are given increased administrative, advisory and mentoring responsibilities. I suspect that what most of them want is not power or riches but job satisfaction.
  All reassurances and good news that my noble friend can give in her reply will be gratefully received by patient No. 445590 and by every nurse in the nation.
  8.9 p.m.
  Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I start by declaring an interest as vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing, sadly, not a pecuniary interest; and I know that other Members of your Lordships' House here tonight are also vice-presidents. I wish also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for the brisk and arresting way in which he introduced this important debate.
  Nursing is probably as much an art as a science, for although nurses have embraced modern technology with flair and enthusiasm, nursing has also a scientific base. It is as much about good communication, advocacy,
  1542
  supporting carers and understanding complex family relationships as mending broken minds and broken bones. GPs now recognise that in addition to those skills nurses are fast becoming the experts in asthma and diabetic care and that with an increasingly elderly population we need nurses now more than ever before.
  That is the dilemma which the Government face. Nurses' salaries account for 2.6 per cent. of total public expenditure. That is not NHS expenditure, but total public expenditure. One per cent. on nurses' salaries adds £83 million to the NHS pay bill. In terms of public expenditure, one suspects the Treasury feels that there are too many nurses. But the public beg to differ. There are too few.
  This morning the Secretary of State announced another 2,000 hospital beds in order to tackle waiting lists. I, among others, rejoice in that. And, he added,
  "we will recruit more doctors and more nurses".
  It takes three years to train a nurse. On a rough calculation, the Secretary of State is talking about another 2,000 nurses in the next few months. So my first question to the Minister is this. From whence cometh these nurses? The ENB statistics show a shortfall in applications for nurse education places. We know that 60 per cent. of employers report "current and significant problems" in recruitment; and the pay review body suggests a shortfall of 8,000 nurses across the UK.
  My second question concerns the status of nursing. When I left school there were really only three careers open to young women unless they were pioneers. One could be a teacher, a nurse or a secretary. Today women are making successful careers in the law, the City, the media, medicine, accountancy and so on. This means competition to recruit to nursing has never been harder. In order to attract more of the very best candidates, I believe that we have to raise yet again the status of nursing. It should be a career regarded as fruitful as those I have mentioned, and that requires an all-degree profession. Of course the work still has to be done and there is an important role for those with national vocational qualifications. But we need the brightest men and women to join this all-important profession. Does the Minister agree, and would she like to comment on that?
  My third question relates to retention. Nurses have a thirst for knowledge. The vast majority want to realise their potential and practise the art and science of nursing to their maximum ability. Doctors receive a postgraduate educational allowance. Most nurses have to pay for their postgraduate courses, and it is difficult when they require to be released from their duties by their employer, in particular when it is a GP. That seems to me unfair. Can the Minister consider this inequality in opportunity and ensure that nurses also receive an allowance for postgraduate courses?
  8.13 p.m.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for asking this most important Question. Instead of one meagre

  1543
  dinner hour debate, the subject needs your Lordships' highest priority. I hope that the Government will treat it with the utmost urgency.
  When I broke my back years ago and had multiple injuries resulting in a great deal of pain, my life was saved by the skill of excellent doctors and nurses who understood the specialty of spinal injuries. In the hospital there was a matron who was highly respected, and sisters who worked on the wards with the patients, junior doctors and nurses, and knew how to make a patient comfortable.
  Those days have gone. Recently my husband, my noble kinsman Lord Swinton, was in hospital for three months. I saw the sister once, and that was when he had emboli in his lungs—a very dangerous condition.
  The removal of senior staff from the wards was recently brought home to me when I visited a private hospital in Aylesbury. One of the very senior and best sisters from Stoke Mandeville Hospital was running the nursing in that private hospital. As a result of regrading, her senior post had been made redundant, just to save money. What about her years of experience, which were lost to the National Health Service?
  For many nurses the only way to gain promotion is to leave the bedside and move into management or academic work instead, according to the Royal College of Nursing. I feel that not giving junior nurses the security and benefit of having senior specialised nurses to give them back-up and support is one of the many reasons that young nurses with very difficult patients to nurse feel unable to cope and leave the profession. It is even worse at night when a young, inexperienced nurse can be left in charge of very ill patients who are recovering from operations. She or he may feel overwhelmed and patients may feel insecure. Patients as well as nurses need emotional support.
