Sitting of 5 May 1998

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

    Council Tax
    Mr. Keith Simpson: What has been the average change in council tax levels for 1998–99. [39503]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The increase in council tax for the average household is 96p per week.
    Mr. Simpson: I am grateful to the Minister for that information, which is meaningless to my constituents. Thanks to the Government's first local government finance award, £14 million has been taken out of the budget for Norfolk and the council tax has gone up by 16 per cent. For the people of Norfolk, that means new Labour, new taxes. What hope do the people of Norfolk have that things will get better next year?
    Ms Armstrong: The increases in council tax this year reflect the changes that the previous Administration intended to introduce as part of the rebalancing of central and local taxation. Hon. Members will remember that, to get themselves out of the poll tax, the previous Administration put 2.5p on VAT and centralised local government spending enormously. They recognised that that was a mistake and began to amend it just before the election. We have continued that process and shall continue to set fair and meaningful taxes in our local government settlement next year.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right when she draws attention to the problems that she and her colleagues inherited from the previous Government. Does she agree that one of the problems inherited from the Tories was the width of the gap between local authority spending and the standard spending assessment allowed by the Government, which increased throughout the 18 years of Tory government? I hope that my hon. Friend will work to correct that error and to narrow—and eventually close—the gap between local government spending and assistance from Government.
    Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend will know that we are currently consulting on changes to local government
    546
    finance and trying to make it fairer and better balanced. Local people need to know that they are getting the quality of services that they expect, at the price they are prepared to pay. Our settlement this year has begun to move us in that direction, but we must go further.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Does the hon. Lady remember that, in the previous London elections, the electors of Croydon were promised that Labour would not raise the council tax? I have a copy of the pledge in my hand. Can she therefore explain why, this year, council tax in Croydon under Labour is going up by 11 per cent., and why, over the past four years, it has increased by 30 per cent?
    Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman will also want to reflect on why his party, with the support of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), is telling the electorate that education is not a priority this year. The Conservatives are prepared to see the equivalent of two schools close in Croydon rather than allow relative rises in council tax to ensure the very best service provision. The council tax increase in Croydon this year reflects the decision that the Administration of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member made last year.
    Sir Norman Fowler: I think that the phrase the hon. Lady is searching for is, "No, I can't explain it". That being so, can she at least explain why the 20 highest charging councils in England, from Liverpool to Greenwich, are under Labour control? Why does it cost an average of £300 a year more at band D to live under a Labour council in London than under a Conservative council?
    Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman demonstrates that he has neither ears to hear nor nous to understand. I have explained the changes in Croydon. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman has looked, but he will find that the top six increases in council tax have occurred in Tory areas.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: If he will end the system of paying housing benefit for council tenants out of housing revenue accounts. [39504]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): Removing the cost of rent rebates for council tenants from housing revenue accounts would cost the taxpayer an extra £1.3 billion this year. We are considering housing finance as part of our comprehensive spending review and we expect to announce conclusions from the review in the summer.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that the system of paying the housing benefit of council tenants from housing revenue accounts is inherently and monstrously unfair. It means that the poor are subsidising the poorest, it costs every working council house tenant £1,000 a year and it prevents a reduction in rents, which are higher than they otherwise would, or should, be.

    547
    I am sure that my hon. Friend—who is a fair man—agrees with me, so why will he not give a date for abolishing that monstrosity?
    Mr. Raynsford: I have answered my hon. Friend's question by saying that we are considering these matters in the context of the comprehensive spending review. I put it to him that a consequence of simply ending the current arrangement would be windfall gains to areas of relatively low need and no help for areas of high need. That is why his proposal is not on. Abolishing the current arrangement would provide a benefit of more than £1,000 per dwelling per year in Guildford, but no benefit whatsoever in Manchester. That cannot be right.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and stress that this is not a party political matter. Council tenants are furious that the system penalises them and that they must subsidise an unrelated issue: housing benefit. It is not a matter of whether the subsidies differ between authorities; it is whether individuals pay for the services they receive or pay for others to receive services that are unrelated to them.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am rather surprised that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue because the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)—which the hon. Gentleman supports—would not benefit his tenants in Southwark, but there would be an immediate benefit in Wokingham of £970 a year. That cannot be right or equitable.

    London Government
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: What action he plans to take to encourage Londoners to vote in the referendum on 7 May. [39505]
    4. Ms Karen Buck: If he will make a statement on his Department's role in publicising the arrangements for the London referendum. [39506]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): My Department has mounted an extensive public information campaign to ensure that the people of London are fully informed about our proposals for a mayor and assembly for London and to encourage them to vote yes or no on 7 May. This has included posters, radio and newspaper advertisements, a neutral leaflet through every letter box in the capital, an internet site and a telephone helpline, which to date has answered well over 10,000 calls.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that as many people as possible vote on Thursday and that they vote yes for a London government committed to looking after London Transport, economic regeneration and the police and fire services in London? Does he also agree that the Conservatives' late support for the plan is a welcome, but tardy conversion to democracy throughout London?
    Mr. Prescott: I agree, and hope that the people will vote yes in the referendum. I welcome the support of
    548
    hon. Members on both sides of the House for the proposal. We want as many people as possible to vote. I shall not be churlish and criticise yet another U-turn by Conservative Members.
    Ms Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many black and ethnic minority Londoners feel that their situation has worsened considerably in the 12 years since the previous Londonwide authority was abolished? Will he congratulate Operation Black Vote on its work to encourage black Londoners to participate in the referendum on Thursday and send a message to black and ethnic minority Londoners that a mayor and an assembly would strengthen their representation citywide?
    Mr. Prescott: It is important to congratulate those who have encouraged people, especially the ethnic minorities, to vote. We have produced a leaflet that summarises the proposals. Copies had been distributed to 3 million homes across the capital at the end of March. It has played its part, along with advertisements in newspapers and on radio stations. I hope that everyone will vote and that the referendum proposals are endorsed.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that in my extensive canvassing for the forthcoming London borough elections, few of my constituents have remarked on the referendum? The few who have greatly resent not being asked separate questions on whether they want a Greater London authority and separately elected mayor and the lumping together of those issues in one question, in spite of the warning given by Conservative Members. On reflection, does he think that he is listening to the people of London by putting the omnibus question?
    Mr. Prescott: In my canvassing in London, I have found that Londoners welcome the opportunity to participate in the vote. They are being given a chance, by a Labour Government, at least to have a say in whether they should have local government, which was denied them when the previous Government abolished the Greater London council.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need a high turnout and a strong yes vote in the referendum on Thursday to give the new authority the clout to do its job? Will he accept that, by refusing a two-question referendum, the Labour party has stifled debate that would have guaranteed a high turnout? Labour will reap its reward, which will be a feeble result and an enfeebled authority.
    Mr. Prescott: I do not accept that proposition. I hope that as many people as possible will vote in the referendum. In Wales, the turnout in the referendum for a Welsh assembly was 50 per cent., and in Scotland the turnout was 60 per cent. It behoves all of us to get across to as many people as possible, their democratic obligation to participate in the vote.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: A crucial issue in the referendum is the way in which the parties select their mayoral candidates. We know that the Conservatives are committed to one member, one vote. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there

    549
    is no truth in the rumour that the Government are trying to exclude the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who is running as a candidate, and that paid-up members of the Labour party in London will have a free vote on who goes on the shortlist—yes or no?
    Mr. Prescott: I do not know whether that question warrants a yes or no answer. When the people of London have decided on 7 May for the election of a mayor and an assembly, as I hope they will, we shall make the appropriate procedures, which is the proper way to select and elect candidates. The Tory choice of Lord Archer, the Tory answer to Dick Whittington, is not the one they are likely to turn to.

    New Housing
    Mr. Stephen Day: If he will make it his policy to adopt a target of building two thirds of new housing development in brown-field sites. [39508]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I consider our 60 per cent. target both challenging and achievable. To help achieve it, I have established a task force led by Lord Rogers to look at how best to use previously developed land. We shall launch shortly a national land use database to review how many recycled sites exist, or are likely to become available in the near future, and we will expect regional planning conferences, for the first time, to set their own regional targets.
    Mr. Day: Can the Secretary of State advise the House of one green-field site anywhere in Britain that has been saved since he announced his change of policy on green-field sites?
    Mr. Prescott: I am pleased to announce that, under the new system, the review carried out by the west midlands regional planning conference shows that, of the 330,000 houses proposed by 2011, 61 per cent. will be on green-field sites—
    Sir Norman Fowler: Green-field sites?
    Mr. Prescott: I apologise; 61 per cent. will be on recycled land. That shows that the Government's proposal will save many green-field sites. There is considerably more green belt land now than when the Government took office last year.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Britain still has the problem that far too many people want their houses to be on green-field sites but want others live on brown-field sites? Will he ensure that we regenerate our cities so that people feel that they are free of crime, have high-quality schools and are places in which they want to live? We shall then have gone a long way towards solving the problem.
    Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely the Government's policy. We need to make our cities more attractive so that more and more people want to live in them. That is what our plans are about.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the right hon. Gentleman understand and accept that in West
    550
    Sussex—particularly in Mid-Sussex, where people have been outraged by his arbitrary decision to add 12,800 houses to the figure decided upon by his inspector—his policy is considered untenable? Where does he think West Sussex will find brown-field sites to accommodate more than 12,800 houses in addition to the 38,000 that he has already said we have to build there?
    Mr. Prescott: We have made it clear that our new approach is to consider these matters in the regional context, and the West Sussex structure plan will be so considered. That will be helpful. We have yet to start discussions on that. The county council has been granted leave for judicial review of my direction to increase housing provision in line with the regional planning guidance, so I do not wish to comment on the matter at present.

    London Government
    Mr. Clive Efford: Pursuant to chapter 3 of the White Paper on "A Mayor and Assembly for London", if he will make a statement on arrangements for ensuring public accountability of the mayor and assembly. [39509]
    The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The mayor and assembly will be accountable to Londoners through the ballot box. To strengthen public accountability, the mayor will hold a monthly assembly question time, twice-yearly people's question times and an annual state of London debate. The assembly will hold the mayor to account, hold its meetings in public and publish its papers and reports.
    Mr. Efford: Does my hon. Friend accept that the current situation in London is unacceptable; that too many individuals and quangos are spending public money for which there is no accountability? Does he further accept that the new arrangements for a mayor and an assembly will make such expenditure publicly accountable and make those people directly accountable to the people of London through the democratic process?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government abolished democratic citywide government in London and replaced it with a raft of unaccountable quangos. We are restoring to the people of London the democratic right to elect their own citywide mayor and authority and ensuring that decisions are taken in an accountable framework and that quangos are brought back within democratic control exactly in line with the principle of accountability my hon. Friend espouses.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: If, as seems likely, a large number of Londoners register on Thursday their lack of confidence in the accountability of the new mayor by not bothering to vote—by a large electoral yawn—will not it be because they do not believe that there will be any sufficient mechanism either to bring the mayor to account or even to replace him or fire him if he is not up to the job? By what means will a corrupt or ineffectual mayor be replaced?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman gives little credit to the electorate if he believes that the principle of democratic accountability is ultimately flawed. We do not

    551
    believe that; we believe that the people should decide and that if they are dissatisfied with the mayor they should get rid of the mayor—[HoN. MEMBERS: "How?"] By the ballot box, which is the best and most effective way to achieve accountability. I hope that on Thursday the people of London will give a resounding endorsement to the Government's plans for a mayor and an assembly for London.

    Revenue Support Grant
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What recent representations he has received about the allocation of revenue support grant between local authorities. [39511]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): My Department receives representations almost continually from Members of Parliament, local authorities and their associations and other sources, including the general public. Such representations arise from the local government finance settlement for 1998–99, which was announced to the House on 5 February. In addition, we receive views on what changes might be made for the next financial year and responses to our current review of local government finance.
    Mr. Boswell: Now that the Government have, admittedly under some pressure, made the welcome decision to reinstate the practice of their Conservative predecessors in publishing a rural White Paper, will the Minister undertake to tell the House, either in that document or, even better, now, what their rationale is for taking nearly £100 million a year out of the revenue support grant for shire counties? In addition, why has such a small allocation—only about 1.5 per cent. of the total—been made for shire districts on account of sparsity factors?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman will know that the previous Administration considered sparsity factors but found no means of changing the formula fairly. I have invited authorities to submit further ideas this year on how the formula might better reflect sparsity factors. That will be a matter for discussion and deliberation. It is simply untrue to say that there has been a deliberate attempt to take money from the shires. The hon. Gentleman knows that additional money went to shire districts this year after we had looked at the formula for other areas. If he adds up the amounts for shire counties and for shire districts, he will find a different sum.
    We are trying to redress the enormous unfairness that existed in the formula during the last few years of the previous Administration. We are moving towards a fairer and more fiddle-free agenda.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: So it has been changed.
    Ms Armstrong: Yes, we have changed it. We are making sure that we end the ludicrous practice of doling out money for visitors as if they were residents. That happened in a place not far from here, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that was a fiddle. We have stopped the fiddle.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: In determining areas of need, will the Minister consider
    552
    improving revenue support grant allocations by taking into account Treasury figures that show the number of people in high income tax brackets? In Derbyshire, for example, only 5 per cent. of the population are in those brackets; in Surrey, the figure is 17.2 per cent. Derbyshire is 41st of the 45 counties according to published prosperity figures, which is a clear indication that there is need in particular areas. I hope that that will be reflected in the review that is taking place.
    Ms Armstrong: We are seeking to reflect need more accurately, but we also seek to make the formula simpler. We want council tax payers to know exactly what they are paying. At the moment, the system is so complex that that is extremely difficult. I do not promise that we will be able to do it in one year; it took the previous Administration 18 years to make the mess and it will take us some time to undo what they did.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: Does the Minister agree that the Government's changes to standard spending assessment methodology this year have cost London nearly £50 million, which is the equivalent of £17 per household, or more than 2 per cent. on council tax? Will the Minister assure Londoners that the Government's plans for further SSA changes will not mean further cuts in SSA for London next year, after the London elections?
    Ms Armstrong: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. I am not sure whether his appearance means that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has disappeared. I shall miss him greatly; I used to enjoy his over-the-topness and the opportunities that that gave us for scoring yet more goals.
    It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman moves back to this issue; at our previous Question Time his Front-Bench colleagues accused us of hitting London hard. [Interruption.] Sorry—they accused us of being overgenerous to London as against the counties. Conservative Members change their minds so often that they confuse even me. The hon. Gentleman demonstrates that the settlement is fairer and fiddle free. If there had not been so many fiddles, some London boroughs would not have had the cushioning that the Conservative Government gave them.
    Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Minister agree that some of us are astonished that the Tories should be so brazen as to come to the Chamber and talk about revenue support grant, because those of us who were in the previous two Parliaments saw how RSG was gerrymandered to pour money into Tory Westminster and Tory Wandsworth? Whether they live in the inner city or in the countryside, where we have unprecedented representation, people are glad to see fairness and common sense return to the allocation of RSG.
    Ms Armstrong: I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that Conservative Members dare complain about any settlement for London demonstrates just how brazen they are. That does not win support, but being straight with people does. We are being straight. This has been a difficult settlement, but it has been fairer. People in

    553
    London know that the distribution in London is much fairer this year because we have stopped the incredible fiddle over how visitors were treated.

    Genetically Modified Organisms
    Mr. Norman Baker: What assessment he has made of the extent of Government control to regulate the intrusion into the environment of GMOs. [39512]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): The Government have in place a strict regulatory framework to control the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Deliberate release may take place only with the explicit consent of the Secretary of State or if marketing approval has been granted in the European Union. Deliberate release consent will not be given without a rigorous safety assessment on a case-by-case basis.
    Mr. Baker: I thank the Minister for that answer, but is she aware that an article in the New Scientist on 2 May referred to the fact that there is evidence that beneficial insects can be killed by transgenic crops and, in particular, by maize being marketed by Novartis? Does she accept that genetically modified crops can, in some circumstances, pose a major threat to the environment? Will she call on the European Commission immediately to suspend market consent for genetically modified maize?
    Angela Eagle: As part of the rigorous risk assessment that my Department undertakes before any genetically modified organism can be released into the environment, it examines the effects on insect populations, including beneficial insect populations, of any of the modifications. I assure the hon. Gentleman that where there is an effect, permission to release will not be granted.

    Green-field Development
    Mr. Chris Mullin: If he will visit Sunderland to examine the effect of green-field development on the inner city; and if he will make a statement. [39513]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): Since my hon. Friend tabled this question, I have had the privilege of visiting Sunderland. On 30 April, I saw the scale of inner-city regeneration, and I understand that the city of Sunderland has allocated some 50 per cent. of proposed development for brown-field sites in its emerging unitary development plan, which is due to be adopted shortly.
    Mr. Mullin: We were very glad to see the Minister in Sunderland the other day, but there were one or two parts that he did not reach. Is he aware that in and near the centre of Sunderland we have acres of listed period property that are sliding towards dereliction, while all around us massive planning permissions are still being granted for housing on green-field sites? If we are serious about reversing this trend—I assume we are—Sunderland would be a good place to start. If the Minister would care to make another visit, I should be glad to give him on-the-spot guidance to the key areas.
    Mr. Caborn: I am sure that my hon. Friend will acknowledge that the policies we are pursuing in drawing
    554
    up the unitary development plan were put in place by the previous Administration. My hon. Friend's local authority has now made some modifications and two green-field sites have been taken out, which would have been in line with the previous Government's policy had they still been in power. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Government's policy is to make our cities and towns places where people like to work and play, unlike the previous Administration, who put everything on green-belt land.

    Cars
    Helen Jones: What measures he proposes to encourage the purchase of more fuel efficient, less polluting cars. [39534]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): We have already announced several fiscal measures to encourage the purchase of cleaner cars, including the fuel duty strategy and the proposed lower rate of vehicle excise duty for the least polluting, most fuel efficient cars. We have also established the cleaner vehicles task force to advise on further action.
    Helen Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that, as people will want to use their cars as part of an integrated transport strategy, it is important that those vehicles are less polluting and more fuel efficient than they are now? Does he further agree that the development of alternative fuels, such as compressed natural gas and liquified petroleum gas, will have an important role to play in achieving that end?
    Dr. Strang: Yes, the motor car will continue to have an important role in transport, not least because it is flexible and convenient. My hon. Friend is right that we want an increased take-up of alternative fuels, particularly in congested areas, to help those people, especially asthmatics, who suffer because of poor air quality caused by fuel emissions.
    Mr. Eric Forth: If it made sense to raise the tax on fuel for motor vehicles to have the effect on pollution that the Minister claims, why did it also make sense to reduce the tax on domestic fuel for heating, which causes even greater pollution?
    Dr. Strang: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Conservative Government started the automatic increase in fuel duty by more than the rate of inflation. Surely he should welcome the fact that the Chancellor has announced our intention to introduce a new reduced rate—a £100 rate—of vehicle excise duty for the least polluting, most efficient cars.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does not experience show that when we widened the price differential, people were encouraged to use unleaded fuel? Should we not do the same for compressed natural gas and liquid petroleum gas to allow those fuels to be used in an environmentally sensitive way?
    Dr. Strang: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. In two Budgets, the Government froze the rate of duty on liquefied petroleum gas and on compressed natural gas.

    555
    We believe that those fuels have an enhanced role to play, particularly in congested areas where emissions effect people's health, especially those with asthma and cardiac conditions.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What plans he has in respect of the future role of the private car. [39535]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We shall shortly publish a White Paper delivering our manifesto commitment to introduce an integrated transport policy to fight congestion and pollution. Our aim will be to extend the transport choices available to the British people. The private car will continue to have an essential role to play, along with a much more effective public transport system, which will encourage people to use their cars less and public transport more. That will protect the environment, strengthen our economy and provide access for all sectors of society.
    Mr. Boswell: I take it from the Secretary of State's response—and from the response of the Minister of Transport to an earlier question—that the Government are at last coming to terms with the reality that a car is a necessity and not a luxury for many millions of drivers and their families, and not only for the affluent or those resident in rural areas. In the light of that reality, will the Secretary of State and his colleagues return to the Chancellor and make representations to him about the implications of a total tax increase of £9 billion on motorists which will extend over the life of this Parliament and have to be paid out of the pockets of ordinary drivers and ordinary families?
    Mr. Prescott: The petrol duty escalator was started by the previous Administration, and has required motorists to pay billions of pounds in tax. This Government have always realised that the car has an important part to play—and I have spoken on transport issues for a long time. The United Kingdom has fewer cars per head than other European countries, but we use our cars an awful lot more?—because those other countries have a better public transport system. We wish to encourage people in the United Kingdom to use their cars less and to use public transport more. We will achieve that goal by making public transport much more effective—by making it a priority, rather than by deregulating it and encouraging competition, which, under the previous Administration, led to a reduction in public transport.
    Mr. Tom Brake: Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm whether it is the Prime Minister's policy unit or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions that is defining the Government's policy on private cars? Will he also consider his position if, at the end of this Parliament, he has not been able to reduce traffic in terms of his commitment?
    Mr. Prescott: The transport White Paper will be a Government policy document formulated by my Department and influenced by the Prime Minister—who is the Government's main Minister. Those factors will determine the policy, which I believe will be a successful one. Hon. Members will have to wait until I introduce the
    556
    White Paper to make a judgment on the policy. There will also be a public debate on the policy. I believe that the White Paper will lead not only to a better ordered public transport policy and to less private car use, but—most important—to improvement in our environment and in the health of our people.
    Sir Norman Fowler: If the Prime Minister's own policy unit is concerned about the transport White Paper's anti-motorist stance, should not that be a warning to millions of motorists in the United Kingdom and to thousands of other people who work in the motor industry? Is that stance not the real reason why the transport White Paper has been deliberately delayed until a week or two after the local government elections have been held?
    Mr. Prescott: First—as a matter of history—I am not even aware of the paper mentioned in the press, and I have not seen it. Secondly, we will produce a transport policy that meets the needs of the United Kingdom. As for our policy being hostile to those needs, I tell the right hon. Gentleman—who seems to have been talking an awful lot about private car use—that the previous Administration realised that car use was growing so much that, in 25 years, another 10 million cars will be on the road, requiring us to build 110-lane motorways between London and Leeds. The previous Administration therefore cut the road programme.
    As for tax on motorists—[Interruption.] Yes, tax; the petrol duty escalator was certainly increased. I should like to quote to the right hon. Gentleman something from the 1996 Green Paper on taxation of non-residential parking, which states that there should be
    "a presumption in the favour of introducing legislation. in due course, to enable congestion charging and area licensing to be implemented".
    That was the clear intention of the previous Administration, who seem to have had one policy in government and another in opposition. Perhaps the policy change was announced when the right hon. Gentleman had taken time to be with his family, and he missed it. The way he is currently performing, he will be back with his family and off the Opposition Front Bench.

    Rural Bus Partnership
    30. Mr. Derek Wyatt: If he will make a statement on the distribution of the rural bus partnership fund in England. [39536]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): On 28 April, I announced proposals for distribution to English local authorities of an additional £37.5 million for local bus services. That followed the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Budget, of another £150 million over the next three years to improve rural public transport.
    Mr. Wyatt: Given that one in five people in rural areas do not have a car and that a quarter of parishes in England were denied bus services under Conservative Governments, what guarantees can my right hon. Friend give for safeguarding that new investment, so that it goes towards new and additional bus services rather than existing ones?
    Dr. Strang: I am grateful for that question. We certainly shall issue guidance to local authorities to ensure

    557
    that we get value for money. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we want new bus services to be established. As a result of the previous Administration's policies, no fewer than a quarter of rural parishes in England have no bus services, not even on one day of the week, as my hon. Friend pointed out. In the remaining 75 per cent. of parishes, we want better services, such as the introduction of a seven-day service where there is only a five-day service. We want new services to be established with that huge amount of additional money.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Given that every time a motorist fills his tank, according to the Automobile Association, of the £20 that he may spend £16 goes to the Government in tax revenue, surely the motorist will not get a fair deal by being recompensed in the bus services that will be paid for by a mere £50 million spread throughout the kingdom over five years. How much more money can we expect?
    Dr. Strang: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman realises what a quantum change this is in the level of subsidy available for rural bus services. Is he aware that many authorities will receive £1 million extra this year, next year and the year after that? Is he aware that that extra money more than doubles the amount that some local authorities currently have? Of course the car is vital in rural areas, but we want to restore some of the bus services that were lost under the Tories.
    Mr. David Borrow: On Friday night, I attended a meeting of the parish council at Longton to discuss rural transport. One of the issues raised was the difficulty experienced by local residents in attending the hospital in Chorley and the administrative centre in Leyland, where there is a jobcentre and so on. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in giving guidance to local authorities, consideration is given not only to the network of public transport, but to access to public facilities such as hospitals and administrative centres, which should be a priority in creating any new bus services?
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend makes an important point about precisely the sort of issue that we will be concerned about in setting out guidance. It is important also that there should be bus services to hospitals and other important centres seven days a week in as many areas as possible. I also think it important, particularly for young people, to re-establish Saturday bus services into small towns.

    Railtrack Communication Masts
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: What is his estimate of the number of Railtrack communication masts that are also being used for commercial telecommunications. [39537]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I understand from Railtrack that 300 masts, out of a total of 1,000, are used for commercial telecommunications as well as for Railtrack's own needs.
    Mr. Blunt: Is the Minister aware that, nine months ago, Railtrack was able to override the objections of people in
    558
    Reigate and the local authority by putting up a mast and taking no notice of the requested amelioration of the mast's environmental impact? Is she further aware that, less than nine months later, the local authority has been presented with an application for an Orange mast on the site where the Railtrack mast has been erected? Does her answer indicate that Railtrack is systematically abusing its statutory authority to override the local planning process? Is it time for Railtrack to lose that statutory power to override the objections of local people?
    Ms Jackson: There is no statutory requirement under which Railtrack must obtain planning permission, but any commercial company involved in the use of any Railtrack mast is most certainly required to obtain the necessary planning permission.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend have a short and fairly firm word with Railtrack to point out that, if it intends to develop, including signalling in ways in which it has not done so in the past, it must ensure that those who work for it, whether contractors or direct employees, not only have the relevant qualifications but understand the whole world of safety? There is clear evidence that Railtrack is not insisting on contractors providing proper care, either for its own work force or for those using the railway system.
    Ms Jackson: My understanding is that there are no safety implications—nor any reduction in safety—when there is shared use of a mast. As my hon. Friend will know, there was a very critical Health and Safety Executive report on Railtrack's control of contractors. I understand that Railtrack has introduced new systems for the management of its contractors and for assuring that technical standards are met. The Health and Safety Executive is monitoring those improvements and will not hesitate to take further action to ensure that risks are properly controlled.

    Rolling Stock
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: If he will introduce measures to accelerate the purchase of new rolling stock. [39538]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): On 21 January, I asked the rail regulator to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the operation of the rolling stock leasing market. One of the issues that I asked him to look at was investment in new rolling stock. The regulator has submitted his report and I am discussing with him whether further action is required in the light of his recommendations.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am very glad to hear my right hon. Friend's news. I hope that he will encourage passenger operators to follow the example of the freight operator in buying new rolling stock to boost the British rolling stock and engine industry, which has been disastrously hard hit by privatisation. Will he do so by pushing the rolling stock companies into buying new rolling stock rather than siphoning off their ill-gotten gains, as if they were lottery

    559
    profits, as they have been doing? That would be a better way of acquiring new rolling stock than, as Great North Eastern Railway Ltd. wants, extending the franchise.
    Mr. Prescott: I think that the House is aware of how the assets under the three ROSCOs were quite shamelessly undersold, costing the taxpayer about £750 million. It is our concern to get investment in the railway system. I was concerned that a number of operators had found it difficult to make leasing arrangements with the ROSCOs, which was one of the reasons why I asked the regulator to conduct his inquiry. As soon as I have considered his recommendations, I shall report to the House.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: When will the new rolling stock that was promised last year finally appear on the London underground Northern line? What has been the reason for the considerable delay? As the project was financed under the private finance initiative, have financial penalties been imposed on the contractors?
    Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London advises me that much of the new rolling stock is being tested. We hope to see that new investment on the line as quickly as possible. For the long term, the question is how much essential investment we can secure to modernise most of the rolling stock on the London underground. If the hon. Gentleman wants, I will find out the exact position and write to him about it.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the previous Government's failure to write rolling stock replacement programmes into franchise agreements has meant that many of our constituents have to travel on ancient, unsafe and inadequate trains, with no prospect of the franchisees replacing the trains throughout the entire life of the franchise? Will he do something about that to ensure that my constituents do not have to travel on such unsafe and dangerous trains?
    Mr. Prescott: Yes, that is a matter of major concern. Some operators have asked for an extension of their franchise, tied to an intention to introduce new investment, but I thought that the intention was to introduce new investment without the extension of franchises. That was exactly the case for Great North Eastern Railway. It complained that the ROSCOs would not give it sufficient finances during its short franchise. I do not believe that to be so, and have not found it not to be so. Sometimes, pressure is being exerted to extend franchises instead of getting on with introducing new investment. I am addressing myself to that problem.

    Company Car Parking
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: What representations he has received on the impact on small businesses of taxes on company car parking space. [39539]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Taxing company parking provision was one of the range of options raised in the Government's
    560
    consultation exercise on developing an integrated transport policy. A number of respondents commented on it, some specifically from the perspective of small businesses.
    Mrs. Gillan: Does the Minister agree that the last thing that our small businesses want is more taxes? Will she take this opportunity to rule out once and for all the leaked proposals for taxation to fall on small businesses, factories, offices and shops? Does she realise that, if she does not rule that out now, the Government will prove themselves to be bad for business?
    Ms Jackson: No final decisions have been taken on legislation to introduce a non-residential parking levy or on the shape that such a levy would take. We have been considering the social and economic implications nationally and individually of, among other things, the coverage of a levy and exemptions for types and sizes of business—those issues need careful consideration. I am told by small businesses that one of their gravest concerns is the seemingly endless congestion on city streets, which not only precludes and delays delivery, but deters people from shopping—pavements are choked with fumes and people take their lives in their hands if they have to cross the road. The Government are committed to ensuring that that is not only curtailed, but improved.
    Mr. Alan Simpson: Before my hon. Friend is deterred from going down that path, will she examine the phenomenal success of the initiative taken by Boots in Nottingham, which pre-empted any Government decision and, of its own volition, shifted its priorities in favour of subsidies to public transport use and to car sharing? Given the initiative's popularity with the public and with the employees, does not it represent a better model to commend to large and small firms alike in any local economy?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We are commending Boots's model to businesses and industries, both large and small. Boots is by no means the only company that has adopted a green transport plan, which brings enormous benefits not only to the company but to their employees.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: Is the Minister on the side of the teeny-boppers in this argument? Does she accept that a tax on car parking spaces will lead to more red tape, increase the cost of food and give rise to more anti-social on-street parking? Is not it better for cars to be in car parks than to be on the road?
    Ms Jackson: I think that the choice of the word "teeny-bopper" was somewhat unfortunate, given the age of the new leader of the Conservative party—although he has shown few signs of being able to bop anywhere. On additional levies for non-residential parking, an interesting finding by the British Retail Consortium is that its customers are less concerned about car parking costs than about ease of access. The charges levied by the business rates are based on the whole curtilage of the building, whereas it has been assessed that the average cost per annum of a parking space for large retail outlets is about £50. Given the turnover of such businesses, that is a small charge.

    London Minicabs
    Ms Linda Perham: What measures he proposes to ensure the safety of minicab passengers in London. [39541]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): The Government intend to introduce legislation for the regulation of London minicabs as soon as parliamentary time permits.
    Ms Perham: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Is she aware that there were more than 60 sex attacks on women using minicabs in London last year? Can she confirm that the regulation of minicabs in London, which was promised in Labour's London manifesto, is supported not only by the private hire trade but by the black cab trade—many of whose drivers live in my constituency—the police and the people of London? Will she ensure that legislation will cover checks on a driver's criminal record, health and topographical knowledge, matters that were included in a private Member's Bill that was wrecked by one Conservative Member?
    Ms Jackson: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend uttered. As she knows, it was part of our manifesto commitment to London to introduce such regulation. It is important that both cars and drivers should be subject to checks. It is greatly to be regretted that a Bill originally
    562
    introduced by a former Conservative Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), has fallen because of the actions of one Conservative Member.

    Roads Programme
    36. Mr. David Ruffley: What representations he has received on the upgrading and maintenance of trunk roads. [39542]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): About 14,000 representations have been received during the roads review. Overall, they showed an acceptance of the need for a new approach that includes proper maintenance, best use of existing roads and investment in specific improvements.
    Mr. Ruffley: In the departmental review, will Ministers give special priority to major strategic trunk roads? Will the A14 be a priority, given that it is one of the major trunk routes between here and continental Europe?
    Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about maintenance. He will be aware of the neglect of road maintenance by the previous Administration. We have increased the allocation from £200 million last year to £300 million this year. We must get better use out of the existing road network and maintain it properly.