  When there are staff shortages and difficulties in recruitment, the wrong people may be appointed. With so many very seriously ill patients to nurse, more and more equipment—I refer to turning beds, low air loss beds, hoists and so on—is being used. Many agency and pool nurses do not know how to use the equipment and are frightened to do so. Why not have specially trained non-nursing staff, such as handymen or security staff, to work such equipment? This would save the nurses' time and their backs.
  I come from North Yorkshire, where at the moment the turnover in nursing staff is low compared with many parts of the country. But all the chief nurses are concerned about midwifery. A new system is being introduced nationally from next April under which trusts will receive only partial reimbursement of the costs of midwifery training. Many fear that trusts will be put off from encouraging nurses into midwifery training. The main problem in York is a shortage of theatre nurses. That has an impact on the number of operations the trust can perform, and therefore influences the waiting list situation.
  1544
  The workforce is ageing and retiring. We must find ways of attracting young people into the profession. The National Health Service cannot look after patients without good, reliable, well-trained nurses.
  8.17 p.m.
  Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris for instituting this important debate.
  As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the NHS, it is an opportunity to reflect on the contribution which nurses are making in care, professional development, teaching and research, and, above all, in improving the quality of service that we give to patients. It is also appropriate to reflect on the extraordinary change in the role of the nurse in the past few years. Nursing practice has changed dramatically. Nurses have taken over many of the duties previously undertaken by junior doctors. Not only has the service been more effective, but many patients very much enjoy that and support it.
  The shift towards primary care will also enhance the role of nurses. I refer to the increase in the number of practice nurses and nurse practitioners. I am anxious that primary care groups will give to nurses a strong leadership role. Perhaps some primary care groups will be led by nurses. I certainly hope so.
  The agenda for the future is exciting for the nursing profession. We have to set that against the context of the problems in recruiting which have been so graphically described in the debate tonight. Some of those issues can surely be dealt with through good practice. We have heard about family friendly policies and initiatives to attract nurses back to the profession. But I am convinced that overriding that factor is the need to enhance the role of nurses in management and leadership. I take the point that those nurses who wish to stay in nursing and practise nursing at the patient level should be encouraged and rewarded to do so. But equally we must have strong leadership in management positions in the health service.
  In the past few years we have seen many trusts remove a range of management posts so that between the ward sister and the director of nursing we have lost a number of nurse managers. That means that there is no clear progression for nurses who wish to pursue a career in management. Nurses on wards sometimes believe that their voices are not heard at high levels.
  I commend the RCN approach in encouraging nurses to take up leadership positions and leadership projects. But the NHS must do much more. We need more nurses at the top table, whether in trusts, health authorities or at the Department of Health. We need more nurses leading debate not only about nursing issues but about the whole future of the NHS and the key priorities that we need to address. If we can do that I am sure that we can improve the quality of service and begin to improve the quality of support given to nurses in so many stressful situations. Above all, I am sure that we will then be able to recruit and retain more nurses.
  8.20 p.m.
  Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, we are all delighted to have the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, here tonight and we are grateful for the vigorous way in which he raised the Question. He promises to be the most cherished patient in the NHS from here on. He has given us the three Rs of nursing workforce deployment. I wish to focus on the relevance of educational issues to those three problems. Since 1932 and the Lancet Report on nursing, there have been successive reports at five or 10-yearly intervals. Perhaps the time is ripe to look closely at what is happening in the service, in particular nursing education.
  The report which changed the face of nursing education was the UKCC report Project 2000, published in 1986. As the noble Lord said, since 1989 nurses have been educated in the higher education sector and take courses in diploma and degree level qualifications. Yet I hear criticism of the Project 2000 system and it is timely that we should examine that.
  The major criticism I hear is that the newly registered nurse is no longer a confident practitioner when she comes to the ward. The noble Lord referred to that. The perception is that the amount of clinical practice has been greatly reduced to accommodate academic studies. I believe that that is a misconception. Dame Betty Kershaw has confirmed to me that 50 per cent. of the course is in clinical practice, as compared with her figures of 53–54 per cent. in 1989. The major difference is that 50 per cent. of that clinical practice takes place in the community, which is where the majority of patients are nursed. That is right and proper, but it may explain why nurses coming to a ward appear less confident. I join the noble Lord in recommending that we examine the possibility of an intern year.
  Secondly, the consortia of trusts which commission nursing education rightly do so with an eye to workforce needs. But there is very tight control on the numbers and little ability for the students to change the branch of nursing into which they have been recruited. This may be a disincentive and we should look at whether some relaxation of that strict control by consortia is possible.
  Thirdly, the Project 2000 system may create certain shortages. There is no longer a direct entry in psychiatric nursing. The student follows the foundation course and may never see a psychiatric nurse or psychiatric practice for the first 18 months. One can understand the increased wastage in that area. Therefore, there may be a case for looking at how we prepare psychiatric nurses. A course more allied to social work may be beneficial.
  We have a widened date of entry, with people with BTEC and NVQ qualifications, but there is also greater wastage and academic failure in the courses. We need to address that problem and the causes of it.
  8.25 p.m.
  Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for posing the Question arising out of first-hand experience of hospitalisation and treatment. I trust that the good progress made from his treatment will continue.
  1546
  I declare an interest. I am chairman of a large acute trust, chairman of the Nurses Welfare Service and a nurse on the effective register of the UKCC. Furthermore, I must confess that I was chairman of the UKCC when Project 2000 was introduced. I wish to make a few suggestions relating to the recruitment, retention and retirement of nurses.
  Recruitment and retention is cyclical within the health service. There is no doubt that there is now a real problem in the NHS. A multiplicity of factors have an effect on recruitment and retention and to a certain extent on retirement. We have already heard mention of the reduction in the number of entrants into nursing. However, this Government have invested more money in training and there has been an increase in the number of training places. The problem lies in attracting more young people and more mature entrants into the nursing profession.
  Nursing is a caring profession. I believe that the ethos of caring needs to be developed in our young people. Will the Minister consider discussing with her colleagues in education using the school curriculum to influence more young people in community service during their final year in school, perhaps introducing caring skills into the curriculum? I am sure that we all agree that society generally is not a caring society and that we need to influence young people to enter the profession.
  The attrition of students remains high and we need to examine selection procedures. Now that we have nursing education within higher education, perhaps we need to examine our selection procedures. I suggest that research is undertaken into what we are looking for in nurses entering the profession. While nurses need a good academic base, they need a good theoretical knowledge, too. They also need to be able to correlate that in delivering practical skills. We must be able to identify that in our selection process. I believe that we need a research project into selection techniques.
  As regards retention, we in the NHS recognise that we live in a dynamic organisation with many changes. Nurses still give 80 per cent. of direct patient care. However, there is a worrying factor in relation to sickness and absence. Mention has been made of the recently published report, Improving the Health of the NHS Workforce. At present, 29–48 per cent. of nurses suffer from exhaustion leading to suicide. That is a high level and considered to be significantly higher in nurses than in equivalent professional groups. The trust that I chair sets a target of 3 per cent. sickness. We reduced the level from 6 per cent. to 3.5 per cent., but it has now risen to 5 per cent. I believe that we really could improve matters if the Government would take a lead on the points made by the Nuffield Trust.
  Finally, the Nurses Welfare Service is caring for 166 nurses suffering health problems as a result of issues not picked up during their period of work. More sensitive management would probably enable those problems to be identified more easily.
  8.30 p.m.
  Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, on hearing the noble Lord, Lord Morris, we were reminded of what the House has missed for four months. I had not realised how great a servant of this House he has been. On behalf of many colleagues who are unable to be with me tonight, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morris, that we are delighted that he is here and in comparative good health because I know that he has been through a great deal during the past few months. I am pleased to see also that he is in good heart and fighting fit.
  I have been fascinated by the amount of expertise and experience that has been demonstrated on all sides of the House. That must stand the Minister and her colleagues in good stead. Not for the first time, the noble Lord, Lord Morris, has rendered a great service to this House and to the nation by reminding the Minister and her colleagues of problems of which they may be aware but about which it does not do any harm to publicise the anxieties of members of your Lordships' House.