Economic and Monetary Union
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement about the meeting of European Union Heads of State and Government on economic and monetary union, which I chaired in Brussels on 2 May. My right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary, and my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, were also present.
The aim of the meeting, and of separate meetings of the Finance Ministers during the weekend, was to take decisions on which countries would participate in the single currency from 1 January 1999; on the nominations for the president, vice-president and members of the executive board of the European central bank; on the bilateral conversion rates that will apply between participating currencies from 1 January; and on fiscal discipline and economic reform. I have placed a copy of the drafts of the resulting documents in the Library.
The Heads of Government had before them a unanimous recommendation from the Finance Ministers on which countries should be in the first wave of economic and monetary union, and a supporting opinion from the European Parliament, which had met that morning to consider the Finance Ministers' recommendation. Heads of Government agreed unanimously that the following 11 countries should join the single currency from next January: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.
We also agreed without difficulty on the following nominations for the executive board of the ECB: as vice-president, to serve for four years, Mr. Noyer; and, as ordinary board members, Mr. Issing, to serve for eight years; Mr. Padio-Schioppa, for seven years; Mr. Domingo, for six years; and Mrs. Hamalainen, for five years.
The Heads of Government also agreed on Saturday night a statement that, in future appointments to the executive board, appropriate weight and consideration would be given, according to a balanced system of rotation, to recommendations for nationals of member states not on the initial slate.
The declaration on fiscal discipline and economic reform, which was adopted by Finance Ministers on Friday evening, is a significant document, building on a United Kingdom presidency initiative at the York informal ECOFIN in March. It emphasises the importance of fiscal consolidation in high-debt countries and of economic reform; both are essential to help to create jobs and to ensure that monetary union is successful.
All those issues were decided with relative ease, but, as is well known, there were very difficult negotiations over the presidency of the European central bank. It is important to set out those negotiations in detail. There was ready agreement that Wim Duisenberg, the current president of the European Monetary Institute, and a highly respected former Dutch Finance Minister and governor of the Dutch central bank, was the best choice as the first president of the ECB. As president of the European Monetary Institute, he has already been in charge of the practical preparations for the euro. As president of the ECB, he will be well placed to continue that role.
564
It was also readily agreed that we expected Mr. Duisenberg's successor to be the French nominee—Presisent Chirac made it clear that his nomination would be Jean—Claude Trichet, again an experienced and respected governor of the Banque de France—and that both nominations should be for the full eight-year term. Where there was disagreement was not on the substance of any of that, but on the length and form of Mr. Duisenberg's tenure as president.
Because of the controversy—not least in the European Parliament—it is important to be clear what the precise issue at stake was. Much of the subsequent press reporting has rested on this simple factual inaccuracy: that Mr. Duisenberg intended and wished to serve his full eight years, as opposed to being nominated for that time as under the treaty. [Interruption.] In fact, that was not and has never been the case.
Eighteen months ago, before any French candidate had been suggested, Mr. Duisenberg properly made it clear that he would not want to serve a full eight years, in view of his age. Indeed, he did so publicly. At that time, he was saying that he would not guarantee staying more than two years. Later, he talked of between three and five years—but he did insist on being nominated for eight years.
The issues for us were therefore these. If Mr. Duisenberg would not serve the full term, was it right to appoint him? What was the minimum term we should ask of him? Should there also be a maximum term, given the circumstances? The answer to the first question was: yes, in our view, because, as president of the EMI and a highly respected central banker, he was plainly the right person to launch the euro.
The answer to the second question was again clear: Mr. Duisenberg should at least stay until the euro was launched and all transitional arrangements, particularly the introduction of the notes and coins, were in place. That accorded with Mr. Duisenberg's own wishes that he oversee that process and step down shortly afterwards.
It was over the third question that there was disagreement. Some preferred a fixed date for Mr. Duisenberg to retire, while others argued that that would not be consistent with the treaty. The protracted discussions were essentially over how to resolve that issue. Mr. Duisenberg's view, backed by ourselves, was that although his intention was clear, there could be no question of there being any formal obligatory end to his term.
In the end, it was Mr. Duisenberg's view that prevailed. [Interruption.] At our suggestion, he stated his position personally, in his own words, to the Council. He explained that because he would be 67 in 2002, he did not wish to serve the full term— [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. This is totally disgraceful behaviour on the part of Back Benchers.
The Prime Minister: I think that the Opposition have a little difficulty with the facts.
Mr. Duisenberg explained that, because he would be 67 in 2002, he did not wish to serve the full term, but that it was his intention to see through the transitional arrangements for the introduction of euro notes and coins, including the withdrawal of national notes and

565
coins. He made it clear that the decision was his and his alone. At the end of the negotiation, the Heads of Government accepted that.
I have no doubt at all that, although the process was very difficult, the decision was clearly right. What is more, as Mr. Duisenberg is under no obligation whatever to retire early, it is entirely consistent with the treaty. Moreover, if the nomination of Jean-Claude Trichet is eventually confirmed, as I expect, that will mean that two highly respected and experienced central bankers, noted for their independent views, will be in charge of the European central bank for a total of 12 years. That is an outcome which ensures long-term stability.
We were told that the financial markets would react badly, and that the pound would go through the roof. In fact, the deutschmark has risen against both the pound and the dollar since Friday. Stock markets in France and Germany are higher than at the close of business last week. British 10-year gilts have not moved since Friday. The markets across Europe and the rest of the world are calm. What they know is what we know—that the fundamentals are right, a good board is in place and the euro will be strong, not weak.
Many people had said that the euro could not be launched on time, or with a wide membership, and that the argument about the presidency could not be resolved satisfactorily. In the end, all those issues were resolved satisfactorily, and the single currency will become a reality on 1 January 1999.
The UK's own position on joining monetary union was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Parliament on 27 October. It has not changed; but, in or out, it is in Britain's interest that the single currency is successful and strong. The decisions this weekend—whatever the frustrating nature of the process—were in the end the right ones for Europe and for Britain.
The House will nevertheless agree that the biggest challenge for Europe lies ahead. To ensure that the single currency is successful, member states must continue to implement reforms of product, capital and labour markets and to promote employability and job-creating entrepreneurship. That is the way to a genuinely prosperous future for Europe. It is what we shall be pursuing at the European Council in Cardiff.
Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House on 4 June last year that
"the criteria for monetary union should not be fiddled, fudged or botched in any way. If they are, the answer is not to delay—the answer is not to proceed."?—[Official Report, 4 June 1997; Vol. 295, c. 386.]
Where does that bold assertion stand today, now that the Prime Minister has colluded in the launch of a fudged and flawed single currency that could jeopardise jobs and investments throughout Europe? Is it not the case that he has not only broken the promises that he gave the House, but disregarded the terms of an international treaty to which this country is a signatory?
On the fiasco surrounding the appointment of the president of the central bank, does the Prime Minister agree that political horse-trading at the weekend serves as a warning that it is politics, not economics, which is the driving force behind the single currency? Has he seen
566
the comments of a member of the Bundesbank council, who said yesterday that the deal was in clear breach of the Maastricht treaty? Has he seen the comments of his own MEP and the leader of the socialists in the European Parliament, who described his deal as "unacceptable shenanigans"?
Given that the Maastricht treaty clearly stipulates that the president of the bank should serve for eight years and that the Prime Minister has caved in to a shorter term, did he actually have a straight face when he said in Brussels that he was
"maintaining entirely the sanctity of the treaty"?
If he was maintaining entirely the sanctity of the treaty, what was the trouble all about? Can he really expect us to believe that it was not a political compromise in conflict with the treaty? If Mr. Duisenberg had such a strong view that he should retire early, why did lunch have to go on until midnight before that became apparent to everybody?
Does the Prime Minister recognise that, whatever the personalities and whatever the timings involved, the really disturbing thing about the row is that it shows a fundamental disagreement between participating countries about the political independence of the central bank? Is it not the case that, behind the argument, lies one way, the German way, which regards the independence of the central bank as sacrosanct, and another way, the French way, which stresses the importance of a politically accountable bank? Now that the Prime Minister has settled for an inadequate, possibly illegal and badly prepared deal, presumably he will call it the third way.
As the Prime Minister has said, it is in the interests of both Britain and Europe that the single currency is strong and stable. However, does he accept that, if it is to have the best chance of success, the criteria set out in the Maastricht treaty should have been strictly adhered to? Has he not now agreed to the creation of a weak and fudged single currency by the inclusion of countries which, by a very wide margin, fail to meet the Maastricht criteria and, in some cases, have national debts that are double the required level? Is that what he means by the fundamentals being right? Does he remember, in response to my question in the House about a month ago, saying that it was his
"duty, as president of the European Union, to ensure that the criteria"—
that is, the Maastricht criteria—
"are properly obeyed."?—[Official Report, 25 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 492.]
Has he, at any stage in recent months, argued, counselled or voted against the breaking of the criteria? Has he, at any stage, warned against a decision of such immense economic importance being made through a political fix?
Did the Prime Minister see the comments of the chairman of the Bundesbank in the Bundesbank report a month ago, saying that
"serious concern exists in the case of Belgium and Italy. This could be eliminated if additional firm substantive commitments are given"?
Has he done anything in the past four months, as President of the European Council, to seek such commitments? Or did he decide that being all things to all men and trying to please everyone was an easier option than fulfilling the clear duty that he affirmed to the House?

567
The Prime Minister claims that the lack of volatile movements on the currency markets means that the City has given EMU a vote of confidence, and that the markets think that the euro is a strong currency. Is he aware that that view is contradicted by many in the City, where some say that they saw the fudge coming and priced it in long ago? Has he read the comments of the chief economist at NatWest, who said:
"where we are is where we expected to be on Friday night. It is a fudged agreement"?
Has he read the comments of the chief European economist at Nikko Europe, who said that the pound has stayed steady only because traders expect the Bundesbank to raise interest rates to shore up confidence in the euro? With which view does he agree, and is he really saying that all is well in the markets on the basis of two days' trading?
At this weekend's summit, all the major decisions about a single currency were fixed and fiddled, but can the Prime Minister tell us what happened behind the scenes that caused such anger among his fellow Heads of Government? How does he respond to the Italian Prime Minister, who said that he was "ill prepared"; or to the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, who, among others, protested that the Prime Minister had not even bothered to brief other leaders properly on the deal; or to the Austrian Chancellor, who complained that
"there were people much more experienced than me who said they had never seen anything like it"?
Has he been taking lessons in diplomacy from the Foreign Secretary? Is this what the Prime Minister means by a new relationship in Europe? After the weekend, is not the verdict on his presidency of the European Council that when he should have spoken up, he remained silent; when he should have led, he followed; when he should have prepared, he did not prepare; and when he should have done his duty, he failed in the duty that he owed this country?
The Prime Minister: With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that the one group of people we are not entitled to take any lessons from about Europe are the Conservatives. They are split down the middle as to whether they are against the euro; they are split down the middle as to whether they want it launched; and they cannot even tell us whether they are in favour of an independent central bank in respect of the euro. Indeed, I think it was the right hon. Gentleman who said, first, that he was against the single currency in principle, then that he was against it in decades, then that he was against it in 30 years, then that he was against it in 40 years, and then that he was against it in two Parliaments—and now it is not even clear whether he is in favour of it or against it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a series of questions, and I shall try to explain the answers to him. First, he asked what the trouble was about. I explained that in the statement. The difference was between those who said that Mr. Duisenberg should be obliged to leave on a particular date and that he should give a specific date for his departure, and those who said that that would be inconsistent with the treaty. In the event, no specific date was given, and in respect of Mr. Duisenberg's own
568
view, let me quote what Mr. Duisenberg said in November 1996, before any French candidate had been put forward:
"I will still be just under 63 at that time and I will be appointed for a period of 8 years, but I will not give anybody the guarantee that I will stay on for that full period. I do promise, however, that I will not stop after 3 months nor after 2 years, but my guarantee does not go beyond that. One has to be realistic and not forget about one's age."
I assume from what the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he would have blocked Mr. Duisenberg's candidature. Is that right or not? It is very important. The right hon. Gentleman nods; he says that he would have blocked Mr. Duisenberg's candidature. If his candidature had been blocked, it would have been a disaster for Europe and for Britain. On Sunday morning, the right hon. Gentleman and the shadow Chancellor were saying that the pound would go through the roof as a result of the deal—that the markets would be in turmoil. As it happens, the markets are perfectly calm. Why? Because they know that the right decision has been taken. Had we decided to block Mr. Duisenberg's candidature, which the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed would be his policy, it would have been a disaster. Thank heavens the right hon. Gentleman has not been in charge of our negotiating position.
On the criteria, I shall explain why the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in the point that he keeps making. The criteria have not been fudged, botched or fiddled. There are five criteria, on inflation, interest rates, the budget deficit, exchange rate stability and debt. Nine countries reach all five criteria, or very close to them. Two countries, Belgium and Italy, conform with four of the criteria, but exceed the national debt criterion.
The criteria are expressed in such a way that the European Commission and the monetary institute are asked to decide whether the criteria, taken as a whole, mean that there is suitable and sustained convergence between the various countries. Those bodies have given their opinion that there is proper convergence and that sufficient progress is being made on national debt. The right hon. Gentleman says that the treaty does not make any such stipulation. Yes, it does, and he should go back and read it again.
The Commission and the monetary institute have both made their position clear. They believe that there is proper convergence. The right hon. Gentleman's comments in respect of the Bundesbank are wrong. There is agreement across Europe that the euro should be launched with all 11 countries participating. Presumably, if the right hon. Gentleman had been negotiating, he would have tried to block the candidatures of those two countries. A nod would do.
Mr. Hague: Answer the question.
The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman had been in charge of our negotiating position, he would have blocked the only candidate who was credible for the job, he would have ended up having to try to find a third candidate early on Monday morning, and he would have opposed the launch of the euro altogether, yet he accuses us of causing mayhem in the markets.
I entirely understand why the right hon. Gentleman may want to make debating points, but in the end the result was the right one for Britain and for Europe. If we had

569
ended up with stalemate instead of a decision, it would have been a disaster. Once all the debating points are out of the way, I ask him to reflect whether he would have maintained as his negotiating position the position that he has outlined to the House. If he had done so, it would have been a disaster. Fortunately, that disaster was averted.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I agree with the Prime Minister that the result was the right one for Europe. One should use the word "historic" sparingly in the House, but this genuinely was an historic event. The first sadness is that Britain, instead of being a part of it, was at best an umpire, but, as the Prime Minister well knows, actually a spectator at the sidelines. Is it not the case that, yet again, we shall in due course join an institution to which we did not belong when it was formed and which we have not effectively shaped?
Is not the second sadness the sad position to which the official Opposition—an increasingly inappropriate term—have sunk? They have locked themselves into a corner, and locked themselves out of mainstream domestic politics and European politics as well. Is it not a sad reflection on the party of Europe, as the Conservatives once called themselves, that, instead of commenting on the big event, they comment on the small compromise? It is a little like treating the news of the victory over the armada with a complaint that Drake did not play a very good game of bowls. It is a preposterous position.
Of course the compromise was messy. Some may even say that that is a specious description of it. However, that will not make the slightest difference to such an historic event. Two questions must be asked about the compromise. First, will the euro have effective government and leadership? The answer is yes, not for 10 years, but for 12. Secondly, do the markets express their confidence in that? The answer is resoundingly yes.
I shall make two further points to the Prime Minister. First, unhappily for his Government, who are more pro-European and could have much more influence in Europe, he is losing that by standing at the side and making the same mistake as the previous Government made, being led on Europe rather than leading on Europe. Secondly, for as long as he does that, Britain will lose trade, investment and influence. Is not the risk for Britain the fact that this weekend there was formed a soft but stable Europe, while we must continue with a high, volatile and unstable pound?
The Prime Minister: On the right hon. Gentleman's latter point, the decision must be taken in our national economic interest. Some people say that we should join the euro no matter what and others say that we should not join as a matter of principle. Both those positions are entirely understandable. The Government's position is that the matter should be decided according to our national economic interest. For reasons that we have set out many times, we do not believe that there is proper convergence between Britain and the economies of France and Germany, in particular, at present.
I do not believe that our position in that respect is the same as that of the previous Government. They could never decide whether there was an insuperable constitutional barrier to the single currency. We have decided that issue. They did not make preparations to
570
ensure that Britain was in a position to join the single currency should it wish to do so. We can make that statement and are making those preparations. In the end, even though monetary union cannot be conceived of except politically, it cannot be made to work except economically. The Government believe that the economics must be right.
In respect of the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the euro, I think that it will be a strong currency. Those who claim that it will be weak and that the events of the weekend have damaged it are the same people who said that the euro would never happen, that 11 countries would never join and that it would be postponed. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Who?"] Conservative Members were among the leading proponents of that position—I thank them for reminding me of that.
The fact is that monetary union will happen. As to the compromise, I said in my statement that the media and others have missed a simple fact. Let me repeat it. It is claimed that Mr. Duisenberg wished to stay in his post for the full eight years. He has always made it clear that he did not want to do that, but he was insistent, as were others—including ourselves—that he could not be obligated to stand down. He has always said that he wanted to stand down once the euro was launched, and the question was whether he should be given a specific date for standing down. It is true that the matter was discussed for 10 hours, but it was worth it in order to secure that basic principle. In the end, the decision was basically in his favour.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the Opposition, we all agree about that.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, before entering the euro, it will be necessary to have a long period of stability, which means effectively shadowing the euro? As the Monetary Policy Committee has been instructed to look at price stability above all other matters, will my right hon. Friend consider giving it fresh instructions so that we may prepare for our entry into the EU monetary system?
The Prime Minister: Price stability is enormously important. That is one of the reasons why there must be a strong euro—I believe that it will be strong, and the early indications are that the market thinks so, too. From our position, it is important that we continue to make preparations. Britain should be in a position to join if we decide to do so.
It is important to emphasise that, in or out, the euro will affect Britain. The idea that we should carry on as we were before 1 May, making no preparations at all, is disastrous. Fortunately, the City of London is now probably better prepared for the euro than any other financial centre in Europe. That is extremely good news. I believe that our preparations are the right ones.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Does the Prime Minister really believe that no harm has been done by the course of events in Brussels this weekend?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I do as a matter of fact. I shall explain why. Real harm would have been done if

571
the wrong decision had been taken. If we had done what the Leader of the Opposition suggested and blocked Mr. Duisenberg's candidature—
Mr. Michael Howard: He did not.
The Prime Minister: The Opposition have changed their mind already. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends are being very unfair: that policy lasted for all of 10 minutes. If we had ended up blocking Mr. Duisenberg's candidature, we would have ended up without him and without Mr. Trichet, and we would have had to search for a third candidate in the early hours of Sunday morning, which would have been disastrous.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) knows from his experience in government that European negotiations are often difficult, but it is important that the result is right. This is the right result. We shall have for 12 years highly respected presidents of the central bank who will be tough disciplinarians, which is what the euro needs. Whatever the difficulties, the decision was right, so I do not believe that there was damage.
Mr. Tony Benn: Given that economic and monetary union has always been considered by its architects to be a political policy, is not it absurd to suppose that, with 15 million unemployed in the European Union, the bank will not be subjected to continuing political pressure throughout the life of the euro? Were a group of appointed and unaccountable bankers to hold the levers of economic power in the EU, would not that remove the rights of the electors, of the Parliaments and of the Governments of the countries within the Union and effectively destroy democracy itself?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend criticises the political pressure that has been exerted on the central bank, but that is, as I understand it, the proposition for which he argues. Price stability and the independence of the bank are important, which is why it is better that the Bank of England is independent to set interest rates. In the longer term, that will produce greater stability and ensure that this country does not go back to the days of boom and bust and huge fluctuations of growth followed by recession, which we had under the Conservatives. If we consider the central banks not only of Europe but of the world, independent central banks are better.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that article 109a of the treaty provides that the term of appointment for the president "shall be eight years"? In view of what Mr. Duisenberg has said, is there not a clear breach of the treaty? Has the right hon. Gentleman lent his name to a fudge? How does he justify that, as he has frequently said that the criteria would not be fudged? Why have we signed up to a French president now? Is that contrary to the replacement procedure contemplated by article 11 of the protocol? Is the truth that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his friends and colleagues at the summit will pay much heed to the language of the treaty?
The Prime Minister: No. The nomination is for eight years. At the press conference after the summit, I was
572
directly asked what would happen if Mr. Duisenberg decided to stay for eight years. The answer is that he would stay for eight years. As I keep trying patiently to point out, he said well before Mr. Trichet' s candidature was even suggested that he did not want to stay beyond the launch of the euro, so we have a situation that is perfectly consistent with the treaty. He has said, "I will at least stay until the euro is properly launched, but I won't stay after that, because I do not wish to." He also made it clear in his statement that there is no obligation; he will choose the time of his leaving, but he thought it right to say to the Council, "If you nominate me for eight years, I will not serve the full eight years." That is perfectly reasonable.
The answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question on the French nomination is no. The nomination process has to be gone through, and the French nomination has to be agreed formally by the Council. Mr. Duisenberg and Mr. Trichet are both highly credible, which is why the deal is a good deal. To have ended up blocking Mr. Duisenberg's candidature would have been a disaster for Europe and for Britain. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should imagine the situation had the markets opened on Monday with no agreement on the central bank. At one point on Saturday, it seemed as if that would be the case.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the weekend summit was an enormously important event—an historic event—marking, as it did, the real start of the single currency, with 11 participating countries, with the agreement on conversion rates and with, yes, a compromise on the presidency of the central bank, brokered by my right hon. Friend, which will ensure that for 12 years the ECB will be led by two highly respected—as I know—central bankers? Do not the critics have to say what the alternative is to the deal brokered by my right hon. Friend at the weekend? Many of us would like the United Kingdom to join EMU as soon as possible.
The Prime Minister: I shall not repeat our position on EMU, because we have already made it clear. My hon. Friend is right to say that the launch of the euro is an historic occasion, and he was right to say what he did about the presidency of the central bank. As I say, the problem is that there is the inconvenient fact that Mr. Duisenberg had made it clear throughout that he did not want to serve his full eight-year term, which all the comment has missed. That is the central fact and that is why the argument would always be not whether he left early, because he was making it clear that he would, but whether he was obliged to do so and would be given a specific date on which to leave, which was the position of some countries, or one country at least, or whether, which was our position and that of many others, and Mr. Duisenberg himself, although he would leave early, he could not be obligated to do so because that would be a breach of the treaty.
Mr. William Cash: Will the Prime Minister explain why he thinks that there is no constitutional barrier in the United Kingdom to going ahead with economic and monetary union, and does he seriously believe that Mr. Duisenberg is telling the truth when he says that he would be perfectly happy to stand down? Is not that just an example of a total sham, which

573
illustrates the eternal contradictions, the lies and the entire confusion behind the whole project, of which the British presidency, to our eternal shame, has been the midwife?
The Prime Minister: The problem is that those who adopt the hon. Gentleman's position, which he holds entirely honourably, simply will not accept any facts that get in the way of their arguments.
Let me read again what Mr. Duisenberg said in November 1996. [Interruption.] I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's other point as well, but he effectively alleged that Mr. Duisenberg was not telling the truth when he said that he wanted to go earlier. In November 1996, before any other candidate was ever raised, Mr. Duisenberg said:
"I will not stop after 3 months nor after 2 years, but my guarantee does not go beyond that. One has to be realistic and not forget about one's age."
Mr. Cash: Why have him as a candidate?
The Prime Minister: The reason is that he is president of the European Monetary Institute—[Interruption.] That is a fact. He is charged with the preparations of the euro. It therefore makes perfect sense, albeit for a shorter time, to have him then oversee the actual mechanics of launching the euro. Although everyone always knew that his candidature would be shorter than the eight-year period because of his own desire to leave earlier, he was, none the less, the right candidate.
When it is then asked why it took 10 hours to reach that position, the answer is that it did not take 10 hours to persuade Mr. Duisenberg to go early. In the very first conversation that I had with him on Saturday, he said again that he would leave before his full term. The reason for the discussion was the insistence of one country that he should be obliged to go early, and that was what was unacceptable.
In relation to monetary union and the constitutional barrier, I say that there is no insuperable constitutional barrier because, although there are constitutional questions of sovereignty, the issue in the end is whether that is an absolute barrier. If it is an absolute barrier, the position of the hon. Gentleman's party—saying, "We might join after 10 years"—is absurd. I know that that is not his position; he is the leader of the other Conservative party. However, it is an absurd position. We must decide first of all whether or not the constitutional question is an insuperable barrier. He says yes; I say no. I say that, in the end, if it is in the interests of British jobs, investment and industry, we do it; if is not, we do not.
Dr. George Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the successful launch of a common currency is in the interests of all the industrialists who have been concerned about the high exchange rate? Does he agree that the actions of the Conservative party seem to be designed to discourage a successful launch of the currency, and are, therefore, against the interests of British industry and the British people? Does he further agree that this country needs to ask whether, although the City of London may be prepared for a common currency, our business and industry are properly prepared? Are we prepared not only for the challenges, but for the opportunities that it will present?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem with Opposition Members is that
574
they—or, at least, some of them—want the euro to fail. Had we followed the course that I assume that they must be advocating, it would have been a complete disaster.
Yes, the City is largely prepared, but business and industry have far more preparation to undertake; that is why we are organising that now. They will deal with many companies and trading partners that will be dealing in the euro. Some people in this country will decide to deal in the euro. I have no doubt that people and businesses here will end up taking the euro. It is important that we make proper preparations, and that is precisely what the Chancellor is doing.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Is not the real disaster for Europe the emergency of an army of 18 million unemployed, and the upsurge in the racial filth parties in France and Germany that always seems to go with mass unemployment? Will the Prime Minister remind his colleagues in Europe that when Britain endeavoured to get involved in this kind of thing with the exchange rate mechanism, we had to create an extra half a million unemployed? Will he make a point of reminding his colleagues in Europe that every attempt in the world to form a common currency among a number of countries—as in Scandinavia, Europe, Africa and Asia—has collapsed in massive unemployment and misery? Will he appeal to his colleagues in Europe to think about facts, about people and about the unemployed, instead of going ahead with what, quite honestly, appears to be utter nonsense?
The Prime Minister: Obviously, we shall not agree on the single currency, but I understand that unemployment in Europe is the big challenge. That is why we are putting forward a series of proposals, and making unemployment the main subject of the Cardiff Council. Of course there are countries, some of which propose to be part of the euro, which have low unemployment rates. One should not think that every country that wants to join the euro has high unemployment. It is important for us to have the right investment and education skills, and the necessary flexibility and encouragement of small businesses. We must be at the forefront in all those things.
I must say to the hon. Gentleman and those of his colleagues who are implacably opposed to the euro that it will affect Britain. We cannot put our heads in the sand and pretend that it will not exist. It is going to exist, and it is important that, whatever our view of the euro, we should make strong preparations to put ourselves in a position in which we can deal with its consequences and effects. I have set out the Government's position on the euro, and I do not need to repeat it. What is important is that we make preparations.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) in wanting to go in in the present circumstances, now, as soon as possible? Will the Prime Minister tell us in which year his elusive concept of the proper convergence is likely to occur?
I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and I are the only two remaining Labour Members who voted in favour of our European Community entry in October 1971. Along with him, may I ask what is the proposal for shadowing the

575
euro in the run-up period? My right hon. Friend has asked the Treasury four times about shadowing the euro; can the Prime Minister clarify the position?
The Prime Minister: In relation to shadowing the euro, as we have made clear, we will run our own exchange rate policy until such time as we decide that we want to change that in accordance with the criteria that we have set down. I am asked to name a year when there may be convergence. I do not think that we can name the year, but it is possible for there to be convergence between different economies. There is a large degree of convergence between France and Germany in terms of economic policy, growth and so on, so it is important that we make a judgment in the round on that. There is no economic convergence between Britain, and France and Germany at present. Therefore, if we join when the economics are wrong, we shall pay a heavy price.
People go back over the exchange rate mechanism experience. Perhaps the right lesson to learn from that is that, whatever the politics of the situation, the economics have to be right. I think that most people felt that that was the problem on the membership of the ERM; its timing was judged politically. Unless the economics are right, there is a problem.
Mr. John Butterfill: I am sure that all hon. Members accept that the euro's success is vital to this country's economy and will wish the euro well, but that makes the issue of the corporate governance of the central bank even more important. The Prime Minister has said that there will be an important principle of rotation of board members, but will he confirm that Mr. Noyer, a Frenchman, will be the vice-president for the first four years, to be followed by Mr. Trichet, another Frenchman, who will be the president for eight years? When the Prime Minister embarked on his marathon lunch with Mr. Kohl and Mr. Chirac, where lunch went on to tea, then to dinner and then to supper, did he realise that they were going to have him for breakfast?
The Prime Minister: I cannot say that there was much lunch as far as I was concerned. Obviously, it is sensible to try to rotate members of the board. Some of the more critical comments that were made by some of the smaller countries were unsurprising because they did not have places on the European central bank board, but the question surely is whether we have the right people for the board. I think that we do because all of them are highly credible, able people. They have credibility in international banking circles. Both Mr. Duisenberg and Mr. Trichet are central bankers of huge repute. I repeat: it would have been far worse if we had blocked Mr. Duisenberg, thrown his appointment out, not had Mr. Trichet and tried to go for someone else. That would have been the wrong thing to do.
Mr. Stuart Bell: Will the Prime Minister note, in response to the question that was put to him by the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), that unemployment in France fell below 3 million at the weekend and that forecasts coming out this week in Germany will show that unemployment is falling further there? Will he also note, in response to the
576
Leader of the Opposition, who said that the markets were waiting for the Bundesbank to raise its rates, that the only rate that has risen today in the Europe Union is that of Denmark which, of course, is not a member?
Does the Prime Minister agree with my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr. Radice) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that this is a question of political commitment and political will, and that 11 nation states coming together at the weekend to indicate their determination to create a single currency on the back of a single market indicates the political will? The Prime Minister has indicated his own political will, when economic convergence arrives, when there is a referendum and when there is a yes vote. Does he agree that those who believe in the single currency and in the European Union should now begin their campaigns?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that the single currency and the single market will be launched, and that the political will and commitment exist. He is also right in pointing out that the markets have reacted, contrary to the predictions that were made, with great tranquillity. I also think that it is important, when we talk about unemployment in other countries, even in respect of France and Germany, where there are high unemployment rates—although it is important to consider the fact that there are significant differences between east Germany and west Germany—not to be complacent about our economic position. If we compare the productivity levels of the British economy with those of France and Germany, we realise that this country has to do a lot of work. There is a danger that, because we are at a different stage of the economic cycle, we shall become complacent about our problems. If we consider French or German gross domestic product, we see that we still have a bit of a way to go.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The Prime Minister may not have had his best ever weekend during the past few days, but he may have found it ironic, as some of us did, that by behaving as he did President Chirac was doing what the British media think the British Prime Minister should do during summit meetings. Now that there will be 12 years of leadership in the European central bank under two expert governors, there remain two questions. First, how does the Prime Minister intend to manage the British economy so that we can enter economic and monetary union on the right terms and at an early date? Secondly, how will he influence the other 11 members of the single currency as they take decisions while we are not in it? Regardless of the fudge at the weekend on the Euro X committee, we shall not be party to some of the key decisions that will affect 80 per cent. of our home market in the European Union.
The Prime Minister: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, although we shall be present at the Euro X committee for any decisions that affect all 15 member states, it is right and inevitable that if we are not in the euro, we cannot participate in the decisions of the euro currencies. That fact must be faced.
As for managing the British economy for entry, it is important that we do so in a way that is right for our economy. The advent of monetary union has been a reason for some countries to take action on their budget deficit, public finances and monetary policy. It is worth

577
pointing out that some of those countries have made extraordinary progress in trying to meet the monetary union criteria. In Britain's case, it is important that we take these steps in any event. We are dealing with the budget deficit, taking action to squeeze inflation out of the system, and to have a stable and prudent monetary and fiscal policy. I think that our system of management should not change.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the position taken by the French. We could have tied the matter up at 2 o'clock on Saturday afternoon had we agreed to a split term, but we could not agree to that because it was in breach of the treaty. In the end, it was agreed that Mr. Duisenberg would be nominated for eight years. As I keep trying patiently to point out to hon. Members, Mr. Duisenberg had already said that he wanted to go early, and he could not be obligated to go on any particular date. He is free to stay for the eight years, but he has indicated his intention to leave earlier. That point was worth securing, and it was worth waiting for what in European negotiating terms is hardly a very long time.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Prime Minister give a guarantee that, despite the clamour from Labour Members, from the Liberal Democrats and from a few Tories for Britain to join the euro before the next election, which would be not a compromise but a failure of integrity by the Prime Minister and the Labour party generally, the matter will be resolved after the next election and after a referendum? If he is a betting man, would he like to put some money on whether this fellow Duisenberg, who will have four years, will last longer than the Leader of the Opposition?
The Prime Minister: The Tory party may be looking for a split term. We have set out our position clearly. We do not believe that there will be convergence during this Parliament. There will be a referendum; it will ultimately be the decision of the British people, and that is right. The position of the official Opposition nowadays—if there is such a notion—is that the pound should be lower, which is an odd position for the Conservative party to argue.
Sir Michael Spicer: Whatever the Prime Minister may say, is not the truth about the Duisenberg deal that this is the first time that Ministers have arrogated to themselves powers that are precisely defined in the treaty as resting elsewhere? Does not that bust apart the acquis communautaire?
The Prime Minister: A strange element comes out in the remarks of Members of the European Parliament, of certain people at the Bundesbank and of the hon. Gentleman. It should be made absolutely clear that the decision on the appointment of the head of the central bank and the board is a political one. It is a political appointment. With the greatest respect to Europe's central bankers, it is not their appointment, it is ours, the politicians. Once the appointment has been made, it is a matter for the central bank, and it will have independence. I therefore find odd some of the European Parliament's criticism and questioning of why a political deal is being done. It is a political deal, as that is its very purpose. Power to nominate the members of the central bank has been given to politicians, not to bankers, because it is a
578
political deal. I had always thought that people sharing the hon. Gentleman's political perspective argued that that was the right thing, not the wrong thing, to do.
It is important that we say to Europe's central bankers: "You have your place in this system—once nominated, you will serve, and serve independently—but you do not take the decisions on nomination. We take the decisions."
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does the Prime Minister agree that this weekend's events were effectively a search for Europe's equivalent of Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve, and for someone who is as committed to fighting inflation as to ensuring full employment? To use the old American phrase: we want sound money, and plenty of it. Will the Prime Minister explain how the weekend's events have moved us forward in finding Europe's Alan Greenspan?
The Prime Minister: The short answer to that question is that it depends on the credibility of the two people who will be running the bank, effectively for 12 years or more. I do not think that anyone doubts that both Mr. Duisenberg and Mr. Trichet are eminently credible people. Therefore, as I said, once we blow away the froth and speculation about the matter, we get down to the fact that, for 12 years, we shall have credible and strongly disciplinarian central bankers.
It is odd that, on various parts of the political spectrum, people are saying that Mr. Duisenberg should have been forced to stay on for the full eight years, as if that would somehow assist the situation. Surely the best situation is one in which the person who has been overseeing the euro's preparations carries through those preparations to their reality, and then—as he has already said that he wishes to do—steps aside for another highly respected central banker, who will perform exactly the type of role performed in the Federal Reserve, as described by my hon. Friend. The euro's credibility will rest on those people's credibility.
Mr. John Swinney: The Prime Minister, in confirming the Government's stance on economic and monetary union, has effectively confirmed conditions that are likely to lead to the pound remaining strong for some considerable time. What consideration do the Government plan to give to the position of manufacturers and exporters—who will have to cope not only with those trading conditions in the next two to three years, but with the difficulties of convergence with the euro at some time in the future? What action will the Government take to ease the burden faced by manufacturers and exporters, to provide realistic and fair trading conditions for important United Kingdom companies?
The Prime Minister: The euro is not the only reason for a strong pound. As events of the past few days have shown, much more than the euro issue is behind the strong pound. It is important that we do not think that a lower pound is the answer to all manufacturers' problems. If the pound becomes unnaturally high at certain points—about which people can argue—it will, of course, cause difficulties. Ultimately, however, the single most important thing is that action is taken on investment and productivity to raise the standard and quality of British industry. As I said, we still have a way to go on that matter.