  I suffered an illness and someone must have gone very carefully through my CV because when it was noted that I was a former Chief Whip, I was sent to Whipps Cross. It should have been Chief Whipps Cross and it is a cross that I have had to bear more than once. There is better to come!
  From the experiences that I had, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, was describing my ward—which, incidentally, was called Peace Ward—when I think of the frenetic manner in which the servants of the nation, whatever their rank, were looking after their patients. I came away from my stay in hospital not only, as I hope most people do, with a deep sense of indebtedness for the professional care but I was grateful also for the calmness, steadfastness and the patience of all those who work in our hospitals.
  What staggered me was that from seven in the morning until nine at night—and there were some who worked all those hours—the staff never seemed to have one minute's rest. The noble Lord referred earlier to someone working for nine hours. I formed the view that everyone who served in that hospital worked extremely hard. It was a Victorian hospital which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, will know from her experience as a Minister. It was one of those hospitals which was built to serve the needs of a large number of people over many years. It is loved by the people who look upon it as their hospital. The same is true of Chase Farm Hospital in Enfield, where I lived for many years. Those hospitals have a special place in the heart of the community. The North Middlesex Hospital, which I know very well from my constituency, is another example of that.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to say this evening that she and her colleagues appreciate very much the dedication of the nursing staff. Of course they are entitled to a fair reward. As a trade unionist all my life, I believe that they should be vigorous in putting forward their case. But, even if no more money can be provided, there should be at least an acknowledgement—and the Minister may be able to give that this evening—of the care and comfort which
  1548
  the Minister and her colleagues must take from knowing that we, the nation, are served so well by extremely devoted nursing staff.
  8.33 p.m.
  Baroness Amos: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris for introducing this important debate. I must declare an interest as a non-executive director of University College London Hospitals and also as chair of the Royal College of Nursing Institute. I should like to focus on recruitment and retention in London. The main issues are that there are not enough qualified nurses in the system, a point made already by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. London trusts are competing for the same staff and therefore they have difficulties working in partnership, although the Promoting London Campaign has begun to address that, as several London hospitals are now advertising collaboratively.
  There are particular shortages in some specialist areas—for example, theatres, intensive care and renal nursing. Accommodation costs tend to be much higher in London in relation to comparative accommodation outside. Host-registration rotation programmes have been difficult to establish and maintain. Those problems might be resolved if rotation became an educational requirement as it is currently in the medical profession.
  Over the past three years, UCL hospitals have made significant improvements in their recruitment techniques to increase effectiveness. But the retention of nursing staff has remained a problem. During 1997–98, the overall turnover was 30 per cent. and was particularly significant in the lower nursing groups of D and E.
  So how have we sought to address our particular needs? Our trust board has ensured that recruitment and retention issues have been identified as a high level performance indicator, and on the recruitment front, like many trusts, we have sought to recruit abroad. We have targeted newly qualified staff and we were involved with a customised job fair in 1997 which had the additional benefit of promoting the trust and promoting nursing in particular. We are in the process of reviewing our publicity material to ensure that we are recruiting from as wide and diverse a group as possible.
  I endorse the view of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath that we must enhance the role of nurses among management and leadership. But it is clear that we need to change the image of the National Health Service and promote the benefits of working in the service if we are to attract and retain nurses. I am particularly concerned that although historically, ethnic minorities have been over-represented in nursing, many of those nurses would not recommend it as a career to their children because of the way they have been treated.
  I turn now to retention. Initiatives have included extending the scope of appraisal and personal development planning, agreeing a study leave policy and being more flexible as regards working hours. I am aware that the Government's strategy is to increase training levels and to invest in initiatives to improve the recruitment and retention and return to the practice of

  1549
  trained staff. I have been encouraged by the national promotion of flexible and family-friendly working hours.
  I am encouraged also by the continuing commitment and high quality of care demonstrated by our nurses. We need to find ways to support and sustain that commitment. At a national level, we need to continue to increase training levels; to encourage more trained nurses to return to the profession; and we need to focus on valuing, motivating and involving nurses by looking at working practices, stress levels in the work place, employment security and protecting staff from discrimination and harassment. Most important, we need a clear framework at national level for local autonomy, flexibility and accountability.