579
The best thing that we can do is not to try to intervene and artificially to devalue the pound—which is the policy currently being advocated by the Conservative party—but to ensure that we do not return to the boom-and-bust instability that resulted, at the end of the 1980s and in the early 1990s, in interest rates of 15 per cent., in the deepest recession that the United Kingdom has had, in record borrowing and in record bankruptcies. That is not a way in which to run the economy.
Mr. David Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be little interest or excitement in the United Kingdom about who heads the central bank, and that that is not the dominant issue in people's minds? The dominant issue is largely whether a single currency will help or hinder jobs, prosperity and growth. Does he accept that that is the really substantial issue, and that—although certainly not at this moment—the British public will have to be persuaded that a single currency would be in the overall economic interests of our country?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. The issue, whether Britain is in or out, is whether a single currency is good for British jobs, investment and industry. It is in our interests to have a strong euro, which is why the decisions made at the weekend are right. I doubt whether people are discussing the relative merits of Mr. Duisenberg and Mr. Trichet in the country's clubs and pubs, but they understand that it is important that the euro is strong, and the decisions made at the weekend will strengthen it.
Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Gentleman said that it is essential for Europe that the euro is a success. If that is the case, ought not the Government to be doing everything possible to make it a success? If that is so, two questions arise. First, would not that success be more quickly achieved if Britain entered sooner—as soon as possible? Secondly, as many European countries have had to impose stringent financial and monetary disciplines to qualify for entry, what specific cost does the Prime Minister think would arise from the changes to Government policy on financial and monetary structures that would be necessary for Britain to enter?
The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have to try to do everything possible to make the euro a success. That is why I thought that, however messy the process, it was extremely important on Saturday to sort out the ECB and decide on credible people. We can promote economic reform in Europe and place the emphasis on education and skills rather than on over-regulation as the best way in which to produce a competitive market.
The disciplines that Britain would be required to follow are those that we should be following in any event. It is important that we run essentially stable and prudent monetary and fiscal policy. That is why we gave the Bank of England independence over setting interest rates. Interest rates have had to go up—rightly—to squeeze inflation out of the system. It is interesting that long-term interest rates are now below the levels that we inherited
580
on 1 May 1997. That is because there is greater credibility in the system. By being financially prudent, we have almost eliminated the country's structural debt. Those are the actions that we would need to take if we wanted to join the euro; my point is that it is worth taking them in any event.
Dr. Lynne Jones: I listened in the previous Parliament to prime ministerial statements after a European Union summit. It is clear that my right hon. Friend's predecessor would have been very pleased to have made this statement announcing decisions that have been greeted in the markets with such calm. Surely everyone agrees that it is vital that the euro is seen as a strong currency. Would not there have been greater confidence in the common currency if Britain had joined in the first wave? How can it be said that the economies of Italy and Belgium are more convergent than that of the United Kingdom with those of Germany, France and the Netherlands?
The Prime Minister: On my hon. Friend's second point, we must make decisions in our national economic interest. The problem with our economy at present is that we are at a different stage of the economic cycle from France and Germany. We have been at the peak of the cycle and they have not, which is precisely why interest rates are far lower in France and Germany than in Britain. We are not convergent in the way we need to be.
Cliffhangers such as those in the negotiations at the weekend happen all the time in Europe. The issue is whether we get the right result in the end. My hon. Friend is right to say that the result is better for Britain and for Europe.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Is the Prime Minister not being disingenuous in pretending that he cannot understand the simple legal and political fact that article 109a of the Maastricht treaty invalidates the appointment of anyone to be president of the European Central Bank who is not intending and hoping to serve an eight-year term?
As on these occasions, Back Benchers are now briefly allowed to quote, may I remind the Prime Minister of what I said to his Treasury Ministers on 23 April?
"Is the Economic Secretary aware of the widely reported horse-trading going on between Germany and France, to the effect that whoever is appointed, whether the French or German nominee, will agree to step down after four years—despite the fact that the Maastricht treaty lays down that it should be an eight-year-term—to make way for the nominee of the other great power? Is that not an augury of the way in which Europe will be run in future; Germany and France will stitch everything up"—[Official Report, 23 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 962]—
Madam Speaker: Order. The regulations state that quotations must be very brief, but the hon. Gentleman is being very long-winded. Will he please come to his question?
Sir Peter Tapsell: My question is this: is not what I predicted 12 days ago exactly what has happened under the ineffectual presidency of this British Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister: When we as politicians are driven to quoting our previous speeches, there is always

581
a bit of a problem. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that he is wrong about this. The eight years is the period of nomination. There is nothing in the treaty that says that the person is obliged to serve for the full eight years. If he reflects on that for a moment, he will see that that would have been a slightly odd thing to have required. He talks about horse-trading. There was not horse-trading; there was a simple clash. I shall explain it again.
The clash was not about whether Mr. Duisenberg retired early; he had always made it clear that he wanted to do that. The issue was whether he should be obligated—in other words, that we should have a split term, which was what one of the countries was advocating. The issue took 10 hours to resolve because Mr. Duisenberg, backed by the British presidency and by other countries, refused to say that he would step down on a specific date. As a result of the agreement, he does not have to go on a specific date. He has indicated his intention, but he is not tied to any particular date, and it is entirely up to him when he goes.
Dr. Julian Lewis: But what if he changes his mind?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman shouts out that Mr. Duisenberg could change his mind. That was the very question that I was asked at the press conference after the meeting, and I answered yes. That is so, which is why it is not in breach of the treaty.
The right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) says that politics is involved. I find it odd that he, from a right-wing perspective and others from a left-wing perspective—some in the European Parliament—say, "Isn't it disgraceful that there has been politics in the appointment of the head of the European central bank?" My answer to that is no. Under the treaty, the politicians decide the head of the central bank. Under the treaty, the politicians decide what should be the case. Once appointed, it is for the central bankers to be independent. I make no apology for the politicians having decided this. The politicians should have decided it—and we did.
Mr. Bill Rammell: Does the Prime Minister detect any logic and coherence in a political position that, first, opposes operational independence for the Bank of England, secondly, criticises the appointment procedure for the president of the European central bank on the ground that it will undermine operational independence and, thirdly, opposes the general principle of a single currency because politicians will not have day-to-day control? Do not those policy prescriptions, which, by the way, are those of the Conservative party, show how far from power that Opposition party is on this national and crucial issue? Is not it a travesty and an undermining of
582
confidence in the parliamentary process that the Conservative party will use any argument, any time, anywhere to undermine the single currency, regardless of the consequences for this country and the economies of countries throughout Europe?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right. On Sunday morning, the shadow Chancellor was saying that the pound was going to go through the roof. It is simply an indication of how much credibility the Conservatives have left that it did not move an inch on Monday.
Mr. David Curry: The Prime Minister would have come out somewhat better from this inglorious episode if, instead of pretending that everything in the garden was lovely and that an absolutely super weekend was had by everybody, he had acknowledged that horse-trading is at the heart of international organisations—the European Union—and that the job of the presidency is to manage it. Does he agree that what matters is the outcome? If the single currency is successful, no one will care a hoot about its origins five years from now. Will he say whether Mr. Duisenberg's eventual resignation is political, moral, legal or aspirational, and how he intends to manage the Chancellor's five tests?
The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on his first point. In fact, I may even agree with him altogether—we shall have to wait and see. I am not saying that the weekend was wonderful. He has been at such negotiations as a Minister, so he knows that they are extremely difficult and protracted. The problem arose precisely because we were not going to say that Mr. Duisenberg had to step down on a particular date. The meeting could have been tied up at 2 o'clock in the afternoon and we could all have gone home—which would have suited me fine—but people were not prepared to give on that basic question of principle. I entirely agree that what matters is a good outcome.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether Mr. Duisenberg's resignation would be political, moral, aspirational or whatever. The resignation will be personal—if Mr. Duisenberg decides that he wants to go, that is when he goes, as was made very clear in his personal statement, and in what I said as president both in the Council and at the press conference afterwards.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how we would manage the Chancellor's five tests. We shall manage them according to the criteria that we set out. The tests come down to same issue, so the basic question will be whether there is sustainable economic convergence between Britain and the other main countries in Europe. If there is, the tests will be satisfied; if there is not, they will not be satisfied.

Points of Order
4.40 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received an application from the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House on the allegations that the Foreign Office has been involved in a coup in Sierra Leone? The allegations are serious and the House needs to know what they are. Furthermore, it would be right for the House to express a view on the need for an independent element in the inquiry. This is the third or fourth time that a point of order has been made about the unwillingness of the Foreign Secretary to make statements to the House to account for his doings in office.
Madam Speaker: I was not informed today that the Foreign Office or any other Department wanted to make a statement on the issue raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. If there was to be a statement, it would have been on the Annunciator by lunchtime today.
Mr. Malcolm Savidge: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I understood it, the Leader of the Opposition said from a sedentary position that he would have blocked Mr. Duisenberg's appointment. As that comment was referred to later, am I correct in thinking that it should be recorded in Hansard?
Madam Speaker: These are matters for argument. Hansard knows perfectly well what it should record—the Editor does not need to be instructed by me.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You were very generous—as was the Prime Minister—in allowing one hour and 10 minutes for the statement, but, as you are aware, a number of people were not called to ask questions. Can you do anything to encourage not only hon. Members to ask brief questions but the Prime Minister not to filibuster with such long, repetitive answers?
Madam Speaker: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise that the Prime Minister filibusters. Answers—and, indeed, questions—are often long on complicated issues such as this. One thing that I do to help is to keep a list of all hon. Members who have stood up throughout. When a similar statement is made, or there is a debate on a similar issue, I always see to it that those hon. Members have priority.
As I am on my feet, let me give some information of which many hon. Members are probably not aware. It is not the custom of the House for the Speaker to keep the Prime Minister, from whichever political party, at the Dispatch Box for longer than an hour. I try to abide by that, but, as the House has observed, I kept the Prime Minister here longer today because of the importance of the statement. I am sorry that I could not call all hon. Members. As I said, I have a list and I know hon. Members' interests. I think that it can be said that I called hon. Members from both sides of the House with very differing views on this issue—they were carefully selected.

Registration of Dogs
4.43 pm
Mr. Richard Allan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a scheme for the compulsory registration of dogs; and for connected purposes.
It is now a decade since the registration of dogs was finally abandoned. The scheme that was dropped had been introduced some 200 years ago as a tax for the Navy when we were at war in various conflicts with our current European partners—from the comments that we heard today, I take it that some hon. Members still hark back to those glorious Napoleonic days. The scheme that was abolished had largely fallen into disrepute and had become a bureaucratic burden with little idea of its purpose.
My Bill would not reintroduce a scheme of that nature, but significant advances have been made that would make a new scheme both sensible and timely. In particular, I shall argue for a scheme that combines registration and identification functions, as I believe that only by fulfilling both purposes can the measure be effective.
In introducing the Bill, my arguments will fall into three groups. First, I shall set out the benefits that I believe the measure would bring—in proposing legislation, one must always keep a clear idea of its goals. Secondly, I shall describe the schemes that could usefully form part of the detailed provisions of the Bill. Thirdly, I shall try to allay some of the concerns of those who are not yet convinced of the need for registration.
Arguments for registration fall into three classes: first, that it would benefit the animals; secondly, that it would benefit their owners; and thirdly, that it would benefit the wider public. According to a wide range of opinion, the establishment of a clear legal link between each dog and its owner would add greatly to animal welfare, by encouraging responsibility among owners.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals recently reported an increase in animal cruelty—in 1997, there were 1,092 of cruelty to dogs, an increase of 892 from 1996. One of the greatest causes of frustration is the difficulty in preventing those who have successfully been prosecuted and banned from keeping dogs from so doing. I hope that a comprehensive registration scheme would make it more difficult for a banned owner to keep a dog against the law.
If dogs were registered on a suitable scheme, those involved in accidents could swiftly be traced to their owners and vets. Dog welfare could be promoted by using a database to send owners information on, for example, an alert on diseases in an area or, more generally, on subjects such as neutering.
A further important development would be to eliminate the need for quarantine when animals travel from certain countries. Most people would welcome such a move, which would benefit animals and owners alike. To ensure public confidence in dispensing with our traditional protection against diseases such as rabies, we need far more information about the individual animals that would be exempted from quarantine. A reliable system of animal identification is essential if, as I hope, we are to proceed along those lines.
Registration could also reduce the number of strays that face destruction. That number is estimated to be about 100,000, which represents a terrible indictment on a nation that professes to consist of animal lovers.

585
Principal among the benefits of registration to owners would be anything that helped their pets, such as can be seen in voluntary schemes such as PetLog, which is operated jointly by the Kennel Club, the RSPCA and the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Dogs that are logged on to such a database can be returned to their owners swiftly, minimising the distress that can be caused by a lost pet. Owners may receive added value benefits from information that is held on databases, such as genetic data for breeding or vet bill insurance services.
The advantages to the wider public would be manifest in a number of areas, principally in dealing with the problems of biting, fouling and causing road accidents. Liability needs to be established in all those cases, which can be a major problem under the current unregulated system. It has been estimated that the costs of dealing with problems that result from uncontrolled dogs run into millions of pounds.
The main arguments against registration include cost to the individual, an increase in unnecessary bureaucracy and the fact that irresponsible owners will continue to evade registering. I hope that there will be widespread consultation on costs. To keep registration costs in perspective, they should be set against the total costs of dog ownership. I hope that I shall not put off people from owning pets by referring to RSPCA estimates that total costs are £7,324 for the 12-year life span of a dog—I am certainly making the most of my two cats now that I have seen estimates that they will cost more than £7,000 each during their lifetimes.
Developments in technology mean that the costs may be far lower than expected, and we should be able to avoid problems of unnecessary bureaucracy. Microchipping has proved an effective means of dog identification. A chip the size of a grain of rice is placed beneath the skin and can be scanned on a hand-held device to give an identification code. When I first heard of microchipping, I had visions of people in the dog rescue centre waving dogs across something akin to a supermarket checkout; but cheap hand-held devices are already carried by most dog wardens.
The RSPCA routinely microchips any animals that go through its homes. In an example to the nation, the Blue Peter dog was chipped some years ago, bringing us a long way forward from sticky-back plastic and ordinary household glue solutions. I do not favour making the microchip compulsory and would allow other, appropriate forms of identification, but its widespread use may be a significant factor in keeping costs down as many owners choose it for their own convenience.
For reasons of utility, and with an eye on costs, I would favour a national database, rather than having each local authority set up its own infrastructure. The Kennel Club
586
already operates a database of more than 4 million dogs. Set against the total estimated dog population of about 6.5 million, that demonstrates the feasibility of a national scheme.
With today's technology, computerised schemes can be operated far more cheaply and effectively than 10 years ago. In keeping with the times, it may make sense to require dogs to be registered with a scheme approved by the Secretary of State, rather than setting up an entirely new infrastructure in the public sector. Several possible solutions exist within the framework of a national database with local access points.
Some owners are irresponsible, but the problem of evasion does not lead us to abandon the licensing of shotguns or the registration of cars. We are all irritated at the thought of evasion by some who should be paying their dues, but the additional identification functions will make evasion less likely, and a national database system can be used to identify and follow up problems of under-registration.
I would expect wide consultation on the cost, particularly with a view to exemptions for those groups, such as older people and the disabled, who clearly cannot afford to pay. Perhaps animal welfare organisations that offer cheap or free services—neutering, for example—for the pets of people on low incomes could offer procedures such as microchipping as a low-cost registration option.
Public acceptance of registration is demonstrated in opinion polls that show that as many as 90 per cent. of people, including dog owners, are in favour of such a scheme. The examples abroad are legion. Denmark and Sweden already operate schemes that they believe to be a major success.
When we last had a dog registration scheme, it was based on a structure old enough for the fee to be expressed as a pre-decimal sum: 7s 6d, or 37½p. Through the Bill, we may introduce a new identification and registration scheme before its fee has to be valued in euros, whenever that may be.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Richard Allan, Jackie Ballard, Mr. Chris Mullin, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Edward Davey, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Tim Loughton, Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Ivor Caplin and Mr. Phil Willis.

REGISTRATION OF DOGS
Mr. Richard Allan accordingly presented a Bill to establish a scheme for the compulsory registration of dogs; 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 183].
Orders of the Day

  Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.
  4.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill proposes modest changes in the law relating to procedures in magistrates courts. Modest though it may be, it has considerable potential for reducing burdens on the courts and the police, and securing reductions in delay in magistrates courts. It may be helpful if I describe the present procedures and how the Bill may improve them.
  Section 12 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 allows defendants, for certain offences, to submit a guilty plea to the court by post. The majority of such "guilty by post" pleadings are for summary road traffic offences. The magistrates courts deal with about half a million such cases each year. Offenders who are ready to admit their guilt and accept the penalty of the law for their offence may do so quickly and save their own time and that of the court.
  In 1994, an efficiency scrutiny examined ways in which to reduce administrative burdens on operational police officers. It reported the results of one survey showing that 38 per cent. of those summoned under the procedure returned guilty pleas to the court; but the survey also found that almost as many defendants—35 per cent.—made no reply to the summons at all.
  Some people will not respond for innocent reasons, and, for them, the law provides full remedies; but for many defendants ignoring a summons is simply a way of avoiding responsibility and staving off the day of reckoning. At present, when a summons gets no response the only option is to adjourn the case. Further steps are then necessary to bring the defendant to court or to proceed in the defendant's absence if there is still no response.
  The summons includes a statement of facts: a very short summary of the case as recorded by the police. That is sufficient for the defendant to acknowledge guilt by post, but it is not evidence, so when there is no response to the summons the court must presume the innocence of the absent defendant, and the Crown Prosecution Service must take over responsibility for prosecution and will adduce evidence to substantiate the case.
  Evidence may be in written statements meeting the requirements of section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, or given orally by witnesses at court. All those who want to plead not guilty will have their cases heard in the usual way.
  Each summons ignored puts an extra burden on the police, the prosecution and the courts. The efficiency scrutiny proposed that the police should prepare a witness statement, conforming to section 9, and serve it with each summons. That would ensure that admissible evidence was available at the first listed hearing, whether the defendant responded or not.
  588
  Clause 1, as originally drafted, provided for that by allowing a defendant to submit a plea of guilty when either statements of fact or section 9 witness statements have been served with the summons. When a statement of facts is served with the summons, the procedure for a guilty plea will be as it is now.
  When a section 9 statement is served with the summons, it may be used as an account of the facts for a plea of guilty by post; if there is no response to the summons, it can be used by the prosecutor to prove the case on the first listed day. In its original form, clause 1 required a witness statement used as an account of the facts to be read in full by the court clerk even though the defendant had clearly stated that he wished to plead guilty.
  Reading a full witness statement takes longer than reading a statement of facts, because it is a full account of what a witness saw, heard and did. Such statements are prepared to prove the case in the event of a not guilty plea, or when the defendant fails to respond. In speeding cases, the statement will often include such detailed information as what a police officer did to check the accuracy of the speedometer in a patrol car. That is included to rebut any suggestion that the equipment is faulty, but the court does not need to hear such detail when the defendant has admitted the offence.
  In a busy court, the cumulative effect of reading each statement in full could reduce the savings in time and costs created by the new procedures. Several practitioners drew the Government's attention to that drawback. The Government accepted that in a guilty plea case a full reading of the statement was not necessary and could lead to court time being wasted.
  Accordingly, the Government made two amendments to clause 1 in Committee. The Bill, as reported, includes those amendments. They stipulate what is read to the court by the clerk in guilty plea cases. When the summons is served with a statement of facts, the court clerk will read that statement, as happens now.
  When the summons is served with a witness statement, the clerk will either read that witness statement aloud or, if the court so directs, give an oral account of the part of the statement that has not been read aloud.
  Mr. David Curry: Does the Minister agree that the sensible place to try speeding offences would be in magistrates courts that lie close to motorways? In that case, is not Ripon ideally suited to deal with driving offences on the A l(M)?
  Mr. Hoon: I have commented to the House before on the right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity in raising matters affecting his constituency. I am sure that, if he adds to the considerable volume of correspondence that arrives on my desk at regular intervals from his constituency, I will be able to answer him in detail at an appropriate stage.
  The court will always control the proceedings, and the clerk may not summarise or give an oral account of what is in the statement without express authority from the court.
  The Bill makes two further modifications to the procedure for dealing with motoring offences, and these were set out in detail in Committee. I hope that the House will be satisfied that we have dealt with the matters in some detail, but I can certainly respond to any questions from right hon. or hon. Members about those matters.

  589
  The main change in the Bill has been tested. Following the efficiency scrutiny, pilot projects were established in Gloucestershire and Lancashire to test using witness statements in place of statements of fact. These ran from early September 1996 to late March 1997. The statement of facts procedure was replaced by concise witness statements served on the defendant with the summonses. Some 53,000 minor motoring cases were prosecuted using the streamlined procedure. This proved remarkably successful for all the agencies involved. Up to 77 per cent. of cases were finalised—that is, proved and sentenced—at the first hearing, and up to 86 per cent. of cases were proved at that hearing.
  Dramatic reductions in the number of adjournments were achieved. In Gloucestershire, the average number of hearings per case fell from 4.67 to 1.35, and in Lancashire the average fell from 3.15 to 1.22. Significant reductions in the average time taken from the date of the offence to finalisation at court were also achieved. In Gloucestershire, the average time fell from 144 to 95 days, and in Lancashire, it was down from 139 to 84 days.
  All the agencies involved in the pilots have indicated their clear support for the proposals in the Bill. In summary, the Bill is a practical measure, bringing procedural changes which will benefit all participants in the court process. The rights of offenders are preserved, but they will be dealt with more swiftly, reinforcing the connection between the offence and its consequences. The reduced administrative burdens on the agencies will free resources which may be deployed on other work. The Bill has been welcomed by practitioners, has been refined and improved during its passage to date and has proved uncontroversial. I hope that the House will be able to give these measures the same support it has previously given, and which the Bill has received in another place.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.1 pm
  Mr. Edward Gamier: At about 4.53 pm, the Minister said that this was a modest Bill, but it is a short and valuable one whose merits are self-evident.
  The Bill represents the high point of the Lord Chancellor's Department's year. This is the first measure the Department has got through all stages in the House of Commons. There was a little difficulty in Committee when the Minister failed to bring sufficient numbers of his Government team to constitute a majority. Being a good-natured fellow, I, along with the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett), did not seek to defeat the Government on this mammoth Bill; not least because the measure was invented by my noble Friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern—the previous Lord Chancellor.
  590
  I congratulate the Minister for two reasons; first, on arriving here mostly unscathed, and secondly, on bringing into law a valuable measure which was designed and drafted in the era of a Tory Government. I do not wish to say any more about the Minister than is good for him because he is easily embarrassed, but I just want to underscore the fact that the Bill represents the high point of his Department's efforts.
  During the progress of the Bill through both Houses over the past few months—and during the times we have watched and listened to the Minister make the same speech that he has just made—we have had to watch him with our other eye as he has tried to justify the Department's reforms of the legal aid system and the introduction of compulsory conditional fee arrangements. If the Bill represents the high point, last week represented the low point of his Department's activities. The Department planted a question that had as its intent the intellectually dishonest purpose of distracting the eyes of the public and the House of Commons from the thrust of the Government's legal aid reforms.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope that this will be the widest point of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. He must remember that we are debating the Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill.
  Mr. Gamier: I would describe this as a needle point which goes to the very heart of the policy of the Department. It explains why I welcome the Bill, which represents the high point of the Department's work this year. As I have suggested, the way in which the Department has handled this and other business this year has been breathtaking, and the Minister ought to be congratulated on that. I do not wish to carp because the Minister has had enough trouble this year. May I extend the congratulations of the official Opposition on his safe conduct of the Bill? I trust that it will receive its Royal Assent at the earlier opportunity.
  5.5 pm
  Mr. John Burnett: The Liberal Democrats also support the Bill. In response to points I made in Committee, the Minister has said that the consequences for defendants of not responding to summonses should be clearly and vigorously set out in the documentation, and that is very important. We are still concerned that, in an increasingly mobile and cosmopolitan age, adequate steps should be taken to ensure that, for example, members of the armed forces—who can often be away for months on end—are not unfairly convicted. I hope that the Minister will address that point, but, as I have said, we very much support the Bill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.6 pm
  The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I am delighted to bring the Bill to the House today. The Government have made it clear that the Department of Trade and Industry is the Department for all businesses and that everything possible will be done to promote enterprise and assist smaller firms. A healthy, vibrant small business sector creates wealth and employment, generates new ideas and products and is the bedrock of a successful enterprise economy.
  The sector is crucial to UK competitiveness. Small firms lie at the heart of the Government's economic strategy. The Government will do all that we can to deliver the right conditions in which small businesses can thrive and grow. That is why our small firms manifesto, "Growing and Prospering", committed the Government to deliver a right to claim interest on the late payment of commercial debt.
  The Gracious Speech of 16 May 1997 announced that legislation to provide that right would be brought forward in this Session. We have kept that promise. Our commitment to this measure is a mark of our commitment to the small firms sector. Our Green Paper, "Improving the Payment Culture: A Statutory Right to Claim Interest on Late Payment of Commercial Debt", published on 28 July 1997, set out our proposals.
  The Bill is a vital element of a package of measures that will change the payment culture. The Bill will provide businesses with the additional statutory tool many have been asking for to combat the abuse of their trade credit.
  I must note the crusading work of Stan Mendham of the Forum of Private Business. He has championed the need for a statutory right to interest for many years. The last Government may have been indifferent to the needs of the small businesses represented by organisations such as the Forum of Private Business, but I can assure the House that this Government are not.
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I also would like to pay tribute to the Forum of Private Business, which has advised me on the matter. However, could the Minister name all the other business organisations—particularly those representing small businesses —which are completely in favour of the Bill?
  Mrs. Roche: I thank the hon. Lady for her tribute to the forum; I am sure that it will be greatly appreciated. I note her long-standing commitment to the principle of a statutory right to interest: on 22 March 1994, when she was a Back Bencher, she contributed to an early-day motion calling for a statutory right to interest, although, unfortunately, the previous Government, of which she became a member, refused to implement that. Therefore, I am grateful that she is on the Opposition Front Bench today to congratulate us on our action.
  In response to the hon. Lady's question, I can tell her that we consulted all the small business organisations in connection with the Bill. She will know that, in doing so,
  592
  we have established the better payment practice group, to which all those organisations belong. The small business community and its organisations realise that the Bill is an important part of a package of measures designed to bring an end to late payment. She will also know that all the surveys show overwhelming support among small businesses for a statutory right to interest. That right will be automatic, but the exercise of the right will be voluntary.
  Mrs. Gillan: What the Minister does not realise is that when legislation on statutory interest on debt was examined, many business organisations said that it would not help in respect of the late-payment culture. She will know that the previous Government made great efforts to tackle that culture, many of which were extremely successful. Do the Federation of Small Businesses and the Small Business Bureau fully support all of the proposals contained in the Bill?
  Mrs. Roche: The hon. Lady will know, from past consultation, that there have been some shifts in the attitude of small business organisations: at times, some have supported a statutory right to interest while others have not. We have been successful this time in having consulted small business organisations every inch of the way during the passage of the Bill. We are grateful for the support that those organisations have given.
  I have to take issue with the hon. Lady's remarks about the previous Administration. She will know of the boast of the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), of having strung along his creditors and his saying that that was the secret of his business success. I am sure that she would dissociate herself from that comment.
  Mr. Richard Page: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Roche: Of course I shall give way to my predecessor.
  Mr. Page: The Minister is being unfair to my right hon. Friend the former Deputy Prime Minister, who is a person who built up his business. He was explaining what happens when a company gets into a position, not of being unwilling to pay, but of being unable to pay. He was describing the sort of thing that a company will do in order to survive; he was not describing callously stringing the customer along, but stating his understanding of the difficulties facing small businesses. I wish that the hon. Lady, along with her ministerial colleagues, would not misrepresent my right hon. Friend's remarks.
  Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman, with his customary generosity, does a good job defending his right hon. Friend, but those comments did a great deal of harm, set entirely the wrong tone and went down very badly with the small business community.
  In setting out the legal context to the Bill, I should note that the issue of interest is not new. In 1893, Lord Herschell, in the London, Chatham and Dover Railways case, expressed strong sympathy with a claim for interest. However, despite his sympathy for the plaintiff, he found that interest could not be claimed under the existing Civil Procedure Act 1833. Forty-one years later, the legislature

  593
  passed the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934, which provided a power to include, in any judgment on any debt or damages, interest at a rate thought fit from the time when the cause of action arose to the date of the judgment.
  In 1974, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked the Law Commission:
  "To consider the law and practice relating to interest on debt (where interest has not been provided for by contract) and on damages, and to make recommendations".
  On 7 April 1978, the Law Commission made its report to the then Lord Chancellor, including a draft Bill which, had it been adopted as a whole, would have provided a right to claim interest where a debt is paid late, but before or during any proceedings, up to the point when a money judgment is given. In 1982, the then Government saw fit only to give effect to part of that draft Bill. The Administration of Justice Act 1982 amended the Supreme Court Act 1981 to provide the courts with the discretion to award interest where a debt was paid late after proceedings had begun, regardless of whether or not the proceedings concluded in a judgment on the principal debt. Of course, that still left suppliers who were paid late, but before proceedings were issued, unrecompensed for being kept from their money.
  It is 165 years since the Civil Procedure Act 1833 began the development of formal law on the provision of interest on late-paid debts. The Bill returns to the recommendations of the Law Commission in 1978 and finally gives all suppliers, regardless of when they are paid, the right to claim interest on late-paid commercial debts. The evolution of legislative measures to combat late payment shows us that the right we are proposing is a fundamental necessity and long overdue. The Government believe that late payment is wrong, both economically and ethically, and that the time to act and provide the right contained in the Bill is now.
  Late payment, or simply not knowing whether one will be paid on time, damages confidence among small businesses, damages cash flow and acts as a barrier to growth. Uncertain cash flow adds to the cost of borrowing for the smaller business, which discourages investment and adversely affects growth and competitiveness. In some cases, the very future of the small business is threatened. Recovering debts imposes further expense that small businesses can ill afford in terms of both costs and diverted resources, particularly where court action is required. The Government are conscious that small businesses are particularly vulnerable to the harm caused by late payment. Small businesses are often highly geared, relying on short-term loans and overdrafts for working capital, so cash flow problems caused by late payments can have an immediate negative impact on many small businesses.
  Research undertaken by Grant Thornton has shown that, in countries where businesses actually use legislation for statutory interest, there are often shorter payment periods.
  Mrs. Gillan: Given what she has just said, can the Minister explain the position in Spain, where the contractual period is 68 days and payments are made after an average of 74 days? Can she explain that anomaly?
  Mrs. Roche: Yes. The problem is that, in different European countries, there are different legislative systems
  594
  and different payment periods arising either from contract or common practice. The UK's late payment period is longer than that of the average European Union country.
  Mrs. Gillan: Looking at the Spanish position, does the hon. Lady admit it is possible that a statutory right to interest could extend the contractual period?
  Mrs. Roche: No, not given the way in which we have drafted the Bill. The hon. Lady is right to mention that point—it is one of the issues raised whenever a statutory right to interest is discussed. We looked seriously at the issue and provided for it in the Bill; if I am allowed to make a little progress, I shall explain those provisions.
  The regulatory appraisal published by my Department in December last year demonstrated the extent of the problem. The same appraisal reported studies which related to the harm that late payment causes small business. Let me give one or two examples. In a 1996 Intrum Justitia-sponsored NOP survey on European payment habits, 72 per cent. of respondents showed that overdue debts caused them a problem or serious problem with their cash flow. In the same study, loss of profit as a consequence of late payment was cited by 62 per cent. of respondents as a serious problem.
  I am sure that the House shares the Government's view that late payment is not just a question of economics. There are strong ethical arguments that necessitate action to combat late payment and improve the payment culture.
  Paying late is wrong and unfair. Any business that pays late as a matter of course is effectively saying that it is acceptable to abuse the provision of trade credit and the good faith of its suppliers. It seems not to value its suppliers or care enough about them to foster or maintain good relations. Those who pay late should realise that supplier relations are key to the continued profitability of their own business. When an agreement on payment has been reached, not only is it right and proper to ensure that the agreement is honoured; it is also an act of enlightened self-interest.
  The Government acknowledge that late payment is not always deliberate, with the intention of frustrating the process. It is not always a case of some Goliath stepping on a defenceless David, and there is often no malicious intent. Various reasons may exist for late payment. We listed them in our Green Paper, "Improving the Payment Culture: a Statutory Right to Claim Interest on Late Payment of Commercial Debt." However, we see no good reason why, aside from their own errors, suppliers should have to bear the cost of late payment. We believe that it is right and fair that the cost of late payment should be put back into the hands of those who control it: the customers.
  It has been said—this deals with some of the hon. Lady's comments—that the new right will lead to extensions of credit periods. We have thought of that. Where an agreed credit period amounts to de facto contracting out of the provisions of the legislation, it will be a void term in the contract and the courts will be able to strike it down.
  It has also been said that businesses will be too worried about losing a customer to exercise their right to claim interest. I do not believe that business sees that it makes any commercial sense to drop a supplier simply because the supplier made a claim for interest.