  8.39 p.m.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, first, I am very happy to take on—duty is not the right word—the task of saying how good it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Morris, back. I have always felt that he is one of the most forceful and entertaining speakers in your Lordships' House. No matter what else he has been through, I am extremely pleased to see that he has not lost his touch.
  When one thinks of nurses, a series of images comes to mind based on personal experience. I usually think of a nurse desperately trying to get the damaged rugby player patched up and thrown out of the place on a Saturday before the real work starts. She tells him to go to see a physiotherapist and pushes him away. That is because there is always that horrible experience about to happen when the pub shuts. That is when the real work starts. That is when nursing staff encounter people falling over, or into, each other, often wielding bits of glass. That is when the sportsman will say, "I don't care if it's broken, I will come back tomorrow." One felt that one should not be there because something more serious was going on.
  Nursing is a comparatively low paid profession that has never enjoyed a proper status, despite having to deal with a society literally red in tooth and claw. We do not pay the profession enough respect and never have done. Nursing's image has always been tainted by sexism and the view that it was for the worthy female. Nursing has always been the Cinderella of the medical profession.
  Often, an experienced nurse is infinitely of more use, especially in a casualty ward—which is my only real experience of hospitals—than a junior doctor, who is usually rummaging around for help most of the time. Anybody who attended university with junior doctors had the feeling that they should not be allowed anywhere near patients for the next 10 years anyway.
  The only thing we can really do for nurses is pay them more. It is easy for the Government to say, "We are spending more on the National Health Service and pay rises are coming." But when a government say that a pay claim is to be split and not implemented in full, that sends the wrong message. Unless we up pay standards for nursing, the profession will not retain staff—particularly in areas where work is hard and accommodation is expensive. The noble Baroness,
  1550
  Lady Amos, put her finger exactly on the point, but was probably too kind to members of her own Front Bench to follow through on the comment. We must pay for a quality service. Unless we are prepared to invest in those people, we will have problems.
  The similarities between nursing and the teaching profession were pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris who referred to a super grade of practitioner who would be paid more. That will not do, even if it is introduced. We do not want one wonderful nurse running around; we want lots of good nurses. Overworked nurses will make mistakes, no matter how good they are. The real problem is status, and that is so closely linked to pay that one might as well put them in the same sentence. The problem of status is particularly acute where there is need for staff of the highest quality.
  8.42 p.m.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, has shone a spotlight on the most important challenge facing the National Health Service—the need to recruit, train and retain sufficient numbers of nurses for every branch of health care. We are all immensely grateful to him, even though the time made available for this debate was so short.
  There is little doubt that the pressures on the health service from nursing shortages are real and growing. Over the past few years there has been a steady decline in the initial entries to the UKCC register of about 25 per cent. since a decade ago. In 1985, student nurses numbered some 71,000—all of them employed in the NHS. By 1995 there were fewer than 40,000 student nurses—not all of them working in the NHS. Nursing shortages are apparent across the board, but obvious in specialist disciplines such as cancer care, paediatrics and mental health. The difficult recruitment climate is partly due to the smaller pool of potential recruits in the current demographic trough of 17 to 20 year-olds. It reflects also the stiff competition that nursing, as an increasingly graduate profession, faces in the employment market. As my noble friend Lady Cumberlege mentioned, young people see nursing portrayed in the press and elsewhere in a less favourable light than other professions and decide that it is not worth considering.
  A welcome if only partial counterbalance is the enhanced appeal of nursing as a broader-based profession. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, nurses now do many things previously done only by doctors. That widening of skills undoubtedly makes nursing more attractive to individuals—usually graduates—who relish a higher intellectual challenge.
  If we are to improve the recruitment graph, the so-called entry gate must be as wide as possible so that not only graduates but bright, caring school leavers with motivation, as well as mature adults, are enabled to join the nursing register. Also, much more information needs to be made available to school children about what nursing is all about. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton. There needs to be specific targeting to attract new entrants and the projection of a

  1551
  positive image of nursing and patient care. There are numerous opportunities for universities and hospital trusts to target by way of job fairs, open days, work placements and links with specific schools.