  595
  Businesses generally understand the value of good suppliers. All our great household names have got where they are because they value and invest in their supply chain. They also know that it is administratively time consuming and expensive to replace good suppliers.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: As the Minister knows, I was in business before entering the House in 1992. How does she reconcile her comments and the situation of a small supplier, perhaps supplying to a very large corporation—I shall mention GEC, and there are others—which sometimes took up to 120 days to pay small suppliers? That was the case not just with plcs, but with the BBC too, although I believe that it has changed its ways. As a small business man trying to make an inroad into a market, I would not have dared to say, "I am sorry, but I insist that you pay within this particular time," when I knew that other suppliers were not doing that.
  Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue, and I am interested to hear of his experience, which illustrates some of the difficulties. I know from my postbag, which contains letters from hon. Members from all parts of the House, what late payment means to their constituents, especially their business constituents.
  We are giving businesses the right to claim interest, but it is up to the individual business to make the commercial decision whether to enforce it. As part of a package of measures that I shall describe later and which I am sure will interest the hon. Gentleman, that provides an important lever in the hands of a small business. I believe that, rather than drop their supplier, debtors will go for the simple solution, and try to ensure that they pay their bills on time.
  Action to tackle late payment can wait no longer. The Government believe that it is time to provide, in the context of a wider package of measures, a statutory right to claim interest on late-paid commercial debt, aimed at improving the payment culture in the UK now.
  We stated in our Green Paper that, to help small businesses in particular, the statutory right to claim interest will be exercisable, initially, by small businesses against all large enterprises, including the public sector. We envisage that the right will be extended, after a period of two years, for use by small businesses against all enterprises, including the public sector. Finally, we envisage that the right will be extended, after a further period of two years, to all enterprises, including the public sector, to use against all enterprises, including the public sector.
  Responses to the Green Paper showed business support for phasing at 87 per cent., with support for the proposed timetable only slightly lower at 85 per cent.
  The Bill will encourage customers to pay on time, and, in conjunction with the wider package of measures, will help to combat the late payment problem. Part I creates an implied term in contracts, where no explicit remedy for late payment is provided, for a statutory right to claim interest; specifies the contracts and debts to which the term may apply; sets a default credit period and procedures for remission of interest; and provides an order-making power to set the statutory rate of interest.
  596
  Part II describes the extent to which parties to a contract can exclude or vary the right to statutory interest in relation to a qualifying debt. It will not be possible for parties to contract out of the Bill unless the contract provides a substantial remedy for late payment. Part III provides general and supplementary measures necessary to give effect to the Bill and ensure that it operates effectively. The final clause includes a commencement power to enable the Bill to be brought into force in stages.
  The effect of the Bill will be that the cost of late payment will no longer have to be borne by the supplier. It will instead be borne by the party that can control it: the customer.
  I can reassure the House—this answers the hon. Gentleman's point—that we do not see the legislation as a panacea. It is one important element in a package of measures that the Government are adopting, in partnership with the private sector, to improve the payment culture. The Government have regularly referred to the wider package of measures that can be seen in the annexes to their publications related to the Bill. Those include support for the decision by the Federation of Small Businesses to publish league tables of the payment performance of public companies; support for the development of the national vocational qualification in credit management; ensuring that small businesses can access credit management information and advice through the enterprise zone; and the establishment and co-ordination of the better payment practice group, which is a vital part of the Government's commitment to work in partnership with the business community to promote a better payment culture among British businesses.
  The better payment practice group promotes best payment practice among all businesses and will help to shape both the private and public sectors' measures to tackle late payment. Members of the group include the Forum of Private Business, the Institute of Directors, the Confederation of British Industry, the British chambers of commerce, the National Farmers Union and the Union of Independent Companies. The group has met regularly and has already produced a substantial body of work.
  The Government have recently published a better payment practice guide to credit management jointly with the better payment practice group. The guide benefits from the combined experience and considerable expertise of the group and provides straightforward guidance and advice on how to get paid on time. I thank all the members of the group for their hard work and effort.
  The Government recognise that the public sector must lead by example. We will require all Government Departments, agencies and local authorities to pay on time. Government Departments and agencies must pay all their undisputed invoices for commercial debts within 30 days or other agreed contract terms.
  Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way once again. It is obvious that many of those measures, especially the last one mentioned, were introduced under a Conservative Government. I notice that, since the present Government came to power, there has been no publication of the league tables for payment performance, other than for the year that covered the previous Conservative Government. When will the next table be published, covering the Labour Government's first year in office?
  Mrs. Roche: I shall answer the hon. Lady's first point straight away. I am a little perplexed by her comments.

  597
  The group to which I referred was established by this Administration and all its meetings have taken place under this Administration. I am rather sorry that the previous Government did not think of establishing it. I am also sorry that they did not support the federation's work in publishing league tables in the private sector. The hon. Lady also asked about league tables, and I am delighted to tell her that I shall publish them before the summer recess.
  Government Departments have adopted the British standard for achieving good payment performance in commercial transactions and the CBI prompt payment code. As I have said, we shall publish tables of the payment performance of central and local government before the summer recess. The Government are fully aware of the link between this Bill and the issue of access to justice. The Department has worked in close consultation with officials of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Lord Chancellor announced in October that he was pressing ahead with reforms to the civil justice system aimed at reducing cost, delay and complexity.
  We consulted widely on our proposals, and I am grateful to all those who responded. Their comments have been invaluable in improving what is, after all, a Bill dealing with a technical area of law. I am happy to say that all of our proposals have received widespread support. I am particularly pleased that our phasing proposals were so well supported. For example, when the Institute of Directors sought to respond to the Green Paper, it received 1,700 responses to a survey of its members, 69 of which favoured a right to interest.
  I am pleased to say that, when concerns have been raised, we have tried to be as flexible as possible. I believe that we have demonstrated a willingness to reflect and to make changes where they are merited. That has been the case both during consultation and since the introduction of the Bill in another place.
  Mr. Eric Forth: I seek clarification from the Minister. I think that she just said that, out of 1,700 responses to the Institute of Directors survey, just 69 favoured a statutory interest on late payment. Is that figure correct?
  Mrs. Roche: I meant 69 per cent.
  Mr. Forth: I am grateful. Perhaps the Minister could clarify the survey's results for the record.
  Mrs. Roche: Yes, I am happy to do so. The figure is 69 per cent. I also understand that that is one of the largest responses that the Institute of Directors has received to a survey of its members.
  The Bill was introduced with two changes to the original proposals that appeared in our Green Paper. The definition of a small business was, for the sake of simplicity and in order to avoid enforcement difficulties, reduced from the two out of three Companies Act 1985 definition to the simple criterion of 50 or fewer employees. The second change was to the rate of interest. The Green Paper originally proposed a rate of base rate plus 4 per cent. Having noted the concerns voiced during consultation and after taking further advice, we recognised that the interest rate should be sufficient to recompense all businesses for the cost of late payment.
  598
  Therefore, the legislation proposes a rate of base rate plus 8 per cent., which is the rate at which the weakest businesses are charged for term lending.
  There are issues that the Government believe are central to the Bill. First and foremost is the fact that this Bill is designed to help small business. For that to happen, we believe that the phased implementation of the legislation is necessary. This is a vital Bill whose time has come, and I am very pleased to commend it to the House.
  5.33 pm
  Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry on bringing the Bill to the House—not least because, as she said, it has enabled her to keep one of her promises to the electorate. It is a pity that the Secretary of State for Health could not keep his promise to the electorate and that waiting lists have increased by 100,000. Perhaps other Departments could look to the example set by this Minister and improve their records.
  It is sad that the Minister is supported today by a lone Back Bencher. None of her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry considers the matter to be important enough to sit alongside her and see her flagship move forward. At least I have good support from my colleagues on Conservative Benches. Unlike the Labour party, the Conservative party has traditionally been the friend of business,
  Mr. Colin Breed: Traditionally.
  Mrs. Gillan: We shall maintain that tradition.
  The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the Bill before the House epitomises that expression. All hon. Members agree that late payment could be agony for both large and small business. Yet today's Financial Times reveals part of the vision of hell that accompanies the good intentions in the Bill. The article is headed, "Businesses 'not ready' for tough law on debts". It states that a survey has found that fewer than 2 per cent. of company finance directors fully understand the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill. The article goes on to say that the Bill could force companies in the United Kingdom to pay more than £180,000 a day. Yet again, a burden is placed on business—another piece of red tape—that has no obvious benefits for some who view the legislation.
  Mrs. Roche: I am shocked by the hon. Lady's remarks. Do I take it that she now withdraws the support that she gave in 1994 to a statutory right to interest? I expected congratulations on the legislation, not carping.
  Mrs. Gillan: The Minister has already heard my answer. Upon examination, it was found that other mechanisms would help more. No one supports the late payment of debts, but perhaps there is another way, apart from legislation. I hope that the hon. Lady will be open-minded and listen to some other suggestions.
  If we look to our European neighbours, we can see that the lesson is not clear. As I said by way of intervention, Spain has problems. Companies in Spain and Portugal—which also has legislation in this area—have some of the worst records in Europe. Overall payment performance in the United Kingdom is better than the European Union

  599
  average by some five days. Moreover, the Bill seeks to phase in the legislation, allowing small businesses to pursue other small businesses only in the final stage in several years. However, 70 per cent. of small businesses trade with other businesses of a similar size.
  The Minister has tried to give the impression that her measures are universally welcome, but that is not strictly true. Her proposals have had a lukewarm reception in some areas, which perhaps explains why the arrival of the legislation in the Chamber was delayed for more than a year. Before the election, the Minister and her colleagues expended phenomenal efforts on trying to woo the business community. The prawn cocktail offensive became an embarrassingly familiar item in journalists' columns. We have seen the outcome of those cocktail parties, with chosen business men from organisations that could afford to donate £1 million to the Labour party getting what appears to be special treatment.
  The spin doctors formulated the message in a desperate attempt to appear business friendly, and the policy was pursued ruthlessly. Labour callously tried to lull business into a false sense of security—and I am afraid that the Bill is part of that charade. Like so much in this Government, it is a thin facade: it is a fig leaf to cover the Government's modesty while they remain as rapacious as ever in their intentions towards business. They attacked business in both Budgets, and I give them notice that the businesses that I talk to are beginning to see through their warm words and their warm champagne and to realise that they are gradually eroding many businesses' competitive edge.
  The raid of £5.4 billion on pensions makes Maxwell look like an amateur. The burdens are piling on, from the windfall tax, which has grabbed £5.2 billion and the road fuel tax, which has grabbed £440 million, to the car registration tax, which takes £60 million and the corporation tax changes, which take £630 million. The strength of the pound is destroying our exporters' business, and on top of that come the social chapter, the national minimum wage and union recognition, which will add to the burdens on business.
  At Question Time today, we heard that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is considering taxing car parking spaces for shops, factories and offices. Business should not face such burdens. It also faces two other inescapable burdens: the additional costs of the euro and of the millennium computer problem, which will run into billions of pounds and impose financial burdens on businesses that have to maintain their competitive position in an increasingly competitive world. The debacle over the euro this weekend represents not only a national lottery, but an international lottery of giant proportions. It was a rollover weekend, but the people who were rolled over were European and British citizens.
  The measures fall on the negative side of the equation, but the Government hope that the Bill will register on the positive side. In many ways, I hope that it will, but instead of supporting it overwhelmingly, many businesses and organisations representing business do not think that it is necessary. The Federation of Small Businesses said:
  "We shall try to convince the small firms Minister that other issues should he looked at first".
  600
  The British Chambers of Commerce said:
  "It is an ill-conceived, very short term solution and will hurt businessmen's interests".
  The Confederation of British Industry said:
  "It will not work and according to our members, will make matters worse. It would be very unfortunate if they went ahead with something that most small businesses do not want".
  The small and medium enterprises council of the CBI said that the Bill would not substantially increase the likelihood of small firms being paid on time.
  We do not need to take those organisations' words for it, when we have those of the Minister. She has admitted that her proposals are not popular. In last summer's edition of Network, she said that almost 60 per cent. of lobby groups representing small businesses opposed a statutory right to interest on late payment of debts. What an admission. In other words, she said, "They don't want it, but we're going to do it anyway." The Government consider the Bill to be a headline grabber and will pursue it, irrespective of whether it will change the culture of late payment.
  Mrs. Roche: I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving way, but does she not accept that every survey of small businesses shows overwhelming support for a statutory right to interest? She supported that not merely by signing the early-day motion, but by being one of the first six sponsors.
  Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Lady has pursued the matter twice. She is highly embarrassed to be quoted as saying that 60 per cent. of small business organisations are opposed to a statutory right to interest. She intends to impose her will on the business community, regardless of what it thinks.
  The Minister should have used her energies to ensure that the Government pay their bills on time, as the previous Government did. More than 50 per cent. of Departments improved their payment records in the last full year under our government, some substantially. In answer to my question on national health service trust payments, the Minister of State, Department of Health said that
  "80 per cent. of payments were made on time."—[Official Report, 30 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 864.]
  Trusts make more than 3 million payments a quarter, so in any quarter 600,000 bills are paid late, which adds up to slightly under 2.5 million bills a year paid late. Surely the Minister's priority should be to continue to build on the work of the Conservative Government and improve that performance, but we have not even seen the payment performance of Departments under her Government and, as she has admitted, will not see it until the recess.
  Mrs. Roche: On payment performance, will the hon. Lady confirm that when she was a Minister at the Department for Education and Employment, it paid a quarter of its bills late? Will she apologise for that?
  Mrs. Gillan: I have no apology to make. The Paymaster General said in a written answer in Hansard on 27 November, at column 662, that the DFEE's record was 92.2 per cent., which is an improvement, because the Department for Education's payment record was 75.2 per cent. I hope that the Minister will

  601
  apologise to me, and I shall give way to allow her do so. No, she is not a big enough woman to apologise when she has made a mistake.
  I congratulate the Minister on the better payment priorities group and hope that it will be backed by more than her warm words. She has the arduous burden of making the winding-up speech, because no other Minister has come to support her. Will she say how much money will support the group's proposals? How much will go into the development of the national vocational qualification in credit management? How much will go into the credit management information and advice service? How much will go into business links to support credit management?
  I believe that the Minister, disingenuously, did not mention the Lord Chancellor's review.
  Mrs. Roche indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Gillan: I stand corrected; I must have been distracted when the Minister mentioned it. However, we do not know when the review will be forthcoming. We know that the Government hit the ground reviewing last year, but few reviews have come to fruition, except when a review has become a consultation.
  The sad thing about the Bill is that, despite the massive cull of prawns to sustain the Government's offensive to convert old Labour into new Labour, the Government still do not understand the essential ingredients of a successful business recipe. As soon as they perceive what they regard as a problem, they want to jump in and legislate. In 1994, rather than the previous Government legislating, their consultation on late payment resulted in British standard 7890, the standard for specifying procedures for good payment priorities and credit management, which business supported. Some of our most successful companies are outsourcing, but the hon. Lady does not seem to understand business relationships as they develop.
  Outsourcing builds up mutually beneficial customer-supplier relationships. They depend on long-term arrangements and can result in improvements on both sides. Rather than implementing legislation that interferes with contracts freely entered into by both parties, the Government should encourage that sort of business climate. Where such a relationship does not exist, it is naive to imagine that the development of mutual trust can be fostered by encouraging suppliers to take action against their customers.
  The Government have not yet caught up with the need for good industrial relationships. Perhaps I should not be surprised, as some hon. Members will remember how old Labour defeated Barbara Castle when, as Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, she produced her White Paper "In Place of Strife".
  Mr. Clive Betts: That is pre-history.
  Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman says that that is pre-history, but "In Place of Strife" was defeated by Labour. Labour seems to believe that industry should thrive on strife. The Bill has the capacity to multiply that strife. Add to that the imposition of trade unions, the minimum wage and the other burdens that I have mentioned which are coming to haunt business, and we see that nothing has really changed.
  602
  If the Bill represents new Labour's concept of industrial progress towards international competitiveness as we move towards 2000, it is the Labour party which should be tested to see whether it has caught the millennium bug. That thinking seems to have flipped back to the year 1900.
  This is a soundbite Bill. It sounds good, but it lacks real understanding of business. We shall not oppose it on Second Reading because businesses should pay on time, but we shall seek to probe the detail. We shall consider phasing in and thresholds, the large company's use of the statutory rate against other large companies in the public sector, the default credit period and many other matters. I hope that the Minister will look forward to discussing those matters, and I hope that she will keep an open mind on our suggestions.
  It is important to scrutinise the Bill carefully. In Committee, we shall need to discover whether Labour's thinking on business has any substance beyond the soundbite. I think not.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: No one could deny that the Labour party had a splendid election campaign. It was rumoured that it worked on the 60 per cent. principle—if 60 per cent. of the population was in favour of a policy, it adopted it. We could see that that would run into trouble in the fulness of time because the 60 per cent. in one group would not be the 60 per cent. in another.
  There is no collusion in this, but I had intended to mention the question of taxation and hospital waiting lists as an example of two policies on a collision course. In my constituency, waiting lists have increased by 28.9 per cent. However, it would be wrong to continue listing the Government's broken promises, so I shall move on to the small business sector.
  The Labour party in opposition had a real problem. It was regarded not as the natural friend of the small business man and woman, but as hostile to the small business world. It ran around desperately trying to find a policy that would convince the small business man and woman that it was on their side. It had a difficulty because most of the things were being done. I say that with natural modesty, as is my wont. I have a natural sympathy for the task.
  The Labour party came up with two problems for small businesses, both of which I recognise—one was regulation and the other was late payment. The Labour party promised to control regulation and deregulate like no Government had done before. The Minister referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who set up the deregulation unit. In the two years before the election, about 1,000 regulations were merged or abolished.
  As a matter of interest, in January I put a parliamentary question to the Minister—no doubt life has moved on since then—and I discovered that between 1 May and the date of the answer, the Department had managed to deregulate three items. I shall pursue the Minister on that matter, just as she pursued me with regard to Departments paying on time.
  We all recognise how damaging late payment is for small businesses. It can make or break a business, and in many cases it has broken businesses. We have all had

  603
  people coming to our surgeries to complain about how late payment has hurt their businesses. All hon. Members will be on the small business man and woman's side, but we must act sensibly and progressively. It is no good uttering honeyed words but not delivering in practice.
  All Governments have considered the matter. The highly respectable accountancy firm, Grant Thornton, studied what was happening in the rest of the EU. In 1995, the United Kingdom was paying within 48 days and, in 1996, within 50 days. We were just slightly ahead of Germany, which took a couple of days more than us. I am told that a report by another organisation gives Germany a shorter period. However, it boils down to the fact that among all the countries with a statutory right to interest, we were right in the middle. The Scandinavian countries paid within about 27 days, and in Italy a company that is paid within 90 days holds a street party to celebrate, and life goes on from there.
  Given those figures, is the statutory right to interest all that it is cracked up to be, or is it more a matter of national culture? That is what it comes down to. Reference has been made to all the surveys that have taken place, and hon. Members will not be surprised to know that such surveys also took place when I had a degree of responsibility. The result of the first survey was 50:50. Two years later, in another survey, 60 per cent. of organisations contacted were against the measure and about 40 per cent. were for it, but it was not conclusive either way. To sum up, we can do no better than to look to the clearing banks. Two of the clearing banks were against the measure and two were in favour of it, but one of those that was for it said that it would not work, but it might help to change the culture. That is a fair summary of the situation.
  The Government commissioned research. The good Professor Wilson of Bradford university—I am sure that the Minister knows all about his work—was brought in. Unsurprisingly, he came forward with the startling news that companies that ran a good credit control department stood more chance of getting their money—a 38 per cent. greater chance. I do not know how he arrived at that figure and I do not intend to defend or explain it.
  Taking all that into account, the Labour party, fighting its campaign, produced the statutory right to interest rather like the philosopher's stone—just rub it on a bit of bad debt or late payment and all will be turned to gold. I am rather worried that this is over-selling the situation, and many small business men and women might be rather disappointed at some of the outcomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) said that the measure might even make the situation worse and, in certain circumstances, it could. I hope to explain that later.
  I was grateful to my hon. Friend for her support in making Departments pay on time, an initiative which was endorsed by the then Prime Minister. Some Departments were not up to speed, and my hon. Friend was in there like a terrier. She harried and wrote all sorts of unflattering and unkind parliamentary answers. Nevertheless, the message went out, and those Departments came up to speed. I was glad to see that the Department of Trade and Industry managed to achieve
  604
  98.9 per cent. just before the election. That was a substantial move in the right direction, and an example which Governments and agencies should set.
  There is a great misconception about what was done. When the good Professor Wilson did his research, he also concluded that small businesses were more likely to be sinners than sinned against. I put out a call saying that any small firm that felt it was not being paid on time by any large organisation should write to us. I had, if I remember rightly, 27 responses, of which only two were genuine late payment cases. One concerned late payment by a Department, which "rolled over" immediately, and a second concerned a major organisation, which did the same. However, the other 25 were complaints and queries about the quality of goods and service. That worries me. The position may be exploited by those who want to avoid paying the statutory interest.
  Another thing that we did, which neither of the Ministers has mentioned, was to do away with the iniquitous pay-when-paid regime. We must thank Sir Michael Latham for his work in bringing that about. Some hon. Members may not know of that old system, which is now fading away. It meant that on a construction site, a subcontractor, such as a plasterer who plastered a suite of offices, would not be paid until the main contractor had been paid—and he would be paid only when the architect signed the contract off. Six months ago, a gentleman came to my constituency surgery who had not been paid for more than two years by a London borough because a pay-when-paid regime operated. The borough told me that he would be paid within two or three months. That is clearly unsatisfactory, and a wicked abuse. Everyone can be grateful that it has been done away with.
  We also ensured that large companies included not only their payment policy but their payment practice in their annual accounts. It will—I hope—be up to the many small firms organisations to question those companies if they do not keep to that practice. We all know that small firms do not have the resources or facilities to be able to ride over cash flow problems.
  Much has been made of the launch of the British standard payment code. It has been endorsed by the CBI, which has its own code. What has not been mentioned is that, if a company signs a British standard code but does not adhere to it, trading standards officers can be called in. Firms can be held to account if they fail to adhere to the code that they have signed.
  A great deal has been done to try to help small businesses. What worries me about the statutory right to interest is that it could make the position worse. I have three invoices with me. The first, from Universal, a company which supplies many hon. Members with stationery, has simple payment rules written on it:
  "Except as otherwise agreed with the customer, payment of invoices consolidating separate deliveries shall be due not later than 15 days after the date of the invoice, payment of all other invoices shall be due not later than 30 days after the date of the invoice."
  The second, for the carriage of horses, says:
  "Payment is due within 30 days."
  My third invoice, a vet's bill—I have tried to represent the market as broadly as I can—states:
  "Payment due within 30 days of invoice".

  605
  I believe that the Minister's heart is in the right place, but there is a misunderstanding of business practice. Nowadays, most companies run a monthly computer account. At the end of the month, there is a shut-off. If someone supplies goods that come in during the first two days of the month, the goods will be passed upward, the accounts clerk will sign them off, a statement will come in after the supplier's monthly shut-off, and it will be checked against the receiving company's remittance advice before the payment goes off perhaps two weeks into the following month. Immediately, six or seven weeks will elapse before the supplier gets the cheque.
  As smart and intelligent people, hon. Members will appreciate that as the month progresses to the 20th, 21st or 22nd, the payment period will drop to about 21 days. However, an item that comes in on the 27th of the month, or the 6th of the following month—perhaps a weekend will intervene—will miss the cut-off. Payment for that item will not be made until perhaps seven or eight weeks later.
  If the supplier company says that it wants the statutory right to interest because 30 days are up, the other company will say, "Stop. We want to negotiate, and to negotiate on the longest possible period that we could be caught for." That is quite legitimate; no one is trying to fiddle, or to short-change anyone. Everyone is operating a perfectly legitimate business practice because computers run with a monthly cut-off. The company will say, "Forget 30 days, we had better make it 56, because we do not want to be hit with interest charges."
  Mr. Breed: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although the Bill offers business men an opportunity to claim interest, they do not have to do so, and are not statutorily required to do so? The instrument is available to business men to encourage payment.
  Mr. Page: I appreciate that perfectly, but the teeth to require payment will not be there. Companies will argue, as I have argued, that it may take 56 days to pay. We have the Grant Thornton figures for Europe. We have the statistics of Intrum Justitia, the debt collection organisation, which show a figure of 49 days. I fear that the difficulty for small business will be that the payment period of 56 days—or thereabouts—will become the norm, not the exception. I fear that the 21-day period that currently exists in the middle of the month will start to go out of the window, and that firms will think in terms of two months rather than one.
  I feel that the Bill will not be effective in operation. That is one reason why we did not introduce it ourselves. Anything that is done to try to help small businesses should involve looking more closely at the way in which the courts and the small claims system operate to help—or not to help—the small business man and woman. In particular, we should consider bailiffs and sheriffs. Their operation strikes me as highly arbitrary, and I have grave doubts about its effectiveness. Most people who end up in court are "can't pays" rather than "won't pays".
  Our hearts are with the Minister, but the brains of those of us who have business experience urge a degree of caution. When the Bill goes into Committee in the fulness of time, I hope that we can produce some ideas that will make it more practical, so that it can really help small businesses.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Tony Colman: Let me first declare an interest as a director of GLE Development Capital Ltd. I chair that company on a pro bono basis, and it has a factoring and invoice-discounting subsidiary. The Bill is part of a package to help small businesses. I praise the work by factoring, invoicing and discounting businesses to help small businesses to deal with their cash-flow problems.
  I was previously the director of the Burton Group. I particularly remember working in the late 1960s, in the early days of Top Shop, the fashion chain, with many small clothing manufacturers, many of whom are international names. It was extremely important, in terms of supporting their development, that they were able to receive seven-day payments. The charge was 5 per cent., but it was extremely important that the clothing manufacturers, the designers, were able to buy the cloth perhaps on a 30-day term, to make up the garments and to receive payment from Top Shop before they had to pay their cloth manufacturers. If we are to support creative industries, it is important that large manufacturers are particularly aware of the need to help start-ups, as occurred at that time.
  It is particularly interesting to follow the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page). He may not know it, but I stood for that seat in 1979 before the by-election that brought him to the House. He gave the example of Italy, where there is a very large clothing manufacturing sector, which we know through household names such as Benetton. I assure him that that firm does not operate on 90-day terms. In fact, it largely pays for the cloth, trimmings and materials on time to ensure that its suppliers are able to stay in business and make a good profit out of Benetton. If we are considering the position in Italy, it is extremely important to remember that the successes of its small and medium enterprise sector are very much related to the fact that, in its payment system, the larger companies support the smaller companies.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Nevertheless, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Intrum Justitia figures show that the actual average payment period in Italy was 87 days, compared with the European Community average of 54 days and the UK average of 49 days? That may suggest that, if some are doing as well as Benetton, there must be others that are not complying with the principle.
  Mr. Colman: Obviously, I would not wish to question those figures, but I am trying to point out merely that, in examining why Italy has such a strong small and medium enterprise sector, we find that late payment is not a negative factor there, and that large companies work strongly with small companies to ensure that the small companies are looked after. If the hon. Gentleman visits the area, he will discover that.
  I am obviously pleased that there is cross-party support for the Bill. I was a little concerned to hear the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) perhaps being overly critical, but I note that she supports it and so she should: she has a record of supporting such a measure. I was hoping that she would still be on the Front Bench so that we could perhaps again take up the point that, in opposition, she is one of the hon. Members who support the early-day motion that calls for a statutory right of interest.

  607
  The residents of Putney who work with and have small firms are extremely concerned that this problem should be dealt with. Business Links in south-west London views this as the major problem in terms of expanding the small-firms sector there.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman touches on an important point, but does he accept that one of the tasks of Business Links is to ensure that those small companies operate a correct credit procedure, that they vet the people for suitability before they give them credit and that they do not get so carried away that someone has had the wit and brain to place an order with them that they automatically give them the goods straight away?
  Mr. Colman: Business Links in south-west London certainly does that, and I would hope that it is done throughout the UK. The problem is that larger companies do cheat on those small companies—that is what it is: cheating. After payment terms are agreed, payment is not made within the time that has been agreed. It is extremely important to recognise that we are talking about vulnerable companies.
  The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham talked about contracts that have been freely entered into by both parties. When a large company has a contract with a small company, it cannot be a freely entered into contract. I agree that the small company could choose not to go forward, but, if it refuses, obviously it will not get the business. Contracts are being imposed on it by the larger company.
  The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham pooh-poohed the figures that have been produced in support of the Bill. As a member of the Institute of Directors, I was particularly pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out that the statutory right to interest was favoured by 69 per cent. of the respondents to the IOD survey. What she did not say was that 78 per cent. of the respondents said that late payment created problems for their businesses, and that 93 per cent. said that it created problems for British business generally, so the Bill has the institute's support.
  Earlier today, I was in discussion with the CBI. Its briefing states:
  "the Bill represents a sensible way to proceed."
  It is concerned about three items, but, in general, it supports the Bill. One involves the definition of the default credit period. I believe that that is already containable within the Bill. I understand that the matter has been raised in discussions between the Minister and CBI and that it can be dealt with in terms of custom and practice, but she may wish to respond to that in her winding-up speech.
  The other two concerns are somewhat surprising. One is that the planned threshold to define small and large firms is too low. The CBI believes that, in the first phase, the threshold should be not 50 employees, but 100 employees in a firm. It is important for the Bill to bed down with the smaller size of company initially—I am getting nods from Opposition Members—rather than including much larger companies in the first phase. Again, the Minister may wish to respond to that.
  608
  The last point that was raised by the CBI—I see this as a rather minor proposal; it is important, but it does not in any sense undermine the thrust of the Bill—is that large companies should be able to sue public bodies in the first phase. When I read that, I asked, "Why should they not be able to sue large private bodies as well?" The CBI said, "Oh yes, those too." In my experience—I have moved from the private sector into the public sector—the public sector is a darn sight better at paying on time than the private sector. It is important to recognise that.
  In preparation for this speech, I spoke to the director of finance for the London borough of Wandsworth, who said, interestingly, that, as the Bill was coming forward, he would report every quarter to the relevant council committee on how the council was getting on in terms of achieving the 100 per cent. target; in his knowledge, it was close to it. I mention that primarily to demonstrate that the Bill is necessary in terms of changing the climate. People should receive those reports. If companies have to state their policy in their annual reports, they could also show how they are doing and whether they are delivering that policy. Public bodies locally and nationally should do the same.
  Companies can have recourse to the local government ombudsman if late payment occurs and local government is involved. There is concern about the fall-back position of a small company that does not want to go through the courts when the private sector is involved. It is important for the House to realise that small firms are at the mercy of large firms. I hope that, if the Bill, is enacted we will, in two years' time, consider whether there should be a commercial debt ombudsman, so that recourse to a neutral body would be available. I am concerned that some small businesses would not want to take court action. They would take action if public bodies paid late, because they would not feel that they would be victimised, but I am concerned about what would happen if the private sector were involved.
  The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the report in the Financial Times today. I am not surprised that 2 per cent. of the finance directors are not ready to pay within 30 days. They could simply adjust the computer programme to ensure that payments are made.
  Mrs. Gillan: The Financial Times article said that fewer than 2 per cent. of finance directors in large businesses fully understand the Bill. If that is so, there must be a process of education, and it will be interesting to see how the Government embark on that process and how much money they are willing to provide to back up the Bill.
  Mr. Colman: The public sector leads the way, and I had no problem talking to the director of finance of my local council about the Bill: he knew all about its contents and how to implement them. I am sure that the CBI, which is an excellent organisation—although the hon. Lady may not rate it very highly—is continuing this discussion and ensuring that its members fully understand the provisions of the Bill.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman rather casually referred to 30 days. I have done my best to show that, with

  609
  computer accounting and monthly cut-offs, the 30 days may have to be increased if the statutory right to interest is to be rigorously applied.
  Mr. Colman: I covered that point earlier in my speech, and it was dealt with in the debate in the other place.
  Mrs. Gillan: I think that I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly when he said that I did not rate the CBI very highly. I should like to pay tribute to the CBI, which sent me a message containing further remarks on the Bill while I was in the Chamber making my speech. I have a very high regard for the CBI, with which I have a good working relationship. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that.
  Mr. Colman: I am pleased that the hon. Lady has such a good relationship with the CBI. This morning, when I asked staff at the CBI for a briefing, it had not been prepared. I spoke to them at some length and it was faxed to me. I am pleased that they managed to get it to the hon. Lady this afternoon, and that I was able to help her in that regard.
  Mrs. Gillan: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman is going with his argument. I have been in conversation with the CBI in the past few weeks on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to imply that I received a last-minute briefing, perhaps he would like to step outside the Chamber and compare the briefing he received with the up-to-date one that I have received within the hour.
  Mr. Colman: I have obviously prompted a strong response from the hon. Lady. Like many Conservative Members, she is concerned about the fact that they lost the business vote last year and they have not got it back yet. I see confirmation of that from the Opposition Front Bench.
  This is a moral problem: companies that pay late are cheating their suppliers. I do not believe that the Bill is a panacea for all the ills relating to late payment. It is part of a package, and I commend it to the House because it is a major step forward in dealing with this iniquitous problem for small businesses in this country.
  6.25 pm
  Mr. Brian Cotter: I broadly congratulate the Government on this long-overdue legislation. The Liberal Democrats have, for a long time, believed in a statutory right to interest, and we welcome the Bill on behalf of businesses. I run a small business, so I am glad to be part of the statistics in saying that, as a small business person, I approve of the legislation.
  The Conservative Government understood to some extent the problems that late payment of debt caused business, but they produced nothing substantial, which is why I welcome the Bill. The business community was offered the option of voluntary measures to aid good business practice. Hon. Members should note that those voluntary measures dismally failed, and that the commercial debt problem has worsened. Why? Because late payment is often intentional, so late payers must be penalised. A stick as well as a carrot is needed to get companies to pay on time: we need both.
  610
  Small businesses form the backbone of the United Kingdom and European economies. Small and medium-sized enterprises are not a minority interest, but hold the key to a dynamic, successful and competitive economy in the United Kingdom, in Europe and globally. It is the Government's duty to help SMEs to achieve and succeed in that aim. Improving payment practice will benefit the whole economy.
  In the United Kingdom, it has been estimated that about 50 per cent. of all SME bank borrowing by value is used to fund commercial credit. Late payment is a huge impediment to competitiveness, and threatens the very survival of many firms, particularly small businesses.
  The Liberal Democrats have long realised that late payment is a millstone around the necks of many businesses. It has a crippling effect on SMEs, which are dependent on tight budgeting in order to realise investment projects and consolidate their markets. Denying SMEs ready access to capital has brought many companies to the brink of collapse, if not to actual collapse. It has prevented a large number of promising small firms from realising their economic potential. Our aim should be to create a business environment in which potential can thrive and prosper. The Bill will help in that respect.
  This legislation, in itself, will not solve the late payment problem. Other complementary measures need to be taken through trade organisations and appropriate bodies to ensure that small firms in particular promptly render invoices in a correct form and get paid promptly. If they do not promptly render their invoices, they often lose time.
  In 1978, the Law Commission recommended statutory rights to interest, and, ever since, the campaign for such rights has received overwhelming support from all sectors of business and from business organisations. As a small business man, I have also supported it.
  As the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said, 78 per cent. of respondents to a recent Institute of Directors' survey said that late payment created a problem. Moreover, 93 per cent. of respondents said that late payment created a problem for British business generally. Those percentages are obviously very high.
  Only this morning, I was at a meeting of the Institute of Management, where I was told that 75 per cent. of the institute's managers support the Bill.
  Another survey published last summer showed that late payment is threatening the survival of one in four firms employing up to 50 staff and costs millions in reduced profitability for almost 75 per cent. of those businesses.
  The Forum of Private Business—which has been recognised as an ardent campaigner for a statutory right to interest—has already been mentioned in the debate. The forum frequently conducts in-depth research, which has shown that late payment of bills imposes significant costs on both individual businesses and the overall economy. The forum estimates that the average cost of late payment to a business with a £500,000 annual turnover could be as much as £10,000.
  Mr. Page: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the forum has calculated how much such a company has saved by not paying its bills on time?
  Mr. Cotter: As I said, we all agree that all companies have to pay on time. Moreover, small

  611
  businesses' problems in meeting their bills often arise because they are not paid on time by large businesses. We must be realistic about small businesses' difficulties. The Bill is very important for small businesses, which are sometimes restrained in paying by large businesses.
  Evidence from Europe suggests that effective legislation could reduce the average cost of late payment to £1,000, thereby saving such businesses £9,000. The Bill's opponents should at least bear in mind those facts and figures, and realise that their opposition rides against much information contradicting their opposition.
  Late payment has a domino effect on business, and, undoubtedly, the worst offenders are large companies. A Dun and Bradstreet survey revealed that, as recently as October 1997, fewer than 10 per cent. of large businesses pay their bills on time.
  Mr. Page: I am sorry to keep interrupting the hon. Gentleman's speech, but—as this debate has been coloured by people making grand statements—what does "being paid on time" mean? Is it within 30 days, or perhaps within a computer programme's monthly cut-off date? What does it mean? Are companies really as bad as is suggested by that percentage?
  Mr. Cotter: The Dun and Bradstreet survey stated that only about 6.6 per cent. of companies paid within the agreed terms—which is what we are debating.
  Potential complications have been mentioned, and I agree that there will be difficulties after the Bill is passed. However, over time, some practices in businesses and industry—we all know, for example, about those two or three days at the end of the month—will have to be dealt with. I believe that the problems can be solved.
  Late payment is a vicious circle. Most small firms believe that their large business debtors often pay late to gain. We have heard in the debate of examples of such practice. One company that was mentioned earlier certainly used the practice, which is very bad news, to expand its bank balance.
  For all those reasons, the Liberal Democrats support the legislation. Nevertheless, our support for the Bill does not mean that we are uncritical of it. I urge the Government to reconsider some aspects of it, so that it will operate more effectively and there will be no casualties along the way.
  The first aspect that Ministers should reconsider is the phasing-in periods. The Bill will allow government at all levels to escape from its provisions until the later phases. Although we have already debated the matter today, I should like to propose that, in the first phase, businesses of all sizes should have the right to charge interest on outstanding bills owed by government. Moreover, the Government should be prepared to set an example in the matter.
  The Minister will recall that, on 5 March 1998, I asked her:
  "Does she agree that, often, both local and national government are very bad at paying? I hope that she shares my view that the Government should give a lead in that direction."
  612
  She replied:
  "I absolutely agree … That is why I intend to provide in the summer a league table of Government Departments, and I have taken the opportunity this week to remind local authorities of their obligations as well."—[Official Report, 5 March 1998; Vol. 307, c. 1178.]
  I ask the Minister only to dwell on that point—which she accepted when I asked my question—and to consider whether there is really any reason why government should not be covered by the legislation's provisions in the first phase. Only today, a colleague told me that he is very concerned that, because of financial strictures, local government is using late payment of debt to increase the amount of money that it has to hand. I ask the Minister urgently to consider that practice.
  The question remains: why is government being exempted from the provisions in the early stages? I welcome the fact that the Minister has promised a league table, and reiterated that promise today. I hope that the table will be considered as an annual commitment, by which the Government may demonstrate how they are improving the payments record.
  It is extremely important that quoted businesses also should have to declare their payment record in their annual accounts. I am sure that the Bill's passage will ensure that such declarations are made.
  Earlier in the debate, the crowing of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) of his ability to delay payment was both mentioned and robustly defended. I do not think that the point was made clearly that he was talking about his own practice and not about the general practice of business. I was a member of the public when the comment was made, and thought that, coming from a Minister, it read very badly indeed. It was not a good example.
  The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) has been very keen to promote statistics and to ask for apologies. I remind her of the fact—which she has not dealt with terribly well—that she signed early-day motion 912 1993/94, which stated that
  "the only effective solution to the problem of late payment of business debts is the implementation of a statutory right to interest".
  As we are debating statistics, I should say that that motion was signed by 328 hon. Members—representing a very large part of the House's then membership, and showing the strength of support for the motion, even among Conservative Members. The hon. Lady's support for the motion should be mentioned again, as she did not feel that she needed to apologise.
  Mrs. Gillan: As that matter was mentioned three times earlier in the debate, I think that—by mentioning it yet again—the hon. Gentleman can be accused of boring repetition. Time moves on. When I signed that early-day motion, that was how I thought. However, I examined the problem in more depth, and I examined the Government's action on the matter. I no longer hold that view, although I will approve of any provisions in the Bill that will improve the culture of late payment. Nevertheless, I believe that the Bill is a piece of legislation too far, and that the hon. Gentleman is boring the House to death.
  Mr. Cotter: People often say that when they are not very happy. Although time has moved on, improvement in paying debt has not moved on. We are debating a Bill

  613
  containing provisions that the hon. Lady strongly supported. Moreover, we are debating the Bill's other provisions, which will deal with the problem even more strongly than the early-day motion suggested.
  The Government think that a four-year phasing-in period is necessary to enable small firms to adjust effectively to the legislation. However, that argument has no bearing on the ability of large firms immediately to charge other large firms. The hon. Member for Putney mentioned large firms' ability immediately to incorporate the legislation. We could at least consider, in the first phasing-in period, allowing large firms to charge against large firms.
  The Bill contains a definition of a small business—which was identified in the other place as a matter of some concern. A small firm is defined as one that employs no more than 50 persons, which implies that a large business is one that employs more than 50 persons. That seems ludicrous when one considers that there may be only one or two people on the payroll and that payrolls can vary. We must be concerned about that issue and consider whether we should have a different definition of a small business. There are many definitions; the European Community uses a different definition from the one used in this country.
  I turn now to the problems, to which other hon. Members have referred, that debtors face when they are taken to court. The small claims courts need to be responsive to the Bill if it is to be effective. At present, the system is very ineffective for several reasons. A survey in a recent CBI brief pointed out that
  "larger firms were more likely to have used the courts than smaller firms."
  The courts system should be accessible, regardless of business size. The courts need more teeth, and judges could do more to encourage defendants to pay up.
  Even if a claimant is prepared to go to all the initial effort and expense of taking a debtor to court, the effort and expense do not end there. The majority of those who win their claim experience extreme difficulty in receiving their payment because the responsibility lies with them, not the court. The claimant has to pay a further fee to make the court try to enforce the judgment. That makes a mockery of the whole system, especially as the powers of the bailiff are very limited, and companies end up throwing good money after bad.
  As hon. Members will know, the Lord Chancellor is reviewing proposals, which were referred to earlier, for the reform of the civil justice system, with a view to reducing delay and costs. That is welcome because court access and the enforcement of judgments are vital to the Bill. I urge the Government to ensure that future legislation on the matter will tie in neatly with the Bill, so that it is worth pursuing a debtor through the courts system. The system must be simple, quick, accessible and effective.
  I have been assured that there should be no problems regarding the Bill's compatibility with European legislation. However, we need a cast-iron guarantee from the Government that the Bill will be compatible with the European directive that is being formulated on this issue.
  Of course, as other hon. Members have said, the Bill will not solve the problem of late payment. It is a cultural problem which requires more than legislation to solve it.
  614
  There should be published lists of known, regular late payers. The Government seem keen to implement that proposal, which is welcome. If a business appeared on such a register, its credit rating could be affected, which might induce prompt payment. The hon. Member for Putney referred to the possibility of having an ombudsman to support such a requirement. That is a proposal, which I had not thought of, that we might consider.
  Small firms need greatly to improve debt collection and the general running of their financial affairs. Many companies have no systems in place and operate ad hoc. They do not make proper credit checks; delays and errors in invoicing are common; and they do not promptly pursue debtors. Late payment is viewed as a burden, but often as inevitable, so businesses should be educated to realise that that need not be the case. Businesses need to be made aware that it is no good their taking on work if they are unlikely to be paid for it within a sensible time.
  Improved credit management procedures are needed so that the late payment culture dies. Credit checks on potential new customers, credit limits, clearly defined payment terms, account monitoring and prompt action on debtors are some of the many ways in which businesses can improve their financial operation.
  The 1996 Grant Thornton document on good payment practice states:
  "A sale is not a sale until it has been paid for."
  Businesses should bear that motto in mind, and business links should make credit management an absolute priority when advising small firms.
  The Government have broad support from Liberal Democrat Members. I have outlined a few concerns, which I hope the Minister will address, and I look forward to her reply.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Eric Forth: My only claim to any background or expertise in this matter is that I was a buyer and a credit controller. That was some time ago, but the principles remain substantially the same as when I grappled with them in the private sector before I became a politician.
  What bothers me about the Bill is that, like so many Bills being considered by the House, there is more than a smack of a quick fix and easy solution about it. I completely absolve the Minister from that accusation, because she said that the Bill was no panacea. I am more concerned for those business men who, as has been claimed repeatedly throughout the debate, are asked in surveys, "Wouldn't you like interest to be payable on late payments?" and reply, "Yes, please. That sounds like a very good idea." They would say that, wouldn't they? Most business men do not stop carefully to ponder the contents or implications of surveys. They read them and reply, "Yes, I like the sound of that." That is perfectly understandable.
  It is surely our job to study the proposals and consider whether they are likely to benefit the business community. In that regard, I am always puzzled by the suggestion—particularly if it is alleged to have emanated from the business community—that the law will be helpful. The Conservative party and the Labour party have recently fallen over each other, claiming to be the party of

  615
  deregulation; yet, time and again, against that claimed background, measures such as the Bill are put before the House. They are clearly regulatory and are always justified as a special case or part of the general scheme. The words must follow the action or the action the words. We cannot get away for much longer with claiming repeatedly to be the party of deregulation while putting our names to measures such as this.
  The key to the matter is the relationship that exists in a trading context between large and small businesses. The suggestion that all or most small businesses are virtuous in that regard and pay their bills on time, and that it is only the large businesses that do not, does not reflect my business experience. Perhaps events have moved on since then and most or all small and medium firms are paragons of virtue in that regard. I wonder how many of them have considered that they, like larger companies, could get caught by the Bill. That is a matter for their judgment.
  Mr. Breed: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that many small businesses are unable to pay their bills because they have been unable to collect money owed to them? That is a cash flow problem: the fact that many businesses will not pay results in many that cannot pay.
  Mr. Forth: I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Reference has repeatedly been made, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), to a change in culture. The assumption in the debate and underlying the legislation has been that the Bill will bring about a change in culture that we all desire and would approve of—businesses paying more promptly.
  My fear is that the Bill will have precisely the opposite effect. There is at least a possibility, perhaps even a probability, that, as a result of the Bill, large firms will seek to change the terms of trade that hitherto have been normal in British business—net 30 days. They will argue that, if they are forced to pay interest on late payments, they will unilaterally change the terms of trade to net 60 days or net 90 days.
  Mrs. Roche: When the right hon. Gentleman reads the Bill carefully, he will realise that we have thought of that important point, which is why we have said that terms in a contract that amount to a de facto contracting out of the provisions of the Bill will be void.
  Mr. Forth: If that is so, I am even more worried about the Bill than I was. If the Minister is saying that she is seeking, by legislation, directly to intervene in freely negotiated terms between businesses in the private sector, the Bill goes much further than I had imagined. That is more than a step too far; it is a gross intervention in what has hitherto been regarded as very much the preserve of private business in the private sector to negotiate terms freely with one another.
  Mrs. Roche: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware—I know that he has had an interest in these matters—that Acts of Parliament such as the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 have a role to play in contracts. The Bill is certainly not new against that legal background.
  Mr. Forth: That is a different point altogether. When the Minister replies, I hope that she will reassure not just the House but the entire private sector that it is not the Government's intention to intervene in terms of trade freely negotiated between commercial businesses and commercial partners. If that is the Government's intention, the Bill is much more iniquitous than even I had imagined.
  Mr. Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Minister is right in saying that a typical net 30 days contract between a large purchaser and a small supplier would be struck down if the terms were changed to, say, 45 days, the likely recourse of the larger firm as the purchaser would be to find a fresh supplier on 45-day terms, cutting out the original supplier's business altogether?
  Mr. Forth: Indeed; I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is the result of the process that I was describing. Depending on the extent to which either the legislation or the Government seek directly to intervene in commercial relationships between companies, the change of culture which has been referred to could be adverse—not favourable or helpful. I hope that we would all wish to ponder on that at some length before approving the Bill.
  Another element in the process is an old friend which is referred to in the explanatory memorandum as the supplier performing the obligation—by which I assume is meant meeting the requirements of the contract. Anyone who has been in business, even for a short time, will know that one of the most difficult matters in this regard is agreeing that the quantity delivered is that ordered and that the quality or specification is that required. Everybody will also know that, the more one seeks to intervene in the terms of trade or the mode of operation of companies, the more one drives companies down the route of using queries on delivery about quantity, quality or specification as a means of delaying payment, either legitimately or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) referred to that point in an intervention, and I am sure that he will want to elaborate on it. It is an important point.
  I am simply trying to illustrate that legislation of this kind—no matter how well intentioned or well supported in endless surveys of people who are asked whether they would like life to be better and easier and whether legislation could help that—can achieve the opposite effect of that intended. The Bill is a prime case in point. If my hon. Friends had sought to divide the House—perhaps they still will, if the Minister does not reply adequately—I should have been very happy to oppose the Bill for the reasons that I have given. We shall want at the very least to look in great detail in Committee at the possible effects that I have described—there may be many more—before we give the Bill our support.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: First, may I apologise to the Minister for missing the first few minutes of her speech? I confess that I thought that the Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Bill would take up more than 13 minutes of the time of the House. I was caught short, as they say.

  617
  I rise briefly as the hon. Member who, in 1986, introduced the Right to Interest Bill, the private Member's Bill which the House approved. Hon. Members may be interested to know that among those who sponsored the Bill were such moderate politicians as my hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon) and Mr. Michael Forsyth, whose presence in the House we very much miss.
  The history of the Bill is quite interesting. The proposal was first considered by the Government under my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), who asked the Law Commission to look at the matter. It decided that a statutory right to interest was right and appropriate. During the 1980s, the Government were very interested in the matter and undertook to introduce a Bill if the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors supported it. There was a time when the CBI supported the proposal, but the IOD did not. Then the IOD supported it, but the CBI did not. Both never supported it at the same time, which is why the matter never came to a head in the mid-1980s.
  After the energetic campaign by the Forum of Private Business, a Bill was mooted in the 1994 Budget. The then President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), was invited, when I was his parliamentary private secretary, to look at the issue by the then Chancellor. We were faced with two piles of submissions: one for a Bill and the other against it. There was, of course, no way in which we could proceed on such division, so there the matter lay.
  There is no argument that there is a problem of late payment of debt: the theme unites all speeches in the debate. The problem lies with the chain. For a large construction project, there will be a main contract, a subcontract and a sub-subcontract. Smaller contractors at the base of the pyramid are without contracts and, therefore, do not have any protection from late payment of debt. The only way in which such subcontractors can obtain interest is to issue a writ with the invoice. That, of course, is no way in which to conduct business. Indeed, if subcontractors tried that, they would not get any more business.
  Some would say that parties are free to negotiate terms and that they live by the sword and die by the sword, but it is not that easy if one is the small man at the end of the chain who wants business. If such people are asked whether they want the work or not, and are told, "Get out there with your camera and take photographs of that building," it is not easy for them to say that they want a contract, which includes a right of interest, before they leave their office. It just does not work that way. When someone writes on an invoice "Payment within 30 days", it is not binding. It is not a term of the contract; the parties did not mutually agree it.
  Many figures and surveys have been referred to in the debate. That is where I share the views of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. In truth, I have no idea whatever whether the Bill will work and whether it will achieve the results that we hope it might. What makes the Bill worth while is that it will probably result in a change of climate of opinion on the late payment of debt. I do not envisage a flood of litigants going to court when the Bill becomes law. The Bill will make a difference in the way in which
  618
  people talk to each other and negotiate. It is for that reason that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are right not to oppose the Bill, which I wish well.
  6.58 pm
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) said that the Bill would protect small firms that are at the mercy of large firms. I broadly welcome the Bill, but if its objective is to protect small firms from the strictures of larger firms, it will not achieve it—other than, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said, by changing the climate of opinion.
  Before I entered the House of Commons, I ran a company in what might be called nowadays a sunrise industry. It manufactured electronic equipment for broadcasting companies. Originally, our plan was to build small independent radio stations in the United Kingdom, but, after 10 years, we had expanded and set up radio stations in some 48 countries. Therefore, I have experience of how, in a niche market, a small company trades in its early years and of how it can grow into a reasonably sized company. One thing above all told me that the company would survive in its early days—not its profitability, but its short-term cash flow.
  I broadly welcome the Bill, but I believe that it is flawed. I come from the libertarian wing of the Conservative party and usually share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but I disagree with him in this instance, as I do not think that the Bill goes far enough. Interestingly, the Bill is flawed from whichever way one considers it, regardless of whether, like my right hon. Friend, one believes that it goes too far, or whether, like me, one believes that it does not go far enough. There is agreement that it will not achieve what was intended.
  I believe the problem is one of culture—how companies behave to one another in the United Kingdom. Far be it from me to introduce the subject of the European Union, but it is interesting to note that there are differences in culture in Europe on how bills are met. The Nordic countries, including Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom—or what the French would call the Anglo-Saxon countries—pay their bills more or less on time. Further down the list are Ireland, France, Belgium, Spain, Italy and Portugal, with Greece at the bottom—those countries are the worst at paying their bills. There is a cultural gap between the Nordic, Anglo-Saxon countries and the Club Med countries.
  Mr. Boswell: Has my hon. Friend noticed the correlation between the propensity of a country to pay bills on time and the level of public debt incurred by its Government in the context of the Maastricht criteria?
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend entices me to go where I had not intended to go—so as not to be out of order, I shall be brief in response.
  The Prime Minister said this afternoon that there had been no fudge over the euro, but Helmut Kohl has stated that Belgium and Italy have the worst public debt and should not enter the single currency. It is interesting to note that Belgium and Italy come near the bottom of the list of payment records internally and overseas. Payment

  619
  is a cultural and educational issue—if the Bill has any effect, it will be to educate people on the importance of paying bills on time.
  Small companies in sunrise businesses need protection. I recall that, when my company was very small, we supplied equipment to firms such as GEC and the BBC. The irony is that Radio Uganda was the most prompt in paying bills, which gives a new slant to the phrase Ugandan relations—my Ugandan relations were very good, as Radio Uganda paid its bills within eight days, whereas the BBC paid its bills over 120 days. If it had not been for the contracts that my company had in east and southern Africa, we should not have been in business for long.
  It would be no bad thing if the Bill encouraged larger corporations such as GEC to pay up on time. The problem is, as I said, that it does not go far enough. Its main strength lies in clause 8, despite which, as the House of Commons Library report said:
  "It will still remain for any business to decide whether it wishes to exercise the right to statutory interest or not, but this decision will be voluntary not coerced."
  The implication is that, once again, large firms will say to small firms, "If you want the contract, you will not exercise your right under the Bill to impose interest charges if payments are not made on time."
  When the Bill is enacted—which, sadly, given the Government's parliamentary majority, it surely will be—nothing will change except, perhaps, the climate of opinion. I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt, as a change in the climate of opinion would be no bad thing in the longer term, and I give the Bill full marks for trying and for good intentions. However, I suspect that, in terms of achievement, it will be more soundbite than sound money.
  7.5 pm
  Mr. Tim Boswell: There are occasions in the House when it is not entirely necessary to be curmudgeonly, and I do not intend to be so now, either by speaking at great length in a debate that has rehearsed the principles thoroughly, or by advising my hon. Friends—unless they are so disposed—to oppose Second Reading. That, of course, will be to some extent contingent on the Minister's reply, but we are doing our best for her.
  Our position of what may be called sceptical acquiescence in the Bill arises from the fact that we are very anxious not to send a signal to the business community that could be interpreted, even inaccurately, as saying that we are in favour of a late-payment culture. We are not in favour of such a culture; we deprecate it as much as the Minister does. My late father, a business man from whom I learned many things on how to conduct my own business, was firm in insisting that bills be paid on time. There may be some who find it difficult, physically or because of the bank, to pay bills on time, but it was always my father's practice to do so, as I am sure it is of hon. Members who have business experience.
  I shall sketch one or two general points before I comment on individual contributions to the debate. As almost all hon. Members said, the Bill is no panacea—I notice that the Minister is nodding in
  620
  agreement. We need not go round the course again on who said what to whom, or who has changed his or her mind on a particular occasion. As the Minister said, almost 60 per cent. of lobby groups representing smaller businesses are opposed to a statutory right to interest—there is clearly a difference of opinion in the business sector. I do not say that opinions do not change over time. I am sure that business and trade organisations approximate themselves to the way in which the wind is blowing as developments occur—as, indeed, they have done to some extent on the national minimum wage proposals. None the less, the Bill is neither a universal panacea nor universally wanted by the business sector.
  Another general point, which has been implicit in many of the contributions to the debate, is that the problem that businesses identify in the conduct of their business concerns not interest on late payments but late payment itself. Businesses do not want payment to be delayed. There is no question that large, or public sector, customers will not be good for the money sooner or later, but there is irritation when a large and sophisticated organisation cannot pay. In the case of small customers, however, there is a genuine worry about whether the money will be paid at all—that is probably the major concern of many small businesses, which typically deal with other small businesses.
  If the problem is late payment, the provision of statutory interest cannot be a sufficient solution; it may alleviate matters or soften the blow, and it might even help with the cash, albeit rather late in the day, but it does not solve the problem of a late payment culture.
  The choreography of the debate has been interesting. The Minister, commendable as she is, has been on her own throughout. Her four ministerial colleagues in the Commons have not even looked in to see her. She has been supported by one Labour Back Bencher, and broadly supported by one Liberal Democrat Member.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), by contrast, was supported by both shadow Ministers, as well as others who have looked in on parts of our debate, and four of my Back-Bench colleagues have made weighty contributions. That suggests that, in the "speak your weight to small business" campaign, there may be a certain imbalance between the parties; that will be noted elsewhere.
  I do not mean in any way to criticise the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman), who has had a distinguished, in-depth business career over a long period and spoke interestingly. Predictably—I do not blame him—he supported the Bill. I am pleased that he was in favour of a prompt payment culture. He mentioned factoring, which is an important part of modern business practice—the son of one of my cousins is a distinguished factor—and, in some interesting remarks about the balance of advantage in the Bill, he conceded that there was no panacea.
  Mr. Fabricant: I recognise the valuable work that factoring does in assisting the cash flow of small businesses, but does my hon. Friend accept that sometimes factoring companies can be heavy-handed when small businesses are the ones who owe the money? Sometimes they can be so heavy-handed as to drive into bankruptcy small businesses that could have become large businesses.
  Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend points up the dilemma precisely.

  621
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) did not deal with matters in precise chronological order. He produced some slightly unconvincing evidence in support of the Bill and developed his criticisms of it at some length.
  I speak from the relative safety of possibly not being involved with the Bill in Committee. I may be anticipating, or even sending a message to the Committee of Selection. The Minister knows how much I enjoy Committee work, but it is not possible to split oneself in two and make two speeches simultaneously. That said, I have never come across a Bill that was more requiring of attention in Committee. Hon. Members' concerns need to be properly discussed.
  The Minister will have noticed some variation in emphasis and enthusiasm for the Bill among Conservative Members. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), in a distinguished and fluent contribution, explained the problems and clearly expressed some reservations that I share, when he warned the Government about overselling the measure. He said that it should not be regarded as a philosopher's stone that would automatically remove all business problems, or even the problem of late payment.
  My hon. Friend spoke interestingly about measures taken during his stewardship of these matters to stimulate the private sector to improve its own business practice, and also mentioned the record of improving the Government sector. I remember, from my own time as a Minister, that there was a need for improvement. We began to change the culture, and not before time.
  The House should consider the current Government's record on compensation for confiscated firearms. We debated the matter early in the Government's life, and pointed out to the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that the Prime Minister, when in opposition, had committed Departments broadly to payment within 30 days, but that, even in straightforward cases, there had been a delay of up to six months. That is not good enough, and I hope that it will never happen again.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said that, if asked whether they would like to get interest on money owed to them, small businesses "would say that, wouldn't they?" I have been in business, and I would love to have had that interest, which would possibly even have helped once or twice. As ever, these matters are not simple and there may be a price to pay.
  My right hon. Friend rightly asked whether there were limits to the cases in which intervention could deliver the commitments now made by all political parties to deregulation, and went on to say that intervention in contract law could pose as many problems as it sought to solve.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and, in his own distinctive way, my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) were perhaps warmer towards the concept of the Bill. The former identified some of the real concerns about late payment, and the latter wondered whether the Bill went far enough. His contribution was very entertaining.
  Conservative Members have some controlled scepticism about whether the Bill will materially redress the problem, which we clearly recognise, without causing
  622
  problems of its own. We are not rubbishing the Bill and will allow it to go to Committee, but we want it to be carefully scrutinised there, so that the problems can be further exposed. There must be a proper process of public education about how the legislation is to work. If it is to work properly—and we wish it well in that sense—it must be understood by the business sector.
  The more I have listened to the debate—and especially to the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—the more I have realised that the Bill amounts to an intrusion into contract law. The Minister regards the Bill as very much in the interests of fairness and as building on the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, but it goes much wider than that.
  It seems to me that the impact will be rather contingent. It is not clear to me—I am not a lawyer, and the Minister is—whether it is seriously intended that attempts will be made to attack contracts made between parties other than the original supplier and customer, if the customer switches to another supplier. The only possible way in which one could go down that road would be by specifying national contract terms and having a single model contract. I am not sure whether the Minister wants to do that, but if she follows her own logic she may be driven that way.
  A point embedded in the interesting exchange that I had with my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield was that, while the Minister wants to sell the Bill as a pro-business measure—and one which, by inference, will soften the blow of some of the nasty things that we believe her Department is hatching for business—to help one business by giving it a statutory right to interest is ipso facto to damage another business, which will not be very happy. It is a business-business conflict of interest, rather than a business-labour conflict of interest.
  In seeking to replace the normal commercial practices between broadly consenting, if not entirely happy, parties to an arrangement, the Government may create a differential response. The evidence I have seen suggests that perhaps only half of creditors with a right to statutory interest will press for it, while half will not. That, in' turn, creates another anomaly. I remind the House that there is nothing to stop the parties agreeing on a contract right to interest at the moment. They can write that in.
  Mrs. Roche indicated assent.
  Mr. Boswell: I see that the Minister agrees. It is not clear what defect is to be remedied which would not otherwise be remedied. If there is a problem in enforcement, it is probably a problem of relative size or of market influence, rather than one that would be brokered by some magic change in the law as proposed by the Minister.
  A question that worries me is whether the defects culture will come into the consideration of debts. It would be easy for a firm to say that it did not like what it had received or that the building was unsatisfactory, and that it would not pay until the matter was settled. That may well shift the burden towards yet more litigation on whether or not contracts have been adequately discharged. The Committee must consider whether that chimes in with the statutory right of interest, or whether these matters can be held in the same legislation.
  The question of contracts not expressed in sterling bothers me. There is reference in the Bill to overseas contracts under foreign law, but I noted that, yesterday,

  623
  the President of the Board of Trade was effectively writing virtually a blank cheque for the introduction of the euro as a secondary, supplementary or parallel currency in the UK. I presume that contracts made under English law and expressed in euros between two consenting parties will be testable in the English courts.
  If that is so—if there is a single interest rate which is characteristic of the euro and the new European central bank throughout euroland, and those countries that use the euro as a subsidiary currency—it is likely that that single interest rate will diverge from the rate generally applicable on sterling debt. if that is the case, there is a possibility that there may need to be a second rate for the euro. If so, I wonder how that would be expressed, and whether parties might wish to convert from one to the other at various times. Those matters should be considered by the House, particularly given the DTI's enthusiasm for Europe.
  If one asks small businesses whether they would like interest on late payment of debts, they are likely to say that they would. As so often with what this Government propose, it looks like a good idea at the time, it is easy to say, it sounds good and it is a simple political trick. However, the devil—and the problems for other businesses—will be in the detail. It is right that the detail should be tested thoroughly in Committee.
  We have good will towards the business community, and we hope that the problems—some of which we have outlined tonight—do not transpire. To prevent them from doing so, it is essential that we do not collapse into a warm bath of bonhomie without at least considering that there may be problems, some of which I hope that the Minister can respond to tonight. It is on that basis—and on that basis only—that we do not oppose the Bill this evening.
  7.23 pm
  Mrs. Roche: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply. This has been an interesting debate on an issue of importance to British business—particularly small business. I have listened carefully to the debate, in which a number of issues have been aired; I have agreed with some and disagreed with others, but I can assure the House that I will reflect on the debate when we go to Committee.
  First, I wish to deal with the speech by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), who referred to burdens on business. The Bill is hardly a burden. It provides a right, not a regulation. We received no response to the Green Paper saying that the Bill would be a burden on business. The only burden is that of late payment itself, which the Bill seeks to address.
  The hon. Lady referred to taxation and the Budget. The last Budget was excellent for small businesses and has been welcomed by small firms' organisations. She asked how much has been spent on the best payment practice group. The Government measure success by what is done and we are pursuing a package of measures. It is sad that the Opposition cannot bring themselves to recognise that. Money is available to bring our objectives to fruition and that is being provided from existing budgets. The hon. Lady mentioned EU comparisons, and I referred to that in my speech.
  624
  The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) made the valuable point that we face a problem of culture. He is right, and that, in part, is what the Bill seeks to address. We are seeking to reinforce a culture change—a point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), who has some experience of this matter. I was interested to hear his remarks about the sunrise industries, which are so important to the economic future of this country. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter), who comes from a small business background, also referred to the payment culture. The Bill can succeed only in parallel with our other measures, which I have outlined.
  Reference was made to the Lord Chancellor's review, which is up and running. It is a vast task, and measures to expedite judgments are expected to be in place by spring next year. I know that the Lord Chancellor will also review enforcement procedures over a longer time scale. That is excellent news for small businesses and is another measure aimed to improve the payment culture.
  The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and I had a discussion about late payment by Government Departments. She will be interested to recall that when she was Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Education and Employment in 1995, only 75 per cent. of bills were paid on time. I am sure that she would want to reflect on that.
  Mrs. Gillan: The Minister will be aware that over the time I was a junior Minister at the Department of Education and Employment—as is clear from Hansard—that payment record improved dramatically to more than 92 per cent.
  Mrs. Roche: I am afraid that it had a long way to go. I gave the hon. Lady the opportunity to apologise to small businesses, but she failed to do so. I want to be fair to the hon. Lady, although I was slightly puzzled by her speech. She started by saying that the Bill was almost the road to hell, but then said that she would not divide the House on it. I want to be fair to her. I know the problems that she has. It is reported that she told a freelance reporter who told the Federation of Small Businesses which told The Sunday Times that the last Government had lost the small business vote, and that we would be seeing no new policies in this area from her. Clearly, that was her attitude today.
  We heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, whom I thank for his kind remarks about the part that we both played in Government Departments. I know that the figure has increased for the DTI. It is not the figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted; from memory, I think that it is about 97.5 per cent. I recognise the contribution that he made in that respect. He raised the important matter of net monthly accounting as an example of the legislation in practice. The Bill will allow that to continue instead of having the default period of 30 days, where it exists in the normal course of dealings between the parties. I refer the hon. Gentleman to clause 16(2). It is always better to agree a date for payment expressly within the contract. The point that the hon. Gentleman made about small businesses is not one with which I necessarily agree. It is important that all businesses pay on time. We want to give small businesses time to develop the necessary systems for timely payment, which is why we propose phasing in that case.

  625
  The comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) reflected his years of business experience, mainly in dealing with big business. He rightly referred to the importance of good supply chains. Where businesses have succeeded, they have invested enormous time and effort in their supply chains, not only because it is the right and ethical thing to do, but out of enlightened self-interest—it is in their own interest to have good suppliers. My hon. Friend also referred to phasing and the default period, on which we have been holding discussions.
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare talked about the definition of a small business, and I understand his point, but it is difficult exactly to define a small business. There are several definitions, for example, in company law and according to the European Union. We have tried to pick on a definition that is workable and is readily understood within the business world.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned phasing: we consulted on the phasing proposals, and 80 per cent. of respondents supported phasing, with about 85 per cent. of those supporting our proposals. It is important that we give the proposals time to bed in, but we shall keep an open mind on the question of the timetable and be responsive to representations from business. He also mentioned the recently published EU directive, which has not yet been discussed by member states, although I understand that it will probably be on the agenda of the Industry Council this week. We have been in discussion with the Commission as it has formulated its proposals.
  Turning to the speech by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), it would be ludicrous were the Government to ignore the possibility that businesses might abuse their negotiating strength and force excessive credit periods on suppliers—we live in the real world. The best answer to the right hon. Gentleman's point came from his hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield who has experience of small business. The Labour party is the party of small business and we do not want to stand aside where there is evidence of abuse. As for the example of a customer changing supplier because of 15 extra days credit, the idea is bizarre. Suppliers are chosen for many reasons, but I doubt whether 15 extra days credit would be one of them. Businesses look around for quality and consistency of supplies—that is what influences them.
  626
  The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about regulation, but the Bill will not impose a burden—it provides a right, not a regulation. It is a matter for the individual supplier to choose whether to make a claim for interest, so I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
  Mr. Page: We are all seekers after the truth in this matter, but is it not a fact that, when a large company supplies a small company, more often than not a direct debit service is involved so that there is immediate payment and there are no credit terms whatsoever? There is a complete imbalance, which the Bill fails to address.
  Mrs. Roche: I agree that there is an imbalance, but the Bill seeks to correct that balance by implying that term into statute, giving small businesses a remedy whereby they can claim interest if—I stress, if—they wish to do so.
  I thank the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) for his remarks and for the role that he has played. He provided a good riposte to the remarks by his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I welcome his support for the Bill.
  This has been short but interesting debate. The Bill is vital to small businesses, which are the economic backbone of this country. 1 pay tribute to the contribution that they all make and I sincerely hope and believe that the Bill will help them in their important task.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

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

    WATER POLICY AND BATHING WATER
    That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7531/97, a draft Directive establishing a framework for Community action on water policy, and 12929/97, the Commission's proposed amendments to this draft Directive; endorses the Government's proposed approach to negotiations on the proposal in the Council, also takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 6177/94, a draft Directive concerning the quality of bathing water, and 12591/97, an amended draft Directive on the quality of bathing water; and endorses the Government's approach to the proposal.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
    Question agreed to.