  In some parts of the country, the retention picture is worrying. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Morris, national turnover is around 21 per cent a year. Although that figure is bad enough, it is an average. I have visited trust hospitals where staff turnover is only just in double figures. Other hospitals have to manage what seems to be a never-ending haemorrhage of nursing staff and, simultaneously, a constant recruitment crisis. With the cost to a hospital trust of replacing a nurse estimated at £4,900, a high or even average staff turnover represents a substantial drain on resources.
  There are many reasons for nurses leaving, but the most significant seem to be stress and lack of job satisfaction. Pay appears not to be an issue in itself but, when combined with other grievances, its importance tends to be magnified. The extent to which good human resource management in a hospital trust can make all the difference is striking. Trusts that adopt family-friendly policies such as flexible rostering and crèches seem to do a lot better. The same is true of trusts that provide automatic clinical updates for nurses and where emphasis is placed on professional development and career progression.
  All too often, nurses find that the ability to do their jobs as they wish is hampered by competing time demands, not least from paperwork. Perhaps the biggest single source of stress is the shortage of nursing and support staff. From that perspective, the current crisis in nurse numbers has the potential to become self-fuelling, which must concern us. I am convinced that much can be done to improve the situation. We need to encourage nurses who have moved away from the profession to return. Hospitals should offer re-entry courses, preferably free of charge. Also, to alleviate the stress felt by qualified nurses that the noble Lord, Lord Morris, graphically described, we must examine closely ways of improving the skill levels of health care assistants, to enable them to take on greater responsibilities. The best way is a national register of qualified health care workers, to act as a lever for raising standards in hospitals and social care generally.
  8.48 p.m.
  Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my thanks to my noble friend, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, go beyond the normal courtesies. I am delighted that he was in his place to introduce this short but authoritative debate and to find him in such characteristically vigorous form. It is wonderfully characteristic of my noble friend not only to slip unnoticed into his place following his recent illness but to mark his return by opening a debate that clearly reflects his lifelong concerns for the caring professions and his capacity to identify the most important issues in our public services.
  No one who participated in the debate needs reminding that without nurses there could be no National Health Service. The debate gives me a
  1552
  welcome opportunity to pay tribute, as I was encouraged to do by my noble friend, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to the one million staff of the NHS, particularly members of the nursing profession.
  Everyone taking part in this debate has recognised the huge variety of roles that nurses undertake every day of the year. However, we all recognise that there are problems and tensions. We know that there are very real issues to address. Perhaps I may focus briefly on some of the key issues that have been raised which the Government feel are priorities to improve the essential three Rs encompassed in my noble friend's Question; namely, recruitment, retention and retirement.
  My noble friend was right to call for a strategic approach to the 3Rs. The Government have recognised that a new overall development programme for nursing into the next century is vital and necessary in the short term. In our White Paper, The New NHS, published just before Christmas, the Government made clear their commitment to strengthen the nursing contribution to healthcare. To follow this, in April my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced to the Royal College of Nursing congress that we would start a consultation exercise on the development of a nursing, midwifery and health visiting strategy. That is currently under way and we expect to see some results from a nationwide exercise involving widespread written and spoken consultation before the end of the year.
  Our fundamental aim is to ensure that the nursing profession is given all the support that it deserves so that nurses can feel involved and can achieve their correct status, as mentioned by several speakers. Their efforts in delivering high quality healthcare to our communities must be both recognised and rewarded. For example, we are anxious to see nurses take their rightful leadership role in the organisation and governance of the new NHS. That will be especially important in the primary care groups where each board will be required to have a nurse representative.
  We already have around 80 personal medical service pilots, as they are called, under the primary care Act. which are taking place. It is worth pointing out that 10 of those 80 are led by nurses and that they involve nurse practitioners and GPs working in partnership. In addition, two of the pilots involve nurses taking full responsibility for the practice contract and, indeed, employing a salaried GP. My noble friend Lord Morris may be interested to know that one of these, covering a population of about 2,000 people, is in south Derbyshire where a salaried GP is employed and the pilot aims to develop a nurse triage system for appropriate GP referrals.