Hermitage War Memorial
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
7.35 pm
Ms Oona King: I recognise that the subject of this debate strikes at the heart of this country's identity and values. The debate has been kept alive by the extraordinary commitment, perseverance and dedication of the Civilians Remembered campaign.
Let us remember those civilians: 60,595 died in this country during the second world war and half of those—29,890—died in London. With those people in mind, let us remember what the debate is about. It is no exaggeration or cliché to say that it is about honour and sacrifice on the one hand versus private interest and profit on the other. Heaven forfend that private interest and profit have no place in our society—they certainly do—but there are times when public interest and national dignity demand precedent, and this is one of them. Surely the matter is one of national significance, for if the second world war is not a matter of national significance, I do not know what is.
Within that national agenda, I should like to place on record the local circumstances. The House will be pleased to learn that, when the London Docklands development corporation withdrew from Wapping earlier this year, it left behind many new opportunities for Londoners. However, as well as those new opportunities, the LDDC left scars, especially in the minds of the original east enders—the residents of Wapping and the Isle of Dogs. The London docks were, and still are, a hard place in which to live and work—if one has work, that is—but they have always been renowned as a proud place, with a community that looked after its members. The ultimate test of that came during the blitz. As we are all aware, Hitler hoped to create panic and civil unrest to stop people going about their war-related jobs, thus knocking Britain out of the war. The strategy did not work, but many of my constituents remember how hard it was to live through those nights. Many lost civilian friends and relatives—for example, at Bethnal Green tube station, 167 civilians died in the panic to escape bombing.
It is those who made sacrifices and those who lost loved ones whom the Civilians Remembered campaign sought to commemorate when it applied for planning permission for a permanent memorial park in honour of civilians who had died in the war. The chosen location was the Hermitage site—the last open space on the riverside in my constituency. In addition, the wharf on the site was itself destroyed by a direct hit from a German land mine. Surely there could be no more fitting place.
My constituents had hoped that the LDDC—a body which had taken away so much of what was familiar, often replacing it with the unfamiliar and unwanted—would hand over the Hermitage site as a fitting location for a memorial park. Unfortunately, in the face of that heartfelt public demand, the LDDC sold the land to a property developer whose only aim was to profit by raising yet another block of luxury apartments on the river bank.
Hon. Members may be aware, having heard me speak in the House previously, that there is a desperate need for housing in my constituency, but we no longer need luxury
628
riverside apartments which local people will never have a hope of living in. As the local planning authority, Tower Hamlets council asked the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to take the decision on the competing planning applications for the site. It was advised that planning applications are called in only
"if planning issues of much more than local importance are involved."
I return to the point: could there be an issue of more significant national importance? I understand that, in deciding to allow the applications to be determined locally, the following factors were taken into account. First, the development proposals are in accordance with the soon-to-be-adopted unitary development plan; and secondly, they are in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the inspector on the previous application.
Although I appreciate that the Minister has a quasi-judicial role in overseeing the enforcement of planning law, which may mean that he is unable to comment on the merits of the planning applications, I should be grateful for his response to my concern at the Government's decision not to decide on the planning application themselves. That decision was taken in the full knowledge that the planning regulations gave Tower Hamlets development sub-committee hardly any option but to pass planning consent to the Berkeley Homes proposals. In fact, councillors on that committee have said that they believed that they might face a surcharge if they did not consent to the Berkeley Homes scheme.
In those circumstances, I wonder whether the Minister would agree that a permanent and fitting—I reiterate, fitting—memorial site to the civilians who died during the war is an issue of national importance and should not be decided at local level. I also draw the Minister's attention to the fact, of which I am sure that he is aware, that on Friday 24 April, at an extraordinary meeting of the Tower Hamlets planning and environmental services committee, the draft unitary development plan was amended to include a designation of metropolitan open space for the Hermitage site.
Moreover, I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that it is unrealistic to squeeze a public memorial into what will, effectively, be a private garden for wealthier residents, living in those luxury apartments. It is not only disingenuous, but an insult to the memory of those who lost their lives that no space can be set aside for quiet contemplation by those who lived through the blitz. We also need a place where younger people—my generation—can consider what happened and why we have some of the freedoms that we have today. They will not be able to do so by staring at a block of luxury apartments. In other words, this is a legacy that we need to bequeath to future generations. I should also add that it is impossible to express the disgust that my constituents feel at this site being given to property interests over and above the interests of the nation.
There are fairly obvious reasons to call in the planning application. There is the national significance, there is the fact that, in Tower Hamlets, we do not have enough green space and there is the fact that we have the greatest overcrowding in Britain. Self-evidently, we need no more luxury apartments. Putting all that to one side, I appreciate that Berkeley Homes is willing to offer 40 per cent. of the

629
land as a memorial park, but I would say that even 60 or 80 per cent. is not enough. British civilians did not give a 40, 60 or 80 per cent. effort; many gave their lives. We must take that into account.
I hope that, even at this late stage, Berkeley Homes will agree to donate the land, or, at the very least, to offer it at cost price. In the circumstances, it is not much to offer.
7.44 pm
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on securing parliamentary time for the debate. In doing so, she represents the sentiments of many people, not only in London, but throughout the country.
I pay tribute to the tireless work of the Civilians Remembered campaign. Civilians Remembered has established itself as a vigorous and committed campaigning group, whose intention is to honour civilians who lost their lives in this country during the second world war. It is composed of ordinary east end people who have demonstrated extraordinary tenaciousness in their efforts. Although local people's thoughts have a special focus on the east London victims of Hitler's bombers, there is no getting away from the fact that people in other parts of the country—indeed, the rest of the country—who lived through the second world war, as well as those who were not alive at the time but who wish to pay their respects, would welcome a permanent and public memorial to represent the nation's collective honouring of the dead.
In picking up the thoughts of my hon. Friend on the Hermitage site, I feel sure that I echo the thoughts of many people in this country who experienced the war at first hand. They need a tangible expression—a physical presence—to demonstrate that we remember.
Those of us who have not had the experience can hardly begin to imagine what it must have been like to have to respond, night after night, to the sound of air-raid sirens; to vacate our homes for the protection of air-raid shelters; to emerge from those shelters to find our homes destroyed, our shops, factories or cinemas—indeed, whole streets—obliterated and, worst of all, to discover that family members, friends, neighbours and colleagues had been killed by the overnight attacks of the Luftwaffe on its latest bombing raid. In the face of Hitler's attempts to bomb the British people into submission, people stood together and made a remarkable contribution to the war effort and the defeat of the Nazis.
That spirit and resolution demand a public memorial, and it is incredible that such a memorial is not already a long-standing reality. The deaths of 60,000 civilians in Britain during the second world war, and the injuries inflicted on 1,000 more, surely deserve serious and enduring recognition.
In recent months, I have attended several memorials to members of the fire services who died in the war. I was a member of the London fire brigade for more than 23 years. Specifically, there have been two ceremonies to commemorate the single largest loss of life of fire brigade and auxiliary fire service members at Old Palace school on 10 May 1941. The memorial services at the school in my constituency and at Beckenham cemetery were very moving, and I should
630
mention the important role of Stephanie Maltman in researching the history of this event as well as the tragedy at Gainsborough school in Plaistow and many others. Indeed, more than 300 members of the London fire service and the AFS who died during the second world war were commemorated only with the unveiling of a statue near St. Paul's cathedral by the Queen Mother in the past decade, but at least their sacrifice now has a physical memorial, and I congratulate all those who were involved in ensuring that that fitting tribute became a reality.
I know also that colleagues in the London borough of Newham, especially Councillor Chris Rackley, are keen to establish a memorial to civilian casualties near the royal docks in the new barrier park. Despite the fact that the events of which we speak occurred more than half a century ago, the memories are still as fresh to the families and friends of those who died as they are to those who survived.
There was some controversy when the nation purchased the Churchill papers for £13 million. Many people questioned whether that was how the people's money should have been spent, and time will tell. I believe that there would be widespread support were a similar decision taken to purchase the Hermitage site for the nation.
Like my hon. Friend, I believe that it would be wrong to penalise the developers, Berkeley Homes, financially. I hope that the company would be prepared to sell the site to the nation. I therefore challenge the idea that the best use for the Hermitage site is the proposed development of luxury apartments for sale, and retail and commercial units, with a memorial park for use only as an amenity space for that development.
A memorial park created under those circumstances will not constitute an acceptable substitute for the creation of a national memorial park to honour civilians nationally. Such a national memorial can never compensate families for the loss of loved ones, but it can at least show a national will and determination to remember them always. That much we can do.
I appeal to the Minister not to close off that prospect. I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister was wrong when he declined to call in the planning application for further review. As my hon. Friend said, we believe this to be a matter of more than local significance. It is still not too late. If we had a London mayor, he or she would find it impossible to resist the pressure to establish such a memorial.
Every November at remembrance services across the country, we conclude with the pledge, "We will remember them." For the civilian casualties of the last war in the United Kingdom in general and in London in particular, but especially for the east end, those words ring hollow and will continue to ring hollow until we have a suitable memorial where people can pay their respects. For many families, there are no graves. This is a matter not of jingoism, but of acknowledging our heritage, paying tribute and learning the lessons of war.
Europe, I believe, has learnt from its past. Our future lies in co-operation. We in the United Kingdom owe a debt to those who are not here. I hope that our Government will accept the strength of our feelings and our arguments. We need a memorial, and only this Government have the power to create one at the Hermitage site.
7.52 pm
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) on her success in securing the debate, and on her decision to take the opportunity to raise the important and serious matter of the proposed use of the Hermitage riverside site as a memorial for all the residents of London who died in the second world war. Although it is now more than 50 years since the end of the war, it is right that we should continue to remember the sacrifice of all those who gave their lives during the war. The point was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick). I say that with considerable feeling, as my own father was killed in the war.
In addition to those killed in action, there were, as we all know, many civilian casualties, not least in the east end of London, as my hon. Friend rightly emphasised. The east end bore the brunt of countless air raids and V-bomb attacks. It is right that there should be an appropriate memorial to their sacrifice. I pay tribute to the work of the Civilians Remembered campaign, which has done a great deal to argue the case for a memorial in the east end of London.
As I am sure my hon. Friends realise, I cannot comment on the merits of the two current proposals for the redevelopment of the site which recently came before the Department, because the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in the planning system. However, I can use this opportunity to explain the town and country planning background that affects the site, the two planning permissions that are now extant on it, and the factors that the Secretary of State took into account when he considered whether to call in the planning applications.
It may help the House if I first clarify that town and country planning is about the use of land, not its ownership. The planning system looks at the suitability of different uses of sites and the compatibility and harmony of those uses with others nearby.
In planning, individual developments are assessed for their suitability and appropriateness against criteria established in a development plan. When that plan is complete, it will have been subjected to thorough public scrutiny and will be a widely known basis on which planning applications can be brought forward. However, even before the plan is complete and formally adopted, it can be taken into account. Indeed the more advanced its state of preparation, the more weight can be given to it, as against its out-of-date predecessor.
A further general point that may make this case more understandable to the House is that the site is not unique in having two live planning permissions for slightly different uses at the same time. Although the majority of sites are shown in authorities' plans as having a single use, some—like the Hermitage site—are for mixed use, and there can therefore be opportunities for different configurations of use to be acceptable at the same time, and for both, or more than two, to be granted planning permission.
The Hermitage site has a long history of planning applications and public inquiries. In Tower Hamlets' adopted plan, which dates back to 1986, the site is designated for housing development. The draft plan that is being prepared to replace it originally showed the
632
Hermitage site as being for a mix of residential and commercial uses. I shall touch later on how that has now been changed.
The site first came to our Department's attention in 1991, when the London Docklands development corporation was the local planning authority. An outline application for a mixed-use development of the site generated considerable local opposition. The weight of opinion was that the site should remain undeveloped to provide open space around the existing properties with public access to the river, although, as I understand it, there was no suggestion at that time of the site being used as a memorial park. Later that year, in any case, the development proposals were withdrawn.
In 1995, the year that the Civilians Remembered campaign was initiated, the corporation encouraged development of the area, including open space, and selected five different schemes for public exhibition. After consideration of the responses to the brief, a scheme by Berkeley Homes was chosen. In view of the prominent location of this significant waterfront site on the River Thames, the scheme was called in for the Secretary of State's decision.
A public inquiry was held in October 1996 into two proposals. The first of the two applications was for the erection of buildings for residential use. The second scheme also provided mainly residential accommodation in slightly higher blocks, but it also incorporated a new public garden. There continued a significant lobby for the entire site to be used as open space, with a view to that being an appropriate memorial to the civilian dead of the second world war.
Subsequently, after considering the inspector's report, the Minister at the time refused both applications on the ground that, while both applications broadly accorded with the use of the site set out in the current plan and the draft one, they did not meet the density and design standards applicable to such a significant site. However, he noted that the schemes showed that the site could accommodate a bold development at the eastern end and incorporate a waterfront park and memorial park at the western end, but emphasised that that did not fetter his consideration of future applications.
That brings me to the planning applications that are at the heart of this evening's debate. In May 1997, the corporation's decision to sell the riverside site to Berkeley Homes renewed local opposition to any development on it. At almost the same time, the Civilians Remembered campaign submitted an outline application to Tower Hamlets council for use of the land solely as a memorial park. Two months later, Berkeley Homes submitted a new application for full permission to the council, with a revised proposal that included provision for setting aside approximately 40 per cent. of the site for use as a memorial park, which I understand would be freely accessible and open to the public and maintained in perpetuity by the developer. I understand that Berkeley Homes also offered the council a substantial sum to finance the provision of local affordable housing.
After due consideration, Tower Hamlets—which was by then the corporation's successor as planning authority—proposed to approve both applications. However, although in line with the draft plan, the applications were departures from the adopted borough plan, so they were referred to the Secretary of State for his consideration.

633
At that time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and other hon. Members wrote to express their concerns about the consequences if Tower Hamlets granted planning permission to Berkeley Homes. The Secretary of State took into account all relevant matters, including the representations on planning. As my hon. Friends know, the Government's policy on call-in of planning applications is to be very selective. In almost all cases, the initial decision on whether a development should proceed should be taken by the local planning authority. Applications are called in only if matters of more than local importance are involved, which need to be decided by the Secretary of State.
After careful consideration, the Secretary of State decided that both applications should be determined locally. The applications were in accordance with the shortly to be adopted unitary development plan for Tower Hamlets and were in line with the conclusions and recommendations of the inspector on the previous application by Berkeley Homes. Given that an earlier public inquiry into similar proposals had informed the nature of the Berkeley Homes application and the content of the Tower Hamlets plan, the Secretary of State considered that the proposal raised no more than local issues, which were appropriate for Tower Hamlets to decide—it is the democratically elected local authority, and it is only right that it should make planning decisions. Issues such as the appropriateness of the site for a memorial, the degree of overcrowding in the area and the shortage of local open space are important. However, they are essentially local issues, which the democratically elected local authority is best placed to consider.
634
My hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning wrote to my hon. Friend to explain the Secretary of State's decision on 6 March 1998. I understand that Tower Hamlets subsequently granted planning permission for both schemes, and it is now considering some minor outstanding matters to do with the Berkeley Homes proposal that must be cleared up before building can begin.
I gather also that there is considerable on-going pressure from local residents against the use of the site for anything but open space. In recognition of that, the council changed the designation of the site in the draft plan from "mixed use" to "either mixed use or open space", to allow the use of the site as a park. More recently still, as my hon. Friend said, the council's planning committee decided to modify the draft plan at the adoption stage, to show the Hermitage site as statutorily protected open land. That modification of the plan will have to be advertised, so that proper public consideration can be given to the change. Such a change cannot affect planning permissions that have already been granted, including the ones granted to Berkeley Homes and the Civilians Remembered campaign.
That brings us to the current point in this long story. As I have already stressed—and as I am sure my hon. Friends will understand—I cannot say anything more this evening; nor can I comment on the merits of the case that my hon. Friends the Members for Bethnal Green and Bow and for Poplar and Canning Town have made, because of the quasi-judicial role of the Secretary of State in this and other planning matters.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes past Eight o'clock.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Staff Car Mileage Allowance
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of the staff of all grades employed by his Department were eligible to claim a car mileage allowance on 31 March in each year since his Department was created. [40434]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  All of the staff in the Department (including the Royal Parks Agency) were eligible to claim a car mileage allowance in respect of official travel in each year since the Department was created.

  National Curriculum
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations his Department has received from(a) artists, (b) musicians, (c) dancers, and (d) related bodies, regarding the designation of (i) art, (ii) music, (iii) history, (iv) geography, and (v) physical education including dance as non-core subjects of the National Curriculum for primary schools; and if he has been consulted on the proposals by the Department for Education and Employment. [40158]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, as the responsible Minister, announced on 13 January the Government's proposals to give primary schools greater flexibility in the delivery of the primary school curriculum. The mechanisms for policy development within Government are of course well established and understood. My Department has received a number of representations from performing and visual artists, arts education bodies and members of the public, covering the four curriculum subjects in which my Department has an interest: art, physical education (including dance), drama (through English literature) and music.

  Hotels
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of(a) the number of family-run hotels in the United Kingdom and (b) the percentage of the foreign earnings attributable to United Kingdom hotels arising from the family-run sector; and if he will make a statement. [39991]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  A 'family-run hotel' is not a category identified in the statistics available. However, the English Tourist Board estimate that there are around 30,000 family-run hotels, guest houses and bed and breakfast establishments in the UK out of a total of approximately 44,500. Expenditure by the 26.2 million overseas visitors in 1996 was £12.37 billion. Of those visitors, 21 million stayed in serviced accommodation.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of his Department's energy usage was from(a) renewable energy and (b) combined heating in each year of its and its predecessors' operation. [40412]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  My Department does not at present use renewable energy or a combined heat and power system.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will assess the effectiveness of(a) Messrs Continua Timebomb Disposal Kit and (b) other marketed equipment for dealing with millennium compliance. [38531]

  Mrs. Roche
  I know that Action 2000 is conscious of the need to provide a focus for support services and tool kits related to the Millennium Bug. To address this, it plans to contract with a data base provider to list all services and tool kits, together with any available independent assessment, and to signpost this in its literature.

  Imports (Forced Labour)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to(a) ban or restrict the importation of goods which have been made with forced labour and (b) to increase public knowledge and awareness of such goods and their origins. [39236]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government are committed to the elimination of abusive labour practices, including forced labour. We fully support work currently under way in the International Labour Organisation on a new declaration committing members to respect core labour standards. We encourage companies to adopt voluntary codes of practice incorporating core labour standards.

  Arms Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the specialised equipment for military training licensed for export to Indonesia within the 3 ML14 export licences and the specific military unit that received the equipment. [40384]

  Mrs. Roche
  Inquiries are being made under the Code of Practice on Access to Government information relating to the information requested. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to improve the transparency of arms exports. [40383]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are committed to increased transparency in the field of arms exports. We will publish an annual report on the state of UK Strategic Export Controls and their application, thereby providing for parliamentary

  263
  consideration of the application of the criteria announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997 Official Report, columns 26–29. Work is in hand and an announcement will be made in due course. Once this has been done, we will also press for a European Register of Arms Exports to make information on arms exports available at a European level.

  We have played a leading role in working for greater transparency within the Wassenaar Arrangement, for example by undertaking voluntarily to inform partners of export licence applications which we have refused on regional stability grounds.

  We are committed to strengthening the UN Register of Conventional Arms by encouraging greater disclosure of information on arms exports and arms transfers by all countries. We were disappointed by the limited scope of the recommendations made by last year's Panel of Government Experts and will continue to explore ways of broadening the scope of the Register.

  As part of the DTI-led review of Strategic Export Controls we are considering the introduction of Parliamentary scrutiny of Export of Goods (Control) Orders.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the recent changes in procedures to appoint lay members to industrial injuries tribunals; and what factors have led to such changes being made. [36821]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand that the question refers to the industrial tribunals.

  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East (Dr. Kumar) on 10 March 1998, Official Report, column 170.

  Defence Exports Credits
  Ms Drown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the breakdown by(a) year and (b) country of the amount of export credits in pounds sterling granted for defence-related business between 1990 and 1997 to all low-income countries and highly indebted poor countries; and what percentage of total ECGD cover that represents. [39670]

  Mrs. Beckett
  From information readily available the only ECGD support granted for defence-related business to countries defined by the World Bank as Low Income and/or Heavily Indebted Poor Countries between these years was as follows:

  Country

  £ million

  Year

  India

  23

  1992

  Pakistan

  7

  1994

  Zimbabwe

  11

  1994

  This represents 0.15 per cent. of total ECGD cover in the period 1990–97. This analysis includes all ECGD supported business with defence buyers in these countries including the sale of non-lethal equipment.

  Millennium Advertising
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will introduce legislation to indemnify those selling cruises, holidays and other services advertised(a) to celebrate the millennium and (b) using similar terms, which refer to dates one year ahead of the arithmetical millennium. [40313]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  There is no evidence of consumers being deceived, so no legislation is planned.

  Electronic Commerce
  Mrs. May
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the licensing of trusted third parties. [40362]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) on 27 April 1998,Official Report, columns 26–27.

  Export Licences
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licence applications for the export of goods covered by the category PL5001 have been denied since 1 May 1997 by category, and country of intended destination. [40017]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 2 May 1997 and 3 April 1998, one application for an individual licence covering the export of goods with the rating PL5001 was refused. This was an application for a Standard Individual Export Licence on which the consignee and end-user were both stated to be in Kenya.

  This information should be considered in light of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licence applications for the export of goods covered by the category PL5001 to(a) Jamaica,(b) Jordan, (c) Malaysia, (d) Saudi Arabia, (e) Singapore, (f) South Korea, (g) Sri Lanka, (h) the United Arab Emirates and (i) Bahrain have been (i) granted, (ii) refused and (iii) revoked since 1 May 1997. [40015]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 2 May 1997 and 3 April 1998 eight Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and no Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued covering the export to the specified countries of goods with the rating PL5001. In the same period, no such licences were revoked and no applications for such licences were refused.

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the meeting between her Department and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to discuss MAI on 21 April. [40174]
  265
  Mrs. Roche
  Ministers and officials from the Department are in constant contact across Whitehall on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. The meeting of 21 April covered the current position of MAI negotiations. The Government will continue to press for strong language on the environment and labour issues in the MAI and would not support an MAI which failed to address these issues adequately.

  Statistics (Boundary Maps)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date the Office for National Statistics informed her of its support for new NUTS 2 maps for(a) Cornwall and (b) Wales; and on what date her Department proposed to Eurostat the adoption of these new definitions. [40358]

  Mrs. Roche
  No new maps for Cornwall and Wales have been agreed. Changes to the NUTS 2 boundaries in the United Kingdom are currently being discussed by Eurostat and the UK Government Statistical Service. Proposals for changes to the UK NUTS structure were sent to Eurostat by the Office for National Statistics in July 1997.

  Trade Barriers (South Africa)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps her Department is taking to lift trade barriers between South Africa and the European Market. [39768]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government strongly support the conclusion of a free trade area between the EU and South Africa. We believe that comprehensive market opening over a period of time in line with WTO rules will boost two-way trade and help economic development in the wider southern Africa region. As Presidency, we are supporting Commission efforts to complete negotiations with South Africa by the end of June.

  Employment Rights Act (Payments)
  Mr. Wills
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors underlay each of the 18 ex-gratia payments made by her Department under the Employment Rights Act 1996. [40419]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Of the eighteen ex gratia payments made under the Employment Rights Act 1996, eight were made to compensate for service delay beyond the Redundancy Payments Service's Charter service standards. The remaining ten payments were made to compensate redundant fishermen who lost their entitlement to take claims to an industrial tribunal as a result of misdirection by officials in the 1970s.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the number and percentage of employers employing part-time workers, broken down by size of firm; and what are the number and percentage of firms in which(a) at least 25 per cent. and (b) at least 50 per cent. of the workforce is part-time. [38855]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.
  266
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 5 May 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on employers employing part-time employees.
  I apologise for the delay in my replying to you. The information you requested is not part of the standard set of results the ONS generates from business surveys, and new techniques had to be developed in order to generate the figures.
  The information provided in the attached tables is for Great Britain and excludes enterprises classified to agriculture.

  Enterprises with at least one part-time employee job by size of enterprise

  Number of employees in enterprise

  Number of enterprises (000)

  Percentage of enterprises

  Less than 5

  790

  55

  5–9

  140

  69

  10–19

  87

  74

  20–49

  54

  80

  50+

  34

  88

  Total

  1,105

  59

  Part-time employee jobs as a proportion of all jobs

  Proportion of all jobs that are part-time

  Number of enterprises (000)

  Percentage of enterprises

  At least 25 per cent.

  901

  48

  At least 50 per cent.

  722

  38

  Source:

  Annual Employment Survey 1996, ONS

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Seized Weapons
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will set out the rules governing disclosure of information derived from the ballistic history of seized weapons. [37809]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not the general policy of the RUC for the ballistic history of seized weapons to be routinely disclosed, either because of the evidential relevance in court proceedings or because such disclosure could be of use to terrorists. In exceptional circumstances, where deemed to be in the public interest, consideration may be given to disclosure of such information in individual cases.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made with the decommissioning of terrorists' weapons in Northern Ireland; what steps she is taking to accelerate that progress; and if she will ensure that comprehensive decommissioning is achieved within six months. [39380]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government, together with the Government of the Republic of Ireland have put in place all the mechanisms to enable decommissioning to happen.
  267
  In signing up to the Good Friday Agreement, the two Governments and the parties reaffirmed their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and confirmed their intention to use their influence to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement of the Agreement. As part of the Agreement, the two Governments have undertaken to bring the relevant decommissioning schemes into force by the end of June.

  BSE
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of cases of Court Users bovine spongiform encephalopathy to have occurred in cattle in Northern Ireland; and how many animals have been culled as a result of BSE in Northern Ireland to date. [39911]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  1,770 cases of BSE have occurred in Northern Ireland to date.

  1,461 cohort animals have been slaughtered under the BSE selective cull and 297,500 animals have been slaughtered under the Over Thirty Months Scheme.

SCOTLAND

  Surveys
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each information, promotional, marketing and opinion survey contract, with its value, concluded by his Department and its agencies for the years(a) 1997–98, (b) 1998–99, (c) 1999–2000, (d) 2000–01 and (e) 2001–02. [32018]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 11 March 1998]: Information on surveys is not held centrally by my Department. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Surveys

  £

  1997–98

  Information surveys

  The Scottish Office

  Referendum Reminder to Vote

  27,000

  Child Pedestrian Concept Research

  2,300

  Children's Panel Recruitment

  1,200

  Scottish Parliament at Holyrood: Transport Analysis

  10,000

  Marketing Surveys

  Historic Scotland

  Advertising Effectiveness

  10,000

  Friends of Historic scotland

  8,000

  Opinion Surveys

  The Scottish Office

  Evaluation of 20mph Speed Reduction Initiative

  13,500

  Evaluation of the Impact of Subsidised Ferry Fares on the Northern and Western Isles of Scotland

  69,000

  An evaluation of the Scottish Road Safety Campaign's Safety Workbook Diaries

  13,650

  Evaluation of the "keep Warm This Winter" Campaign

  15,000

  Regional Selective Assistance—Customer Awareness

  13,000

  Newbridge Interchange—Business Users

  1,000

  268

  Surveys

  £

  Highland and Islands Enterprise

  Communications Audit/Customer Satisfaction Survey

  33,500

  Historic Scotland

  Visitor Profile

  13,000

  Register of Scotland

  Direct Access Service—Customer Awareness

  31,500

  Customer Satisfaction Report Services—Customer Awareness

  4,800

  Scottish Court Service

  Court Users

  3,300

  1998–99

  Opinion Surveys

  Scottish Enterprise

  Network Customer Survey

  55,000

  Locate in Scotland Customer Survey

  25,000

  Historic Scotland

  Visitor Profile

  13,400

  2000–01

  Highland and Island Enterprise

  Communication Audit/Customer Satisfaction Survey

  33,500

  Details of further surveys for 1998–99 and subsequent years have not yet been finalised.

  Cairngorm Funicular Railway
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received about the proposed funicular railway on Cairngorm; and how many of these opposed the plan. [39439]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 29 April 1998]: My right hon. Friend received 2,868 letters up to the stage when The Highland Council granted planning permission on 27 March 1997. Of these 2,689 opposed the development proposal. Since that date, a further 7,969 letters have been submitted, the majority of which result from a postcard campaign by lobby groups. Of these, 7,947 have raised objection to the detail of the proposal or have suggested that alternatives to the funicular railway should be considered.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of state for What records(a) he and (b) the Scottish Environment Protection Agency Keep of (i) applications and (ii) authorisations for international shipments of radioactive Waste; if he will place a copy of such records in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [39932]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Records of applications and approvals and authorisations are maintained by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. These are in the form prescribed by the Transfrontier Shipment of Radioactive Waste Regulations 1993. I am arranging for copies of these records to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Lifelong Learning
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for(a) lifelong learning in Scotland and (b) the University for Industry in Scotland; and on what date he will publish the relevant papers. [40255]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]: The Government will set out their plans and priorities for progressing lifelong learning in Scotland in a consultation paper before the summer.

  We announced on 25 February that there would be a distinct Scottish University for Industry, building on the strengths of the distinctive Scottish education system and taking advantage of the many successful working partnerships between education and industry. Resources totalling £1.3 million have been allocated to help finance the launch of the Scottish UfI by the year 2000. The next step will be to establish a series of development projects. A Pathfinder Prospectus which set out in general terms how the UfI will operate across the UK was published on 31 March. Further details about the Scottish UfI will be set out in the forthcoming Lifelong Learning Paper.

  Learning Support Teachers
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it his policy(a) to increase the number of learning support teachers in Scottish schools and (b) that all such teachers should have at least two years experience as a classroom teacher; and what proposals he has to improve the current system of training for such teachers. [40254]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]: It is for education authorities to determine the number and deployment of teaching staff, including learning support teachers, necessary to meet their statutory obligation to make adequate and efficient provision for education in their area including provision for special educational needs.

  For specialist training courses candidates must have qualified via a Bachelor of Education degree or equivalent degree and Post Graduate Certificate in Education and normally have at least 2 years' teaching experience.

  The Scottish Office funds a project based at St. Andrews College to identify and co-ordinate education authorities' in-service training requirements in special educational needs and to match these with provision or where there is an unfilled need, to create appropriate provision.

  Additional financial support of £1.5 million per annum is made available to authorities under the In-Service Special Educational Needs Training Specific Grant Scheme. In addition £0.5 million per annum is being made available for special educational needs training under our Early Intervention Programme and my right hon. Friend announced on 30 April that from April 1999 this will increase to £1 million per annum for the duration of the Programme.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the early intervention scheme providing for extra tuition for young children with literacy and numeracy difficulties; and how additional funding for this scheme will be allocated. [40253]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]My right hon. Friend announced on 30 April additional funding of £36 million to extend the Government's Early Intervention Programme.

  The Government's contribution will double from £7 million per year to £14 million per year from April 1999 and the additional finance will permit the Programme to be extended from 3 years to 5 years.

  I intend that all education authorities will benefit from these additional resources. I will consult with the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities over how the additional funding will be allocated.

  Research Laboratories
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to avoid duplication between Scottish Enterprise, the Commercialisation programme, the Technology Venture programme, the Connect programme, the LINC programme and other programmes in respect of commercialising and exploiting research in Scottish universities and research laboratories; and what steps he is taking to publicise these initiatives. [39480]

  Mr. Wilson
  Scottish Enterprise is responsible for the Technology Ventures initiative. It is not responsible for the CONNECT Programme, which is administered from the University of Edinburgh Management School, or LINC Scotland which is a network of private business investors. Members of the Technology Ventures team maintain regular contact with CONNECT and LINC Scotland on issues of mutual interest.

  The Technology Ventures initiative has been publicised through a Ministerial launch of the strategy and other Ministerial engagements, various publications including an Annual Review and a quarterly newsletter, a website and events such as Technology Enterprise Shows and Commercialisation seminars. Members of the Technology Ventures team are in regular contact with and visit universities and research institutes in Scotland.

  RSPB
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions Scottish Office Ministers have met the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds since 2 May 1997; and what plans he has to meet them in the future. [40835]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Scottish Office Ministers, particularly my noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture, the Environment and Fisheries meet the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds frequently during the course of their Ministerial duties. We have no plans to meet the RSPB in the immediate future.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 April 1998,Official Report, column 579, what response he has had from the Lord Advocate about the interrogation of Mr. Mesbahi. [40833]

  Mr. Dewar
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has indicated that there is nothing that he can properly add to what has already been said.

  Autistic Children
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 381, if he will alter the format of the School Census to disaggregate provision for autism; and if he has requested other information from local authorities as to their educational provision for children with autism. [40605]

  Mr. Wilson
  In light of increasing interest in special educational needs issues the Scottish Office are considering, in consultation with education authorities and other relevant professional bodies, proposals to identify more detailed categories of special educational needs provision in the School Census. A decision on which categories of special educational needs such as autism should be included is likely in June and will be implemented for the September 1998 census. Data on educational provision for children with autism are not obtained in any other way.

  Litter
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions have taken place in Scotland under the Litter Act 1983; and what amounts have been levied in total as a result of such prosecutions in each year since 1983. [40571]

  Mr. Dewar
  The available information is set out in the table.

  Persons proceeded against where the main offence is an offence under the Litter Act 1983 or related legislation1, Scotland 1983–1996

  Year of disposal

  Number of persons proceeded against

  Number of persons fined

  Total amount of fines levied (£)

  1983

  262

  228

  4,141

  1984

  205

  178

  4,835

  1985

  214

  181

  5,915

  1986

  253

  220

  7,040

  1987

  198

  175

  6,105

  1988

  311

  278

  8,659

  1989

  229

  206

  7,920

  1990

  181

  153

  6,665

  1991

  122

  101

  4,970

  1992

  83

  67

  3,280

  1993

  56

  51

  2,415

  1994

  48

  43

  2,730

  1995

  30

  26

  1,485

  1996

  29

  20

  1,260

  1The figures shown include offences under any of the following acts: Litter Act 1958, Litter Act 1983 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (sections 87(1), 88(1), 91(9), 92(6) and 94(9) only).

  Holy Loch
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if commercial fishing will be allowed to take place in Holy Loch once the clearance programme is completed; and if he will make a statement. [40393]

  Mr. Macdonald
  There is no fisheries legislation currently in place which would prevent the commencement of commercial fishing at an appropriate stage; nor are there any current plans for that. I understand, however, that the clearance programme which began earlier this year is to be spread over a number of years.

  New Housing Partnership
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what decisions he has reached about the allocation of resources for 1998–99 under the New Housing Partnership initiative. [40932]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Twenty three councils are to be allocated a share of the £35 million which is available in 1998–99 under the New Housing Partnerships initiative for a range of projects to tackle Scotland's housing needs.

  In December 1997, all councils were invited under the initiative to submit proposals which met certain key criteria. The bids received were first assessed by an advisory group involving the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, Scottish Homes, the Chartered Institute of Housing in Scotland and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. Allocations for 1998–99 are in line with the group's recommendations. Some earmarked funding is being held back for a number of councils whose proposals met the criteria but for which further
  information has been sought. The balance is being held back for distribution later in the year.

  The amounts being allocated are set out in the table.

  £000

  Council

  Amount awarded in 1998–99

  Aberdeen City

  330

  Clackmannanshire

  780

  Dumfries and Galloway

  100

  Dundee City

  1—

  East Ayrshire

  1,261

  East Dunbartonshire

  1—

  East Lothian

  2,945

  East Renfrewshire

  25

  Edinburgh City—three projects

  7,718

  Falkirk

  200

  Fife

  125

  Glasgow City—three projects

  8,350

  Highland—two projects

  600

  Inverclyde

  33

  North Ayrshire—two projects

  402

  North Lanarkshire—two projects

  1,792

  Perth and Kinross

  187

  Renfrewshire

  93

  Scottish Borders

  135

  Shetland

  200

  South Lanarkshire

  1—

  Stirling—two projects

  310

  West Lothian

  2,600

  1 Amounts to be finalised following further development of proposals.

  Labour Party Receptions
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what occasions since 1 May 1997 receptions have been held on behalf of the Scottish Labour Party in Government buildings in Scotland. [40327]

  Mr. Dewar
  No such functions have been held in office buildings used by my Department since 1 May 1997. In that period I have hosted two receptions for the Scottish Labour Party at Bute House, my official residence, in line with paragraph 63 of the Ministerial Code.

  Continence Services
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were provided with continence services in each Scottish health board area, in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98; and what was the cost to each Scottish health board in Scotland for the provision of continence services in (a) to (c). [40864]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will waive tuition fees for part-time students on lower incomes at further education colleges. [40573]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Further Education Colleges themselves decide whether or not to waive tuition fees for part-time students. The methodology used to distribute Government grant-in-aid to Colleges already takes into account and compensates Colleges for the fees they waive.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Recidivism
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what information is passed to judges and magistrates concerning the re-offending rates of those individuals they have sentenced; and if he will make a statement. [40079]

  Mr. Hoon
  No information is routinely passed to judges or magistrates about the re-offending of individuals they have previously sentenced. When sentencing, however, the court is given a list of the defendant's previous convictions. This shows when they were convicted and of what, and the sentences passed.

  National Mediation Service
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to increase the funding of the National Mediation Service; and if he will make a statement. [40128]

  Mr. Hoon
  There is no National Mediation Service. There are, however, a number of national organisations, to which local services are affiliated, of which some have recently received grant in aid funding for projects which will be overseen by the Legal Aid Board. These projects are essential to the development of quality assured mediation services across England and Wales. They also support the UK College of Family Mediators and National 274
  Family Mediation in their role of advancing public awareness of family mediation, and in setting, promoting and maintaining the highest standards of professional conduct and training among family mediators.

  Personal Injury Claims
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) of 22 April 1998,Official Report, column 610, on legal aid for personal injury claims, what arrangements he proposes to introduce to enable children to enter into contracts to pursue cases involving personal injury by way of conditional fee arrangements. [40010]

  Mr. Hoon
  Children through their next friend or guardian ad litem presently retain the services of lawyers, including through the use of conditional fee agreements. I am not aware of any need to make special provision but if my hon. Friend has any particular concern in mind perhaps he will write to me.

  Reviews
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the reviews which have been (i) completed and (ii) initiated but not yet completed by his Department since 1 May 1997, specifying, in each case, the cost or anticipated cost of the review; and when it will be completed and reported to the House. [40869]

  Mr. Hoon
  In his answer of 27 April 1998,Official Report, columns 14–17, the Prime Minister gave details of the reviews announced by the Government since 1 May 1997. Those reviews initiated by this Department and their completion (or planned completion dates) are listed below. Costs (including the cost of around £75,000 for the review of civil justice and legal aid included in Lord McIntosh of Haringey's answer of 7 July 1997, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 51–55) are being met from existing Departmental budgets.

  Mary Bell
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he intends to take in relation to media coverage of the person formerly known as Mary Bell and the High Court injunction of 30 July 1984. [40810]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is not for the Government to take action. Any party to the injunction may refer the matter to the court if it is thought that there has been a breach of its terms.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Projects (Environmental Impact)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what procedures are used by her Department to assess the economic efficiency and environmental and social impact of projects funded which fall below the one million ecu value threshold where approval by the ALA Committee is required. [40342]
  275
  Clare Short
  Although the European Commission's own internal project cycle management guidance stresses the importance of environmental issues in the project cycle, continuing efforts are required to ensure this is always fully reflected in the design and implementation of projects and programmes. DFID continues to seek improvements in this area through:taking an active role in management committees and our informal dialogue with the Commission;
  our participation on the Commission's Scientific Environmental
  Monitoring Group and the forestry and water expert groups;
  providing a project leader to prepare an EC/Member States strategy for bio-diversity conservation;
  seconding a forestry specialist to work for the Commission on the management of tropical forestry programmes;
  working closely with the European Commission to develop procedural guidelines on the integration of social and environmental issues into development projects.

  European Development Fund
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when the European Development Fund is due to be replenished; and how much the UK will be contributing. [40341]

  Clare Short
  The European Development Fund finances development co-operation under the Lomé Convention. The current Lomé Convention expires at the end of February 2000. Discussions on future financial co-operation will form part of the negotiations for a successor to Lomé which are expected to begin in September 1998 and be completed before the expiry of the current agreement.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what are the(a) percentage and (b) amount of the UK's financial assistance to developing countries administered through (i) the European Commission and (ii) the European Development Fund in (1) the past two financial years and (2) the present financial year. [40340]

  Clare Short
  The European Commission administers development funds from both the European Community Budget and the European Development Fund. The percentage and the amount of the UK's financial assistance to developing countries administered through the European Commission in (1) financial year 1995–96 and (2) financial year 1996–97 and a breakdown of which of these sources it came from is detailed in the table. Figures for the present year are not yet available.

  UK assistance to developing countries administered by the Commission

  %from EC budget

  Amount from EC budget

  % from EDF

  Amount from EDF

  Total %

  Total amount

  (1) 11

  301,733

  8

  223,064

  19

  524,797

  (2) 13

  323,961

  6

  150,832

  19

  474,793

  UN Commission on Human Settlements
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she proposes to 276
  take to strengthen the roles of (a) the UN Commission on Human Settlements and (b) the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements. [40153]

  Clare Short
  The 17th Session of the Commission will be held in April/May 1999. Our aim at that meeting will be to agree realistic priorities for the work of the Centre for Human Settlements that will help meet international poverty eradication target. Our specific objectives for the session will be discussed with interested parties in the UK. I discussed the work of the UN Centre for Human Settlements with the new UN Under Secretary-General responsible, Klaus Töpfer, earlier this year. The Government support his intention to focus the Centre's work more tightly in order to provide effective help to developing countries in tackling poverty in urban areas.

  My Department is providing £300,000 of programme support to the Centre in 1998–99, and continuing our voluntary contributions to the Habitat Foundation. We also intend to provide new institutional strengthening capacity for Dr. Töpfer to carry out his reforms.

  Stabex Projects
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what procedures are used by her Department to assess the economic efficiency and environmental and social impact of Stabex projects. [40343]

  Clare Short
  The UK does not in general consider STABEX an effective instrument for development co-operation. We are concerned that it is not focused on the poorest countries, it does not encourage diversification and, because of implementation delays, it has been ineffective in its objective of mitigating the impact of fluctuations in export earnings.

  A recipient country's proposal for using its STABEX allocation is circulated by the Commission to all Member States for comments. My Department looks at these proposals in the same way as other Commission proposals, to see whether cross-cutting issues such as environmental and social impact, gender considerations and poverty focus have been taken into account and we feed any views back to the Commission.

  Police Services
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the support provided by her Department for police services, broken down by country. [40612]

  Clare Short
  Our support for the police through the bilateral programme includes the strengthening of strategic planning, management and training capacity, the re-orientation of police services to community policing, equality of opportunity, the development of anti-drugs, fraud and corruption programmes, and strengthening of communications and record keeping. Future support will give greater priority to increasing the security of poor peoples in their communities and households and enhancing their access to justice.
  277
  Currently, we are providing support for the police in the following countries:

  India

  Nepal

  Pakistan

  Ethiopia

  Jamaica

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  Anguilla

  British Virgin Islands

  Montserrat

  St. Helena

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  Malawi

  Rwanda

  Zimbabwe

  Kenya

  Uganda

  Botswana

  Lesotho

  South Africa

  Swaziland

  Palestine: Autonomous Territory

  Estonia

  Latvia

  Lithuania

  Belarus

  Bulgaria

  Czech Republic

  Hungary

  Poland

  Romania

  Russia

  Slovak Republic

  Slovenia

  Mexico.

PRIME MINISTER

  Al Yamamah Programme
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister when the report dealing with Al Yamamah that was made available to the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts was made available to officials in the(a) Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (b) Ministry of Defence and (c) Home Office. [38863]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 April 1998]: The final draft of the National Audit Office report on the Al Yamamah programme made available to the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts was formally sent to officials in the Ministry of Defence in January 1992 and seen by officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in February 1992. The report was not made available to officials in the Home Office.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list with job titles each political appointment with(a) No. 10 Downing Street and (b) the Cabinet Office since 2 May 1997. [38472]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 20 April 1998]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) on 13 November 1997, Official Report, columns 615–17, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington
  (Mr. Corbett) on 14 January 1998, Official Report, columns 233–34.

  Since I gave those answers there have been two changes to the list of Special Advisers employed in No. 10 Downing Street. Ms Fiona Miller's appointment was made full time following the resignation of Ms Roz Preston on 30 February 1998 and Mr. Andrew Adonis was appointed as a Special Adviser in the Policy Unit on 20 April 1998.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 27 April 1998,Official Report, column 17, what response he received to his statements during his visit to the Middle East on the need for progress in implementing the UN Security Council resolutions relating to Lockerbie. [40303]

  The Prime Minister
  In my discussions in the Middle East on Lockerbie, there was agreement on the need to resolve this tragic case, and on the importance of justice being done and being seen to be done.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to answer the questions from the hon. Member for Gordon of 7 April on(a) the costs of the millennium bug (38140) and (b) budgets for tackling the millennium bug (38139); what factors underlie the delay in answering; and if he will make a statement. [40423]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to him on 30 April 1998,Official Report, columns 173–74.

  Middle East
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the aims, objectives and results of his visit to Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel. [40537]

  The Prime Minister
  My visit to the region was intended to reinforce our good bilateral relations with the countries visited, and also to help in the search for a way forward in the Middle East Peace Process. I believe my visit achieved those objectives.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Mobile Classrooms
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many children in
  279
  (a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special schools were taught in HORSAs in January (i) broken down by local education authority and (ii) overall; [40574]

  (2) how much playground space in (a) primary,(b) secondary and (c) special schools was taken up by mobile classrooms in January (i) broken down by local education authority and (ii) overall; [40569]

  (3) how many children in (a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special schools were taught in mobile classrooms in January (i) broken down by local education authority and (ii) overall. [40570]

  Mr. Byers
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Autistic Children
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 403, if he will make a statement on the timetable for his Department's review of research findings on educational programmes for autistic children; what review she is making of educational provision for autistic children as a result of the Written Declaration of the European Parliament; and what action she has taken to draw the Declaration to the attention of local education authorities. [40606]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We have noted the European Written Declaration on the Rights of People with Autism; we believe that our policies on special educational needs are consistent with it; and we will take it into account as appropriate in our current review of provision for all children with special educational needs. The report of the autism research literature review will be published in the summer. Together with the findings of comparative research the Local Government Association is commissioning into the outcomes from some educational interventions for autism, this will help local education authorities to plan accessible and appropriate education for children with autism.

  Further Education Job Losses
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has received from the Further Education Funding Council of the likely number and category of job losses in the further education sector during 1998–99. [40762]

  Dr. Howells
  The Further Education Funding Council does not collect information from further education colleges on the number of staff they intend to employ in future years. It would not therefore be possible for the Council to estimate in advance staffing changes in the further education sector during 1998–99.

  Wakefield College
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking concerning the future management and governance of Wakefield College following the ruling of the industrial tribunal in respect of the unfair dismissal of staff previously employed at the college; and if he will make a statement. [40542]
  280
  Dr. Howells
  Further education colleges are independent bodies and as such are responsible for management issues.

  We are currently consulting on proposals for changes in college governance, including representation for staff, open decision making and accountability of senior management.

  Teacher Vacancies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the teacher vacancy figures for(a) primary, (b) secondary and (c) special schools on 1 January. [40572]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Teacher vacancy figures for 15 January 1998 will be published in a statistical press notice on 22 May 1998.

  Education Action Zones
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list all applicants to run education action zones separately identifying those applicants which are profit-seeking companies or subsidiaries of such companies. [39481]

  Mr. Byers
  We have received 60 applications from partnerships of various kinds and are arranging visits to most of them in May and early June. We expect to announce which applications have been successful later in June.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Dorrell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what policy reviews are currently under-way within his Department. [40591]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My Department continuously reviews its policies. The following reviews were outlined in my answer to the right hon. Gentleman's previous question on Tuesday 17 February 1998,Official Report, columns 615–16. These have been updated to reflect the latest position.

  Departmental Spending Review
  along with other Government Departments, the DfEE is undertaking a review of all its programmes and running costs expenditure as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), including those policies which cross Departmental boundaries. The outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review will be announced in the Summer.

  Review of the threshold exempting employers with fewer than 20 employees from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  a review of the effects of the threshold exempting small employers from the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The review includes a consultation exercise which has recently ended and responses are now being considered. We will implement any change we decide upon later in the year.

  Review of Qualifications Appeals Systems
  announced on 16 December 1997. Preliminary conclusions are now expected in June 1998.

  Countryside Commission
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the members of the Countryside Commission and the criteria for their appointment. [40171]
  281
  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) on 6 April 1998, Official Report, column 8.

  There is scope for the representation of a wide range of interests and views among the members of the Countryside Commission. Candidates for appointment are expected to have a strong understanding of the protection or management of the countryside, outdoor recreation or related fields. Any future appointments to the Countryside Commission will also take into account the forthcoming merger with the Rural Development Commission.

DEFENCE

  NATO Military Strategy Review
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to consult Russia in the process of NATO's review of its Strategic Concept; [40380]

  (2) what plans he has to revise the nuclear paragraphs of the current NATO Strategic Concept; [40382]

  (3) what plans he has to table proposals on the review of NATO's strategy; and if he will make a statement; [40381]

  (4) when there will be a NATO military strategy review as outlined in MC 400–1; and if it will be a parallel process to the review of the Strategic Concept. [40387]

  Dr. Reid
  NATO Heads of State and Government have directed an examination, and update as necessary, of all aspects of NATO's 1991 Strategic Concept to: ensure that the Strategic Concept is fully consistent with NATO's new security situation and challenges; confirm the Allies' commitment to the core function of Alliance collective defence and the indispensable transatlantic link; preserve those aspects of the Strategic Concept that are consistent with the existing and foreseeable strategic environment and other NATO decisions and declarations since 1991; take account of the changes in the European security environment since 1991; and take into account the internal and external adaptation of the Alliance and its assumption of new roles and missions, including all relevant Ministerial decisions since 1991, while recognising that the process of transformation is an ongoing one and that the Alliance must be prepared to meet the risks and challenges of the future. The UK will play a full part in the work of the relevant political and military NATO bodies, the results of which will be presented to NATO Heads of State and Government when they meet next year. Changes in the Strategic Concept will be reflected in revisions of other documents, including the North Atlantic Military Committee's classified Directive for Military Implementation of Alliance Strategy (MC 400/1). Countries participating in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council will be kept informed of progress in the process as appropriate, but will not be consulted, since the Strategic Concept is an internal NATO matter and decisions will be taken on the basis of consensus among current Allies.

  War Graves
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to support visits to war graves by war widows. [39682]

  Mr. Spellar
  Since 1985, The Royal British Legion have operated the War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme on behalf of the Ministry of Defence to provide financial assistance to any Service widow, whose husband died and was buried overseas between 1914 and 1967, to visit the grave. Although the scheme has been extended several times since its inception, current funding was due to end on 31 March 1999.

  Following a recent approach by The Royal British Legion, I have agreed to an extension of the War Widows Pilgrimage Scheme for a further two years, until 31 March 2001. The Government greatly appreciate the work of The Royal British Legion who administer the scheme on our behalf. To date, this subsidised scheme has enabled over 3,000 widows to visit their husbands' graves overseas. It is hoped that the continuation of the scheme will enable many other eligible widows to do so.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 March 1998,Official Report, column 444, if he will place in the Library a list of the unclassified papers in the Hydrodynamics Department-Technical reports, R Series, giving the title of each paper and the date on which each was produced. [38987]

  Mr. Spellar
  I am withholding the information requested under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, covering Defence, Security and International Relations. While the individual reports are unclassified, a composite list gives a broader picture of research activity and is classified.

  Army Discharges
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules govern the discharge of a serving soldier who has been convicted of a serious criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment. [38905]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 22 April 1998]: Under the terms of the Queen's Regulations a soldier is to be discharged if he has been sentenced to imprisonment or to detention or to any other form of custodial sentence. However, the soldier's Commanding Officer has the option to apply through the chain of command to retain the soldier in exceptional circumstances.

  Guardsmen Wright & Fisher
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department classifies Guardsmen Wright and Fisher as serving soldiers. [38906]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 22 April 1998]: Army Board consideration of the question of discharge of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright has been deferred pending the outcome of appeal and judicial review processes initiated by the two Guardsmen. Guardsmen Fisher and Wright are, therefore, classified as serving soldiers although they

  283
  are not entitled to any pay during their period of imprisonment, nor does that period count as reckonable service for pension purposes.

  Reserves
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sea-going posts were available, by ship, to Royal Naval reservists in(a) 1993 and (b) 1998. [39629]

  Dr. Reid
  In 1993, the Royal Naval Reserve (RNR) had its own dedicated squadron of nine River Class minesweepers, supporting a sea-training programme totalling 25,480 man-days per year.

  As a result of the restructuring of the RNR during 1994, this squadron of vessels was disbanded. Instead, it was decided to provide training opportunities to RNR personnel throughout the Fleet and alongside Regular RN personnel, thus providing them with exposure to a wider range of vessels and operations. This resulted in 33,284 man-days training at sea being available during 1997–98. Not all of these available days were taken up by Reserve personnel. It should be noted that the flexibility provided by the Reserve Forces Act 1996 permits greater deployment of RNR personnel in other capacities, shorebased as well as seagoing.

  Dates

  Submarine

  Project

  Collective dose

  December 1966-January 1967

  Valiant

  Docking/survey

  1—

  June 1967-August 1967

  Valiant

  DDED

  1—

  March 1968-June 1968

  Warspite

  DDED

  1—

  July 1968-September 1968

  Valiant

  DDED

  1—

  December 1968-February 1969

  Valiant

  DDED

  1—

  May 1969-July 1969

  Warspite

  DDED

  1—

  August 1969-September 1969

  Valiant

  DDED

  1—

  April 1970-May 1972

  Valiant

  Refit/refuel

  12

  October 1970-December 1970

  Warspite

  DDED

  1—

  June 1971-October 1973

  Warspite

  Refit/refuel

  18

  October 1972-January 1973

  Dreadnought

  DDED

  1—

  April 1973-June 1973

  Churchill

  DDED

  1—

  July 1973-October 1973

  Conqueror

  DDED

  1—

  February 1974

  Warspite

  Docking

  1—

  December 1973-October 1975

  Churchill

  Refit/refuel

  8

  May 1974-October 1976

  Dreadnought

  Refit/refuel

  17

  October 1975-June 1977

  Conqueror

  Refit/refuel

  8

  November 1976-July 1978

  Courageous

  Refit/refuel

  8

  April 1977-January 1978

  Sovereign

  Special docking

  1.5

  January 1978-February 1980

  Valiant

  Refit/refuel

  12

  February 1979-May 1979

  Dreadnought

  DDED

  1—

  August 1979-March 1982

  Warspite

  Refit/refuel

  13

  January 1980-June 1980

  Conqueror

  DDED

  1—

  May 1980-September 1980

  Couragous

  DDED

  1—

  October 1980-May 1983

  Churchill

  Refit/refuel

  6

  March 1982-March 1983

  Dreadnought

  Decommissioning

  1—

  1The dosage for Dockings and Docking and Essential Defects (DDED) was very small, at approximately 0.1 man sieverts.

  In addition, decontamination and closure of the refit facility contributed a further 0.085 man-sieverts.

  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made with the reconstruction of dosage records for ex-Chatham Dockyard workers announced in June 1997. [38786]

  Mr. Spellar
  Circumstances requiring dose reconstruction have not yet arisen in any cases considered under the Nuclear Industry Compensation Scheme.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence What Were the refurbishment costs of the India Office Records building at the Cut in Blackfriars Road. [40110]

  Mr. Speller
  The building referred to is not a Ministry of Defence Property and no record exists of any Contract being let for refurbishment Work by the Ministry of Defence.

  Chatham Dockyard
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the nuclear-powered submarines Which berthed at Chatham Dockyard for(a) refuelling and refitting, (b)refitting, (c) Special dockings (d) dockings and essential repair and (e) decommissioning While the refit facility was operational, giving the dates on Which each boat was berthed and the estimated and measured collective radioactive dose transferred to the civilian workforce for each boat operation listed. [38788]

  Mr. Speller
  The list of Submarines is given. There was no requirement to keep statistics of dosage in the form requested and the figures are estimates. They are given in man-Sieverts (the result of adding the dose of each individual as measured by personal dosimeter)

  If a former radiation worker sought compensation under the Compensation Scheme and if the Ministry of Defence could find no dose records for him, it would calculate the maximum statutory level of exposure permitted for workers in his category. If this would justify a payment under the Scheme, the Ministry of Defence would then calculate the dose the claimant could be assumed to have received by reference to the dose records of other radiation workers who performed similar work in similar circumstances. This approach has been agreed with the Trade Union representatives on the Management Board for the Compensation Scheme.
  285
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were employed in total at Chatham Dockyard on the nuclear refit facility while the facility was operational. [38787]

  Mr. Spellar
  At a very rough estimate, between 2,000 and 3,000 civilian radiation workers worked on submarines at Chatham between 1983 and 1996. This is calculated on the basis that at any one time the numbers of classified workers and approved scheme workers are believed to have totalled around 1,500 and that there is believed to have been an annual turnover of about 150.

  To establish a reliable figure would require a search of all my Department's archived civilian personnel files, which are indexed only by name and date of birth. This could be done only at disproportionate cost.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's requirement for the Beyond Visual Range Missile for Eurofighter. [39660]

  Mr. Spellar
  Tenders have been invited from industry to satisfy the requirement for a Beyond Visual Range Air to Air Missile to equip Eurofighter and are due to be submitted later this month.

  Recruitment and Training
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) of 5 February 1998,Official Report, column 763–64, if he will make a statement on the current status of the partnering arrangement between the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency and Flagship Training Ltd. [40996]

  Dr. Reid
  I have decided that, following the outcome of the formal consultation, the transfer of activities in the General, Administrative and Support areas of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency to Flagship Training Ltd. should proceed. The transfer of activities and employees will commence in a phased manner on 22 June 1998.

  Military Attachés
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list(a) the countries to which military attachés are posted and (b) the military attachés by rank and service. [40773]

  Dr. Reid
  Military attachés are posted to the following countries; their rank and service are also indicated:

  Country

  Capital

  Rank

  Service

  Argentina

  Buenos Aires*

  Group Captain

  RAF

  Argentina

  Buenos Aires*

  Colonel

  Army

  Australia

  Canberra

  Commodore

  RN

  Australia

  Canberra*

  Colonel

  Army

  Australia

  Canberra

  Group Captain

  RAF

  Austria

  Vienna*

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  Bangladesh

  Dhaka

  Colonel

  Army

  Barbados

  Bridgetown*

  Captain

  RN

  Belgium

  Brussels*

  Colonel

  Army

  Brazil

  Brasilia

  Colonel

  Army

  Brazil

  Brasilia

  Captain

  RN

  Bulgaria

  Sofia*

  Colonel

  Army

  Canada

  Ottawa

  Brigadier

  Army

  286

  Country

  Capital

  Rank

  Service

  Canada

  Ottawa

  Group Captain

  RAF

  Chile

  Santiago

  Captain

  RN

  China

  Peking

  Brigadier

  Army

  China

  Peking

  Captain

  RN

  Colombia

  Bogota*

  Colonel

  Army

  Croatia

  Zagreb

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  Cyprus

  Nicosia

  Colonel

  Army

  Czech Republic

  Prague

  Colonel

  Army

  Denmark

  Copenhangen

  Commander

  RN

  Egypt

  Cairo

  Colonel

  Army

  Egypt

  Cairo

  Commander

  RN

  Eire

  Dublin

  Colonel

  Army

  Finland

  Helsinki*

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  France

  Paris

  Air Commodore

  RAF

  France

  Paris

  Captain

  RN

  France

  Paris

  Brigadier

  Army

  France

  Paris

  Wing Commander

  RAF

  Germany

  Bonn

  Brigadier

  Army

  Germany

  Bonn

  Captain

  RN

  Germany

  Bonn

  Group Captain

  RAF

  Germany

  Bonn

  Major

  Army

  Ghana

  Accra*

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  Greece

  Athens

  Brigadier

  Army

  Greece

  Athens

  Captain

  RN

  Guatemala

  Guatemala City*

  Colonel

  Army

  Hungary

  Budapest

  Colonel

  Army

  India

  New Delhi

  Brigadier

  Army

  India

  New Delhi

  Captain

  RN

  India

  New Delhi

  Group Captain

  RAF

  Indonesia

  Jakarta

  Colonel

  Army

  Israel

  Tel Aviv

  Colonel

  Army

  Israel

  Tel Aviv

  Wing Commander

  RAF

  Italy

  Rome

  Brigadier

  Army

  Italy

  Rome*

  Captain

  RN

  Italy

  Rome

  Group Captain

  RAF

  Jamaica

  Kingston*

  Colonel

  Army

  Japan

  Tokyo

  Captain

  RN

  Japan

  Tokyo

  Group Captain

  RAF

  Jordan

  Amman

  Colonel

  Army

  Jordan

  Amman

  Wing Commander

  RAF

  Kenya

  Nairobi*

  Colonel

  Army

  Kuwait

  Kuwait City

  Colonel

  Army

  Latvia

  Riga*

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  Lebanon

  Beirut

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  Malaysia

  Kuala Lumpur*

  Colonel

  Army

  Malaysia

  Kuala Lumpur

  Lieutenant Commander

  RN

  Mexico

  Mexico City*

  Colonel

  Army

  Morocco

  Rabat*

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  Nepal

  Kathmandu

  Colonel

  Army

  New Zealand

  Wellington*

  Colonel

  Army

  Netherlands

  The Hague

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  Netherlands

  The Hague

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  Norway

  Oslo

  Lieutenant Colonel RM

  RM

  Norway

  Oslo

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  Oman

  Muscat

  Brigadier

  Army

  Oman

  Muscat

  Commander

  RN

  Pakistan

  Islamabad

  Brigadier

  Army

  Pakistan

  Islamabad

  Captain

  RN

  Poland

  Warsaw

  Group Captain

  RAF

  Poland

  Warsaw

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  Portugal

  Lisbon

  Commander

  RN

  Philippines

  Manila

  Group Captain

  RAF

  Qatar

  Doha

  Wing Commodore

  RAF

  Romania

  Bucharest

  Colonel

  Army

  Russia

  Moscow*

  Air Commodore

  RAF

  Russia

  Moscow*

  Captain

  RN

  Russia

  Moscow*

  Colonel

  Army

  Russia

  Moscow*

  Lieutenant Commander

  RN

  Russia

  Moscow*

  Major

  Army

  Russia

  Moscow*

  Squadron Leader

  RAF

  Saudi Arabia

  Riyadh*

  Brigadier

  Army

  Saudi Arabia

  Riyadh*

  Commander

  RN

  Saudi Arabia

  Riyadh*

  Wing Commander

  RAF

  Singapore

  Singapore*

  Group Captain

  RAF

  Singapore

  Singapore

  Commander

  RN

  Slovakia

  Bratislava

  Wing Commander

  RAF

  South Africa

  Pretoria*

  Brigadier

  Army

  South Africa

  Pretoria*

  Commander

  RN

  287

  Country

  Capital

  Rank

  Service

  South Korea

  Seoul

  Brigadier

  Army

  South Korea

  Seoul

  Group Captain

  RAF

  Spain

  Madrid

  Captain

  RN

  Spain

  Madrid

  Colonel

  Army

  Sri Lanka

  Colombo

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  Sweden

  Stockholm

  Wing Commander

  RAF

  Sweden

  Stockholm

  Commander

  RN

  Switzerland

  Berne

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  Syria

  Damascus

  Colonel

  Army

  Thailand

  Bangkok

  Colonel

  Army

  Turkey

  Ankara

  Brigadier

  Army

  Turkey

  Ankara

  Wing commander

  RAF

  UAE

  Abu Dhabi

  Colonel

  Army

  UAE

  Abu Dhabi

  Wing Commander

  RAF

  Uganda

  Kampala*

  Lieutenant Colonel

  Army

  Ukraine

  Kyiv

  Captain

  RN

  USA

  Washington DC

  Major General

  Army

  USA

  Washington DC

  Commodore

  RN

  USA

  Washington DC

  Brigadier

  Army

  USA

  Washington DC

  Air Commodore

  RAF

  USA

  Washington DC

  Lieutenant Colonel RM

  RM

  USA

  Washington DC

  Colonel

  Army

  USA

  Washington DC

  Group Captain

  RAF

  USA

  Washington DC

  Colonel

  Army

  Venezuela

  Caracas*

  Colonel RM

  RM

  FR of Yugoslavia

  Belgrade

  Colonel

  Army

  Zimbabwe

  Harare*

  Colonel

  Army

  Note:

  Posts annotated with * also hold non-residential attaché accreditations to other capitals in adjacent or nearby countries, which they visit on a regular basis.

  Loan Services Personnel
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which countries loan services personnel are posted; and if he will list them by service and rank. [40772]

  Dr. Reid
  The service and rank of loan service personnel is listed for each country in which they are deployed in the table.

  Country

  Navy

  Army

  Air Force

  Angola

  —

  1 Lt. Col.

  —

  Antarctica

  —

  3 SNCO

  —

  Antigua

  1 Lt. Cdr

  —

  —

  Australia

  —

  —

  4 Flt. Lt.

  Barbados

  1 Capt.(RM)

  —

  —

  2 SNCO (RM)

  —

  —

  1 Cdr.

  —

  —

  1 Lt. Cdr.

  —

  —

  4 SNCO

  —

  —

  Bahrain

  1Cdr.

  —

  —

  Bermuda

  —

  1Maj.

  —

  —

  2 SNCO

  —

  British Virgin Islands

  1 Lt. Cdr.

  —

  —

  1 SNCO

  —

  —

  Brunei

  6 Lt. Cdr.

  3 Lt. Col.

  6Sqn. Leader.

  6 SNCO

  13 Maj.

  5Flt. Lt.

  —

  2Capt

  5 SNCO

  —

  14SNCO

  —

  Latvia

  1 Capt.(RM)

  1Capt.

  —

  2 SNCO (RM)

  —

  —

  Czech Republic

  —

  —

  1 Air Cdre.

  Ethiopia

  —

  1 Lt. Col.

  —

  Germany

  —

  —

  1 Gp. Capt.

  —

  —

  3 Wg. Cdr.

  —

  —

  8 Sqn. Leader.

  —

  —

  8 Flt. Lt.

  —

  —

  4 SNCO

  Ghana

  1 Lt. Col. (RM)

  1 Col.

  —

  —

  1 Lt. Col.

  —

  —

  1 SNCO

  —

  288

  Country

  Navy

  Army

  Air Force

  Indonesia

  —

  —

  1 Sqn. Leader.

  —

  —

  1 Flt. Lt.

  Italy

  —

  —

  1 Sqn. Leader.

  —

  —

  1 Flt. Lt.

  —

  —

  3 SNCO

  Kenya

  —

  1 Lt. Col

  —

  Kuwait

  1 Lt. Col (RM)

  1 Brig.

  3 Wg. Cdr.

  1 Lt. Cdr.

  2 Col.

  3 Sqn. Leader.

  —

  17 Lt. Col.

  3 SNCO

  —

  8 Maj.

  —

  —

  2 Capt.

  —

  —

  16 SNCO

  —

  Malaysia

  —

  —

  1 Wg. Cdr.

  —

  —

  1 Sqn. Leader.

  —

  —

  1 SNCO

  Mauritius

  —

  1 Lt. Col.

  —

  Oman

  1 Capt. (RM)

  1 Maj. Gen.

  1 Gp. Capt.

  5 Cdr.

  1 Col.

  2 Wg. Cdr.

  7 Lt. Cdr.

  5 Lt. Col.

  8 Sqn. Leader.

  1 Lt.

  13 Maj.

  3 Flt. Lt.

  4 SNCO

  4 Capt.

  10 SNCO

  —

  28 SNCO

  —

  Saudi Arabia

  2 Lt. Cdr.

  1 Brig.

  1 Air Msl.

  3 SNCO

  1 Col.

  1 Air Cdre.

  —

  9 Lt. Col.

  1 Gp. Capt.

  —

  3 Maj.

  8Wg. Cdr.