  We welcome those developments and we are of course seeking to encourage them, but to recruit and retain nurses who are willing to take on those leadership roles we must first address the things to which noble Lords have drawn attention tonight which are important to individual nurses—better promotion prospects, gaining broader experience, better training and development opportunities and better or more suitable working hours with less stress. We also recognise the need to address violence, employment security and

  1553
  discrimination as well as the need for a fair pay system. Just as important is the need to invest in nurses and to improve their training and development—the first of my noble friend's 3Rs, recruitment. I am pleased to tell my noble friend that we are investing £800 million this year on training nurses and on professions allied to medicine. Last year the numbers entering training increased by 1,700 places and a further increase is planned for this year. It is not enough, but it is a good start.
  New students are of course the lifeblood of nursing and, therefore, the lifeblood of the NHS. It is essential that they are properly valued and supported while they are training. Their financial security is of course most important. The new funding arrangements being introduced this September in response to the Dearing Report are good news for them and for the other professions involved. After agreement last autumn between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment, they, together with midwives and PAMS, will have tuition costs met and will have access to NHS bursaries, which have just been uplifted. We expect this to mean a better deal financially for nurses and for other healthcare students.
  It is possible that these new financial arrangements are encouraging new applicants and that may partly explain the success of our latest recruitment programme, which my noble friend and other noble Lords mentioned. As my noble friend said, the £2.15 million initiative was announced in the autumn to boost recruitment and aid retention. It includes a national nurse publicity programme. So far I am pleased to tell your Lordships that the campaign has attracted 14,000 responses, which is very encouraging.
  However, to take up the point made by the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, we need to try to introduce the values of public service at an even earlier stage. I am pleased to tell the House that the NHS Executive will be running a competition in secondary schools in the next academic year with the idea of challenging negative and traditional stereotypes about health service employment, raising awareness about NHS career opportunities and encouraging a broad range of applicants from across society.
  Of course, attracting young people to take an interest in the NHS is only the beginning. Retaining them, once they have been recruited, is the next of my noble friend's significant Rs. Perhaps I may quite frankly say that we are concerned that about 100,000 nurses who are on the UKCC register do not appear to be working. We need to provide much more imaginative and good career opportunities to help people return when often they have retired temporarily for very good reasons. They take career breaks because of their family responsibilities, as several Lords mentioned, but may want to return to a profession which they valued at an earlier stage.
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced at this year's RCN congress a further £4 million for local investment in return-to-practice initiatives; for example, to run projects which seek out nurses in the local community who are currently not practising to encourage them to consider resuming their
  1554
  careers on a personal basis and to prepare them for a return to work. In my personal experience of talking to trust chief executives who have been attempting new recruitment programmes, especially following up the waiting-list initiative, these local campaigns seem to be successful.
  The NHS Executive recently sent out a resource pack called "Sharing Ideas" to all trusts. It is aimed at helping employers both to recruit and retain staff. The pack is called "Sharing Ideas" because that is simply what it aims to do. For example, a consortium of employers comprising 10 trusts pooled its investment of return-to-practice moneys to fund an area-wide initiative beyond the catchment basis of their individual trusts to recruit non-practising nurses living locally and outside the usual recruitment channels. That initiative resulted in 200 inquiries ranging from nurses who had last practised between six months and 20 years before. Indeed, 75 of them subsequently took up courses and a re-run of the advertisements produced a further 150 inquiries. We are also determined to exploit the added attractive employment opportunities of NHS Direct. These 24-hour nurse-led helplines are proving an enormous success in the three pilot sites already established. We are going to press ahead with the plans to make this a nationwide service as soon as possible.
  The new system has advantages for some of the nurses we have been discussing, as well as for patients. I have in mind nurses who perhaps want to work different hours than those in traditional shift patterns, nurses who want less physically demanding roles than those on the wards or those who are often older women who want to revitalise their skills in a different environment. All of them can be very satisfactorily and satisfyingly enrolled in NHS Direct.
  There are some concerns about a retirement bulge developing within the nursing profession. Although many nurses are in their 40s and 50s and are technically eligible to retire from the age of 50, I can assure noble Lords that the average retirement age is around 59. Rising numbers of retirements are expected from the turn of the century but we have this under review. The impact is being assessed as part of the workforce planning being undertaken by the NHS. We cannot alter the natural demography but we can develop a strategy for dealing with it; and we are doing so.
  We are determined overall to make the NHS a better and more attractive place to work. The general human resources strategy which my honourable friend Alan Milburn is spearheading is directed towards a more co-operative culture where staff are listened to and where there is an evolutionary approach to management and change.
  Trusts are already tackling a range of immediate issues. My noble friend Lady Amos gave examples from her own experience in London. However, those trusts include in their considerations the role of promoting health at work, recognising and dealing with racism, developing family friendly employment policies and ensuring that staff can speak out when necessary without victimisation. I was glad that my noble friend Lord Hunt raised that point. At a nurse leadership conference last

  1555
  week I spoke on the theme that people should not be afraid to rock the boat; indeed, they should be confident in speaking out about their concerns both as regards professional standards and their personal interests.
  We understand that nurses need to work flexibly to combine careers and family responsibilities. We also understand the need not just for words and policies but for practical demonstrations. We have, for example, been piloting self-rostering IT software which allows staff much greater control over the hours they work while covering peaks and troughs in the workload. Pilots have been set up across 19 sites within 11 trusts. Early findings suggest that if the system is well managed there can be significant savings in casual absenteeism and staff can plan their work around their known personal commitments.
  As regards the more general and less tangible problems that several noble Lords have mentioned of stress, work related illness and job satisfaction, my noble friend and others were right to draw attention to the Nuffield Report Improving the Health of the NHS Workforce. It is an important piece of work which confirms the need for the package of action we have started to put in place. We recognise that stress is a major cause of absence in the health service. We have issued guidance on the management of sickness; piloted a model to reduce organisational stress; and published practical ways of tackling stress at work. A task force of nurses, doctors and other health service workers has just been set up to advise Ministers on the way to increase staff involvement in improving services, thus, we hope, improving their job satisfaction.
  1556
  The importance of pay was commented on—that point was taken up vigorously by the noble Lord, Lord Addington—and in particular the idea of a top ranking nurse. Rather than planning to establish a new grade of nurse, we have been looking at the whole NHS pay system. Exploratory talks have already been undertaken with the RCN, other NHS unions and the professional bodies, as well as with NHS managers. on how best to achieve a system of nationally determined pay which is fair, efficient and has appropriate flexibility.
  All of the important issues that the Government are addressing, as well as the pay issue, were mentioned in the speeches of my noble friends and other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. They are, for example, well run clinical placements; flexible hours; continuing professional development; encouragement and support from managers; less bureaucracy, and so on.
  I realise that I have overrun my speaking time slightly but I say in conclusion that next month the health service celebrates its 50th anniversary. As I said at the beginning of my reply to the debate, the high reputation of the NHS in its history has often depended on the reputation of its nursing workforce. I hope that what I have said tonight reassures your Lordships that the Government recognise that the skills and dedication of our nurses are key components in maintaining the trust we want the public to enjoy into the next century. Once again I must say how splendid it is to see my noble friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris leading our discussion on this important topic. Long may he and the nursing profession continue to flourish.
  House adjourned at two minutes past nine o'clock.

  Sudan
  Sudan
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  Government Expenditure Per Capita
  Government Expenditure Per Capita
  Government Cars
  Government Cars
  The Prime Minister: Press Articles
  The Prime Minister: Press Articles
  Intelligence and Security Committee: Appointment
  Intelligence and Security Committee: Appointment
  Prison Service Health Care Directorate: Temporary Staff
  Prison Service Health Care Directorate: Temporary Staff
  Metropolitan Police District Boundaries
  Metropolitan Police District Boundaries
  Metropolitan Police: Missing Data
  Metropolitan Police: Missing Data
  Dangerous Personality-disordered Offenders
  Dangerous Personality-disordered Offenders
  ACPO Firearms Licensing Sub-committee
  ACPO Firearms Licensing Sub-committee
  Putney Hospital
  Putney Hospital
  Cannabis: Therapeutic Aspects
  Cannabis: Therapeutic Aspects
  Office of Science and Technology
  Office of Science and Technology
  Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme
  Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme
  Operation Granby: NBC Logs
  Operation Granby: NBC Logs
  Anthrax Vaccine and the Armed Forces
  Anthrax Vaccine and the Armed Forces
  In-flight Air Quality
  In-flight Air Quality