  —

  5 SNCO

  17 Sqn. Leader

  —

  —

  24 Flt. Lt.

  —

  —

  17 SNCO

  —

  —

  3 NCO

  Singapore

  —

  1 Capt.

  —

  South Africa

  1 Lt. Col. (RM)

  1 Brig.

  1 Wg. Cdr.

  —

  1 Col.

  1 Sqn. Leader.

  —

  2 Lt. Col.

  —

  —

  1 SNCO

  —

  Sri Lanka

  —

  1 Col.

  —

  Turks and Caicos Islands

  1 Lt. Cdr.

  —

  1 Sqn. Leader.

  1 SNCO

  —

  1 SNCO

  United Arab Emirates

  1 Cdr.

  1 Col.

  1 Wg. Cdr.

  —

  1 Lt. Col.

  1 Sqn. Leader.

  —

  2 Maj.

  2 Flt. Lt.

  —

  1 SNCO

  1 SNCO

  Zimbabwe

  —

  1 Brig

  2 Wg. Cdr.

  —

  1 Col.

  —

  —

  5 Lt. Col.

  —

  —

  2 SNCO

  —

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by composition and country the number of training teams currently deployed. [40769]

  Dr. Reid
  Eight British Military Advisory and Training Teams or Short Term Training Teams are currently deployed. The countries where they are located and the service from which they are drawn are as follows:

  Country

  Composition

  Barbados/Antigua

  Navy

  Chile

  Army/Air Force

  Estonia

  Army

  Ghana

  Navy/Army

  Kuwait

  Navy/Army/Air Force

  Latvia

  Navy/Army

  South Africa

  Navy/Army/Air Force

  Zimbabwe

  Army/Air Force

  This does not include individual personnel on loan service outside formal training teams.

  Military Staff (Training)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries which have military staff under training in the United Kingdom; at which establishments such training is taking place; and what numbers, and from which countries, are at each establishment. [40774]

  Dr. Reid
  The countries which have military staff under training in the UK together with the numbers of students from each country are shown in the table.

  Country

  Number of military staff being trained

  Angola

  2

  Australia

  22

  Bahrain

  5

  Bangladesh

  7

  Barbados

  4

  Belgium

  4

  Belize

  10

  Bermuda

  2

  Botswana

  7

  Brazil

  1

  Brunei

  56

  Bulgaria

  1

  Canada

  35

  Chile

  7

  China

  1

  Czech Republic

  4

  Denmark

  4

  Egypt

  4

  Fiji

  5

  Finland

  4

  France

  5

  Germany

  11

  Ghana

  7

  Greece

  5

  Guatemala

  2

  Guyana

  2

  Hong Kong

  1

  Hungary

  5

  India

  7

  Indonesia

  3

  Ireland

  4

  Israel

  2

  Italy

  8

  Jamaica

  17

  Japan

  3

  Jordan

  8

  Kenya

  2

  Korea

  3

  Kuwait

  78

  Latvia

  1

  Lebanon

  2

  Lithuania

  2

  Malawi

  3

  Malaysia

  9

  Malta

  2

  Mauritania

  2

  Mauritius

  2

  Mozambique

  3

  Nepal

  2

  Netherlands

  21

  New Zealand

  5

  Norway

  10

  Oman

  76

  Pakistan

  16

  Papua New Guinea

  1

  Philippines

  2

  Poland

  7

  Qatar

  38

  Romania

  2

  Saudi Arabia

  13

  290

  Country

  Number of military staff being trained

  Senegal

  2

  Seychelles

  1

  Singapore

  16

  Slovakia

  3

  South Africa

  5

  Spain

  2

  Sweden

  3

  Switzerland

  1

  Tanzania

  2

  Thailand

  11

  Trindad & Tobago

  2

  Turkey

  2

  United Arab Emirates

  21

  Uganda

  1

  Ukraine

  2

  Uruguay

  1

  USA

  11

  Zambia

  1

  Zimbabwe

  7

  The establishments at which this training is being carried out are:

  Royal College of Defence Studies

  Empire Test Pilot School

  HMS Heron

  RN Hydrography School

  Britannia Royal Naval College Dartmouth

  School of Maritime Operation HMS Dryad

  RN Lympstone

  RM Portsmouth

  HMS Sultan

  HMS Collingwood

  RM Poole

  RN Submarine School

  Defence Diving School

  HMS Seahawk

  HMS Osprey

  Royal Military College of Science, Shrivenham

  Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst

  Joint Services Command and Staff Course, Bracknell

  School of Logistics

  Royal School of Signals

  HQ Construction Engineer School

  Combat Engineer School

  School of Electronic and Aeronautical Engineering

  Defence School of Languages

  RMP Chichester

  Defence Explosive Ordnance Disposal School

  Army School of Ammunition

  Surveillance Target Acquisition Night Observational and Counter Surveillance Centre

  School of Physical Training

  Combined Arms Tactics Centre

  Mine Warfare Centre

  Royal School of Artillery

  Defence Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Centre

  Infantry Training Centre, Wales

  Infantry Training Centre, Warminster

  Infantry Training Centre, Catterick

  Royal Military School of Music

  291

  Pirbright

  School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering

  Royal Armoured Corps Centre

  Defence Intelligence and Security Centre

  RE Chattenden

  Royal Defence Medical College

  Joint Air Transport Establishment

  HQ Hereford Garrison

  HQ Directorate of Army Aviation

  Royal Military Police Training School

  Adjutant General Corps Training Group

  Army School of Training Support

  School of Military Survey

  RAF Bentley Priory

  RAF Boulmer

  RAF Brize Norton

  RAF Coltishall

  RAF Cosford

  RAF Cranwell

  RAF Halton

  RAF Henlow

  RAF Honington

  RAF Leeming

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse

  RAF Locking

  RAF Lossiemouth

  RAF Lyneham

  RAF Odiham

  RAF St. Athan

  RAF St. Mawgan

  RAF Sam (Farnborough)

  RAF Shawbury

  RAF Valley

  RAF Waddington.

  Information on the numbers of military staff from each country that are trained at each establishment is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Reviews
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the reviews set in train in his Department and its agencies since 2 May 1997, indicating their terms of reference, cost and starting and finishing dates. [40603]

  Mr. George Robertson
  We have set up two major reviews in addition to work which is part of the normal on-going activity of the Department and its Agencies. These are: the Strategic Defence Review; and the Review of compensation arrangements for members of the Armed Forces (or their dependants) when they suffer illness, injury or death.

  The scope of the Strategic Defence Review was set out in the answer given to the hon. Member on 19 May 1997, Official Report, column 17, and work started on 28 May. A package of proposals has been submitted to the Cabinet for collective discussion and decision.
  292
  The scope of the Compensation Review was set out in the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces on 8 December 1997, Official Report, columns 440–41. Work on this Review is due to be completed this summer. For both Reviews maximum use has been made of existing structures although for the Strategic Defence Review extra costs have been incurred, particularly in the provision of external consultancy advice and outside consultation. It is too early to give definitive costs.

  Joint Services Staff College
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the timetable for the building and completion of the new joint services staff college. [40771]

  Dr. Reid
  Subject to acceptable contract terms and conditions being agreed with the Preferred Bidder, construction work on the new Joint Services' Command and Staff College at Shrivenham should begin shortly, resulting in a revised opening date of September 2000.

  Departmental Employees (Scotland)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed in Scotland by his Department, or executive agencies responsible to his Department; and where those staff are located. [36216]

  Mr. Spellar
  [pursuant to his reply, 30 March 1998,c. 414]: I regret that the information provided contained some errors.

  Owing to a coding misallocation, personnel employed by the Naval Base and Supplies Agency were included as "Other MOD staff' rather than "Staff employed by agencies". Some of these personnel had also been allocated to the Dumbarton and Clydebank Local Authority Area rather than the Argyll and Bute Local Authority Area.

  These amendments have been made. The correct information is set out in the table.

  Permanent UK based MoD civilian personnel deployed in Scotland—I January 19981

  Local Authority area

  Total

  Staff employed by agencies

  Other MoD staff

  All areas

  9,866

  7,085

  2,782

  Aberdeenshire

  82

  —

  82

  Angus

  121

  9

  112

  Argyll and Bute

  3,292

  3,170

  122

  Borders

  1

  —

  1

  City of Aberdeen

  96

  79

  17

  City of Dundee

  60

  36

  24

  City of Edinburgh

  362

  89

  273

  City of Glasgow

  1,836

  1,305

  530

  Dumbarton and Clydebank

  41

  9

  32

  Dumfries and Galloway

  69

  44

  25

  East Dumbarton

  6

  —

  6

  East Lothian

  154

  8

  146

  Falkirk

  3

  —

  3

  Fife

  1,224

  866

  358

  Highland

  77

  38

  39

  Inverclyde

  54

  51

  3

  Midlothian

  84

  70

  14

  293

  Permanent UK based MoD civilian personnel deployed in Scotland—1 January 19981

  Local Authority area

  Total

  Staff employed by agencies

  Other MoD staff

  Moray

  648

  28

  620

  North Ayrshire

  615

  577

  38

  North Lanarkshire

  2

  —

  2

  Orkney

  5

  5

  —

  Perthshire and Kinross

  440

  379

  61

  Renfrewshire

  25

  22

  3

  Shetland

  51

  13

  38

  South Ayrshire

  59

  18

  41

  South Lanarkshire

  7

  —

  7

  Stirling

  355

  261

  94

  West Lothian

  3

  —

  3

  Western Isles

  96

  9

  87

  1 Figures are given in terms of full time equivalence (FTE). This means that part time staff are counted as the proportion of full-time hours worked. Hence, totals may not equal the sum of the parts due to rounding. Casual staff are excluded from this table.

  Average daily available beds

  Quarter ending

  Hospital

  31 December 1991

  31 March 1997

  31 December 1997

  Aberaeron

  14

  14

  13

  Aberbargoed and District

  25

  28

  28

  Aberdare General

  122

  88

  86

  Abergele

  65

  77

  70

  Abertillery and District

  69

  34

  34

  Ablett Unit

  1—

  73

  71

  Allt-yr-yn

  73

  Closed August 1994

  —

  Amman Valley

  28

  28

  28

  Barry Community

  34

  Closed June 1995

  See The Barry Hospital

  Blaenavon Health Care Unit

  10

  10

  10

  Blaina and District

  47

  47

  47

  Bodfaen Ml Unit

  1—

  6

  6

  Breconshire War Memorial

  40

  76

  76

  Bridgend General

  173

  146

  124

  Boddyfi Community

  49

  43

  43

  Bronglais General

  196

  144

  144

  Bronllys

  84

  72

  72

  Bronygarth

  31

  31

  31

  Broughton

  23

  Closed October 1994

  —

  Bryn-y-Neuadd

  224

  168

  165

  Bryn Beryl

  43

  44

  44

  Brynhyfryd

  1—

  40

  Closed March 1997

  Brynseiont

  43

  43

  38

  Bryntirion

  59

  30

  30

  Builth Wells Cottage

  23

  23

  23

  Caerphilly District Miners

  184

  137

  133

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  376

  254

  249

  Cardigan and District Memorial

  30

  25

  25

  Catherine Gladstone

  21

  Closed May 1992

  See Deeside Community

  Cefn Coed

  339

  277

  263

  Cefni

  1—

  35

  35

  Chepstow Community

  1—

  81

  81

  Children's ENT

  18

  Closed October 1992

  —

  Chirk Community

  31

  31

  31

  Coed Du

  23

  Closed November 1993

  —

  Coed Llys Mental Health Resource Centre

  1—

  8

  8

  Colwyn Bay Community

  42

  58

  58

  Conwy

  67

  55

  59

  County

  75

  95

  92

  Cymla

  60

  43

  27

  Deeside Community

  1—

  31

  31

  Denbigh Community

  52

  41

  43

  Dewi Sant

  100

  107

  94

  Dobshill

  62

  47

  47

WALES

  Correspondence
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the letter sent to the hon. Member for Ogmore on 21 April on hospital beds in Wales. [39848]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  A copy of my letter is as follows.In my written answer to you on Monday 6 April (Hansard, Vol. 310, No. 154, Col. 211) I said I would write to you regarding the information sought in your question about hospital beds.
  The enclosed table shows the average daily number of available beds in each hospital in Wales in each of the quarters ending 31 December 1991, 31 March 1997 and 31 December 1997. The data are collected on a quarterly basis and so it is not possible to show the number of beds on specific dates.
  However, due to the changes in the way individual hospitals have been administered over the past six years (new units opening and subsequent transfer of beds for example) changes in the number of beds in individual hospitals should be treated with caution.
  I hope this is helpful.
  295

  Average daily available beds

  Quarter ending

  Hospital

  31 December 1991

  31 March 1997

  31 December 1997

  Dolgellau and Barmouth District

  33

  32

  26

  Druid

  38

  Closed March 1993

  —

  Dryll y Car

  1—

  8

  8

  East Glamorgan General

  461

  457

  463

  East Glamorgan psychiatric

  70

  70

  76

  Ebbw Vale

  40

  40

  27

  Ely

  313

  145

  141

  Energlyn

  29

  Closed January 1993

  —

  Eryri

  36

  36

  36

  Fairwood

  17

  18

  17

  Ffestiniog Memorial

  17

  17

  17

  Flint Community

  18

  18

  18

  Garngoch

  40

  40

  40

  Garth Angharad

  11

  Closed March 1993

  —

  Glanrhyd

  204

  213

  203

  Gorseinon Units

  24

  Transferred to UA April 1995

  —

  Groeswen

  50

  50

  49

  Gwynfa Residential Unit

  18

  17

  Closed March 1997

  Gwynfryn Unit

  1—

  15

  15

  H. M. Stanley

  219

  28

  28

  Hensol

  317

  188

  180

  Hill House

  90

  85

  85

  Holywell Community

  19

  18

  18

  Knighton

  20

  20

  20

  Lansdowne

  125

  98

  117

  Llandough

  474

  477

  469

  Llandovery

  18

  18

  18

  Llandrindod Wells

  66

  66

  50

  Llandudno General

  148

  119

  115

  Llandudno MI Unit

  16

  16

  16

  Llanfrechfa Grange

  207

  90

  90

  Llangollen Community

  18

  18

  18

  Llanidloes and District War Memorial

  40

  38

  38

  Lluesty

  44

  30

  30

  Llwyn-y-Groes Unit

  2—

  92

  92

  Llwyn View

  12

  Closed March 1993

  —

  Llwyneryr

  35

  12

  12

  Llwynypia

  129

  138

  134

  Llynfi

  20

  8

  8

  Llys Maldwyn

  57

  57

  57

  Maesgwyn

  60

  50

  45

  Maesteg

  45

  23

  26

  Mardy

  85

  100

  51

  Meadowslea

  54

  43

  42

  Mid Wales

  243

  136

  131

  Minfordd

  16

  26

  26

  Mold Community

  40

  40

  40

  Monmouth General

  25

  25

  25

  Montgomeryshire County Infirmary

  48

  48

  48

  Morriston2

  616

  773

  737

  Mount Pleasant (Gwent)

  86

  Closed March 1994

  —

  Mount Pleasant (West Glamorgan)

  83

  Closed March 1994

  —

  Mountain Ash General

  23

  47

  48

  Mynydd Mawr

  50

  39

  38

  Neath General

  326

  256

  239

  Nevill Hall

  442

  397

  381

  North Road Hospital

  71

  43

  33

  North Wales

  380

  Closed November 1995

  —

  North Wales Adolescent Service

  1—

  —

  23

  Oakdale

  20

  20

  20

  Parc

  215

  Closed September 1994

  —

  Pen-y-Fal

  316

  350

  Closed August 1997

  Pen y Fai

  159

  Closed September 1995

  —

  Penley

  32

  16

  16

  Penrhos Stanley

  1—

  53

  53

  Pentwyn

  4

  Closed November 1991

  —

  Pontypool and District

  44

  Closed September 1993. Services transferred to Country

  —

  Pontypridd and District

  1—

  12

  12

  Port Talbot General

  27

  Ceased treating in-patients June 1994

  —

  Porth and District

  29

  23

  25

  Prestatyn Community

  12

  12

  12

  296 297

  Average daily available beds

  Quarter ending

  Hospital

  31 December 1991

  31 March 1997

  31 December 1997

  Prince Charles

  447

  442

  438

  Prince of Wales

  121

  92

  56

  Prince Philip

  209

  214

  225

  Princess of Wales

  395

  409

  487

  Redwood Memorial

  21

  21

  21

  Rhiwfelin

  26

  Closed December 1991

  —

  Rookwood

  101

  85

  88

  Royal Alexandra

  54

  67

  67

  Royal Gwent

  643

  725

  749

  Royal Hamadryad

  50

  50

  47

  Ruthin Community

  48

  45

  47

  Singleton

  530

  472

  479

  South Pembrokeshire

  63

  51

  55

  St. Cadoc's

  309

  190

  175

  St. David's (Dyfed)

  378

  269

  272

  St. David's (Gwynedd)

  130

  Closed September 1994

  —

  St. David's (Powys)

  25

  Closed January 1994. Beds transferred to Breconshire War Memorial

  —

  St. Lawrence

  128

  Closed September 1994. Services transferred to Morriston

  —

  St. Tydfil's

  140

  114

  141

  St. Woolos

  317

  189

  128

  Stanley Sailors

  17

  Closed February 1995. See Penrhos Stanley

  —

  Sully

  175

  67

  68

  Talygarn Rehabilitation Centre

  49

  Closed September 1992

  —

  Tenby Cottage

  16

  16

  15

  The Barry Hospital

  1—

  94

  100

  Tonna

  80

  80

  80

  Toneg

  40

  22

  22

  Tredegar General

  58

  58

  58

  Tregaron

  30

  28

  29

  Treherbert

  33

  33

  31

  Trevalyn

  34

  32

  32

  Tyntyla

  47

  Closed November 1991

  —

  Tywyn and District War Memorial

  28

  26

  26

  University Hospital of Wales

  871

  868

  874

  Valley

  28

  Closed February 1996

  —

  Velindre

  95

  86

  83

  Victoria Memorial

  53

  45

  45

  West Wales General

  445

  418

  420

  Whitchurch

  379

  289

  316

  Withybush General

  375

  339

  333

  Wrexham Maelor

  656

  586

  576

  Ysbyty George Thomas

  65

  75

  75

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  379

  519

  520

  Ysbyty Gwynedd

  504

  529

  525

  Ysbyty Gwynedd Psychiatric

  1—

  62

  62

  Ystrad Mynach

  114

  100

  93

  Ystrad Mynach Bungalow Unit

  4—

  10

  9

  Ystradgynlais Community

  50

  52

  52

  1Not open at this date.

  2Included with Wrexham Maelor.

  3Includes Clydach War Memorial and Gorseinon.

  4Included with Ystrad Mynach.

  Beaches
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how much has been spent in the last five years cleaning up the Welsh beaches; [40467]

  (2) what initiatives are being pursued to ensure that Welsh beaches comply with the European Union mandatory standard. [40473]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  This Government are committed to complying with the EC Bathing Water Directive (76/160/EEC). Last year 60 of the 64 EC identified
  298
  bathing waters on the Welsh coastline met the mandatory bacteriological standards set in the Directive. This compliance rate of 94 per cent. was the highest ever achieved in Wales.

  In the last five years (1992/93–1996/97) Dwr Cymru has spent £230 million on improvements to its discharges into coastal waters. The company is playing a major role in the Green Sea initiative, a collaborative venture working toward the target of 50 Blue Flag beaches in Wales. To achieve Blue Flag status, water quality will need to attain the even more stringent guideline standards

  299
  set in the EC Directive, as well as meeting various land based criteria. 31 of the 64 EC identified bathing waters monitored in Wales in 1997 met the guideline standards.

  Sewage
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what regulations are enforced to govern the amount of sewage that is discharged into the sea. [40474]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Under the Water Resources Act 1991 the discharge of effluent into controlled waters, including coastal waters, is a criminal offence unless the discharger has obtained, and subsequently complies with, a discharge consent from the Environment Agency. Schedule 10 of that Act specifies the conditions which may be included in such consents and this enables the Agency to include conditions relating to volume.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when the building work for the new assembly building will(a) begin and (b) finish; and what will be the total cost. [40590]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The precise timescale for the construction of the Assembly and the precise costs will be affected by the outcome of the design competition, which I am to launch shortly.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost to his Department of conducting the Assembly bids. [40608]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I refer the hon Member to the reply I gave him on 14 January 1998,Official Report, column 215.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost of refurbishment of Crickhowell House temporarily to house the Assembly. [40609]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The costs of adapting the building, and relocating staff, are not expected to exceed £1 million.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what will be the cost to this Department of(a) road building and (b) other infrastructure building which will service the new Assembly building. [40588]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The PFI signed on 28 April between Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and Citylink will include construction of Bute Square and Bute Avenue. This infrastructure will meet the CBDC's key objective of linking Cardiff city centre with the waterfront and will provide important road access to developments within the Inner Harbour. However, the design of the Avenue which has formed the basis of the negotiations with Citylink, is not related in any way to the decision on the location of the National Assembly building and no costs arise for the PFI in the light of that decision.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost to establish and operate, over four years, the network of the Welsh Assembly to all parts of Wales. [40610]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Decisions on the details of the network in Wales to support the National Assembly will be worked out in partnership with the Welsh local 300
  authorities, the National Library of Wales and other interested bodies. It is not possible to provide an estimate of costs at this time.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the cost of the pierhead building in Cardiff, separately identifying the running costs for four years; [40607]

  (2) what is the estimated running cost of Crickhowell House over its first four years as part of the assembly estate. [40587]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I will write to the hon. Member, as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department will pay, over how many years, and for what purpose, of the £120 million package PFI announcement for the Welsh Assembly. [40589]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Heads of Agreement signed on 28 April between Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and Citylink is based on construction of Bute Square and Bute Avenue at an estimated cost including land of £45 million. There is associated private sector investment in commercial development of 360,000 sq ft and over 300 homes with an assumed combined capital value of over £75 million.

  In addition to construction of Bute Square and Bute Avenue, the PFI overall will also make provision for maintenance of the Square and the Road to agreed standards over the 25-year contract period, further land acquisition and works preparatory to development.

  We estimate that the total public sector cost will be no more than £5 million per annum in real terms for up to 25 years, a maximum present value of £57 million.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cattle Cull
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases there have been of cattle being barred from entry into the cull process because of lack of birth details. [40397]

  Mr. Rooker
  There are no recorded cases of animals being barred from the scheme because of lack of birth details. Male animals are accepted on the basis of the evidence of the national administrative document (CID or CCD). The age of female animals, in cases where documentary evidence is not available or is inconclusive, is determined by dentition checks, the existence of more than two permanent incisors indicating an animal over thirty months old.

  Green-top Milk
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish his review on the future sales of green-top milk. [40540]

  Mr. Rooker
  I will make an announcement in due course, when we have reviewed the public consultation responses in the light of the scientific advice.

  Central Science Laboratory, Norwich
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 8 April 1998,Official Report, column 232, what estimate he has made of the redundancy costs which would be incurred by dismissal of the 55 non-mobile staff currently based at the Central Science Laboratory in Norwich if the Norwich Laboratory were to be closed. [41017]

  Mr. Rooker
  Only 39 of the 55 non-mobile staff are permanent civil servants and therefore entitled to redundancy payments. If a decision is made to relocate the work undertaken at the Central Science Laboratory Norwich site to York, efforts will be made to resettle non-mobile staff either by relocating to York or through securing employment elsewhere. We would expect to avoid compulsory redundancy for the majority, if not all, of non-mobile staff.

  However, should redundancy prove necessary, the total costs are estimated to be £215,173.

  Antibiotics
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research projects his Ministry is currently undertaking which deal with the concerns about antibiotic usage expressed in the seventh report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee of Session 1997–98 (HL 81). [40377]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The table lists those research projects funded by my Department which deal with the concerns about antibiotic usage expressed in the seventh report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee of Session 1997–98.

  The Department has just completed a major scientific review of the area and the report of that work is being evaluated. The Department announced its intention to fund further research in this area in the MAFF Food Research Requirements Document and the Animal Health and Welfare Research Requirements Document, both published in March 1998. However, decisions on the precise nature of any new research await the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food whose Working Party on Microbial Antibiotic Resistance is due to report in 1998.

  Code

  Project title

  OZ0132

  Antibiotic resistance mechanisms in salmonella and campylobacter

  OZ0134

  Epidemiological studies of multiresistant Salmonella typhimurium in pigs

  OZ0135

  Epidemiological studies of multiple resistant Salmonella typhimurium

  DT104 infection in cattle

  Beef
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the oral statement by the Minister of State of 20 April 1998,Official Report, column 570, what was the basis for his statement that the import of beef from animals aged over 30 months is banned. [40344]
  302
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]: The Beef (Emergency Control) Order 1996 which came into force on 29 March 1996 banned the sale for human consumption of beef from animals over 30 months old at the time of slaughter, whether imported or home reared. These provisions are carried forward in The Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No. 2) Regulations 1996 which came into force on 1 September 1996. The only exceptions are if the beef comes from animals in the UK Beef Assurance Scheme or from animals born, reared and slaughtered in Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Mauritius, Namibia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Poland, South Africa, Swaziland, Uruguay, USA or Zimbabwe, from which the Government consider that beef can be imported without risk. I apologise for implying during the Adjournment Debate that the prohibition applied to all imports.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his oral statement of 3 December 1997,Official Report, column 372, if he will set out the basis for his statement that no beef from animals under 30 months old was found to have infectivity in the ganglia relevant to BSE. [40346]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]: In the ongoing experiment to re-assess the parts of cattle which may contain BSE infectivity, the interim results of which have recently been published in The Veterinary Record, cattle were deliberately infected at four months of age by feeding them with BSE-infected brain tissue. Groups of cattle were then killed at regular intervals up to 40 months after the initial infection when the last animals were killed. Tissues collected from these animals were tested for infectivity by assay in mice.

  In addition to the tissues originally shown to contain infectivity in naturally infected cattle (brain, spinal cord and eye), and classified as Specified Risk Material (SRM), infectivity was recently detected in the trigeminal ganglia and the dorsal root ganglia (DRG). The latter are closely adherent to the bones of the spinal column. This new information was considered fully and formed the basis of implementing the "beef on the bone" ban of 3 December. Trigeminal ganglia are contained in the skull, and are therefore already classified as SRM and excluded from both human and animal food chains. DRG were not however designated as SRM. The earliest point at which DRG were found to contain infectivity was 32 months after infection. This corresponded to the earliest time that brain and spinal cord became infectious in the same experiment. No infectivity was detected in DRG or trigeminal ganglia at any time before 30 months after infection.

  The risk assessment that informed SEAC's deliberations on the risk associated with the consumption of DRG in cattle under 30 months of age attempted to estimate how many such animals could carry infectivity in the DRG and spinal cord. This was done not on the basis of time from exposure to detection of infectivity in DRG in the experiment, but on the interval between detection of infectivity and onset of clinical disease. That interval was three months, but for the basis of analyses we assumed it was seven months to give a margin of safety. Working back from the number of confirmed cases aged under 38 months detected on farm, it was possible to estimate how many would reach this critical stage before slaughter for human consumption at under 30 months. That number was three for 1998, but each infected DRG

  303
  represented a potential infectious dose to a consumer. Excluding the tail, there are on average 60 DRG in cattle, the largest weighing no more than 0.5g.

  Live Animal Exports
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) live sheep and (b) live pigs were exported from the United Kingdom in 1997 for (i) slaughter, (ii) further fattening and (iii) breeding; and

  Numbers of sheep and pigs certified for export from the United Kingdom in 1997

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Country

  Slaughter

  Further fattening

  Breeding

  Slaughter

  Further fattening

  Breeding

  Belgium

  —

  17,677

  144

  300

  4,876

  32,747

  Canada

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  600

  Chile

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  270

  China

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  795

  Czech Republic

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  564

  Denmark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,064

  Falkland Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  25

  France

  28,294

  201,540

  413

  —

  —

  22,735

  Germany

  —

  14,561

  1

  253

  7,219

  43,041

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  689

  Hungary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  94

  Italy

  —

  1,815

  —

  2,561

  321

  8,687

  Japan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  750

  Latvia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  151

  Malaysia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  338

  Mexico

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,070

  Netherlands

  —

  168,510

  82

  2,009

  —

  18,700

  Nigeria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  46

  North Korea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  Philippines

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  340

  Poland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  113

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  83

  Republic of Ireland

  1,212

  —

  177

  78,270

  326

  2,119

  Romania

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  217

  Russia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  350

  Slovakia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  111

  South Korea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  684

  Spain

  6,689

  669

  350

  —

  2,050

  18,379

  Taiwan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  70

  Thailand

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  545

  United States of America

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  122

  Vietnam

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  874

  Total

  36,195

  404,772

  1,167

  83,393

  14,792

  156,443

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what assessment he has made of the millennium compliance of the computer systems used in the Millennium Experience. [38456]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) requires all suppliers to provide assurances that their products and systems are millennium compliant. The Company is taking additional steps to verify these assurances on delivery.
  304
  how many live (1) sheep and (2) pigs in each of these categories were exported to each individual country of destination. [37196]

  Mr. Rooker
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 April 1998, c. 488–89]: The table, derived from Departmental records, gives details of sheep and pigs certified for export from the United Kingdom. The figures do not include information on the number of sheep exported from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland as sheep are not officially certified for such trade under a special arrangement provided for in EC trade rules.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what plans he has to incorporate within the Millennium Dome testimony to Britain's philosophical tradition. [40102]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 29 April 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company aims to reflect the great wealth of British tradition which exists across many disciplines, including philosophy.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will estimate the space in the Millennium Dome which will be devoted to(a) video and computer games, (b) live cultural events, (c) the display of works of art and (d) Christianity. [38445]
  305
  Mr. Mandelson
  It is not possible to measure the physical space which will be occupied by each of the specific categories listed by my hon. Friend. Some will feature throughout the Experience, while others may be located primarily within an individual area.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio (1) what steps he is taking to ensure the proposed car park at the Millennium Dome is not used by commuters wishing to use the proposed underground station nearby; [38715]

  (2) in respect of the car park at the Millennium Dome, how many spaces there will be for (a) orange badge holders, (b) VIPs and (c) others; and what charges will be payable in each case. [38713]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 20 April 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) aims to keep to an absolute minimum arrival at the site by car. The principal purpose of the car park is to meet the needs of orange badge holders.

  In pursuing detailed planned permission with Greenwich Council, the NMEC have proposed an indicative allocation of 385 spaces for orange badge holders, 247 for VIPs, and 298 short stay spaces for cars dropping off visitors at the Experience or at the bus and underground station. These indicative allocations allow the NMEC flexibility to increase spaces for orange badge holders as necessary.

  Parking will be free of charge for orange badge holders, VIPs and London Underground employees. Those waiting to collect visitors will pay a charge for a short stay which will increase significantly if the vehicle stays for longer than its allotted time.

  To ensure that these parking provisions are not used by commuters, there will be a pre-booking arrangement for spaces and readily identifiable passes which will be checked on entry.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what steps he has taken to provide opportunities for the demonstration of British environmental technologies and expertise at the Millennium Experience Dome at Greenwich; and what discussions he has had with other Ministers on such matters. [38729]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) aims to include a range of features on the Dome site which demonstrate potential applications of environmental technology. The exhibit currently entitled "Living Island" will explore ways in which individuals can protect and enhance their environment. NMEC is consulting and seeking advice from a number of environmental groups about the content and nature of this exhibit, and is in regular touch with DTI and DETR on science and technology and environmental matters. The Millennium Experience will also feature a number of state of the art products and services from the Millennium products award scheme run by the Design Council.
  306
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what proportion of visitors to the Millennium Experience site he estimates will arrive via(a) London Underground, (b) private bus, (c) train and public bus, (d) bicycle, (e) the Docklands Light Railway and (f) park and ride. [39329]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company's estimates of the split between various modes of transport used by visitors to the Dome in Greenwich is:

  Main mode

  Final leg

  Percentage

  Tube or rail1

  JLE

  36

  Tube or rail

  Cable car

  2

  Car (park and ride)2

  JLE/Cable Car/Rail Shuttle Coach/Riverboat

  28

  Coach

  13

  Riverboat

  8

  Taxi/set-down

  4

  Bus

  4

  Rail (North Kent line)

  3

  Walk/Cycle

  1

  Car (disabled)

  1

  Total

  100

  1rail includes DLR

  2breakdown by mode will depend on the outcome of the park and ride review

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when advance bookings to the Millennium Experience may be made; and if advance bookings will receive a discount. [39325]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) plans to put individual tickets for Millennium Experience on sale from the third quarter of 1999. Arrangements for earlier ticket sales through the travel and tourist trade are being developed in order to meet the trade's lead-time for marketing and promoting their packages. Final decisions on ticket pricing, across a range of options, including groups and age ranges, will be announced in due course.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many additional parking places to those currently planned he estimates will be required for park and ride visitors to the Millennium Experience. [39324]

  Mr. Mandelson
  None.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio how many trains per hour he estimates the(a) Jubilee Line and (b) Docklands Light Railway will run to the Millennium Experience. [39323]

  Mr. Mandelson
  London Underground Ltd. plan to run twenty four trains per hour in each direction through the new Jubilee Line station for the Millennium Experience. The Docklands Light Railway Ltd. plans to run up to fifteen trains per hour in each direction on both the Beckton extension and the new Lewisham extension.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio by what means the Millennium Dome will be cleared at the end of each session. [39322]
  307
  Mr. Mandelson
  In developing its policies and strategies for the Dome's content and for managing visitor access and flows, the New Millennium Experience Company will ensure that access to all exhibits and facilities can be safely and effectively controlled, drawing on best practice at other large scale visitor attractions. This will include stopping access at an appropriate time prior to the designated closing time.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio who will be responsible for security on the Millennium Experience site. [39321]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has direct responsibility for security. No final decisions have been taken at this stage about which organisations the Company will procure services from in order to deliver security at the Dome. In reaching its final decisions NMEC will liaise closely with the police and other statutory bodies.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if railway companies will be able to offer inclusive tickets to cover rail fares via London Transport to the Millennium Experience and the entry fee. [39318]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) plans to make Millennium Experience tickets available through all Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) members for them to sell to their customers at the same time as travel tickets. The NMEC will also meet requests from train operators for allocation of tickets to enable additional special train services.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio what consultations have been held with focus groups on the Millennium Experience; and if he will publish the results of such consultations. [39316]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The Millennium Commission held focus groups in 1994 when proposals for a national exhibition and festival were first developed. The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC)—then called Millennium Central—undertook focus group research in March 1997 to consider the broad direction of the project and people's expectations of it, and, as NMEC, undertook soundings through focus groups in August and September 1997 on branding and identity issues.

  The outcome of the NMEC's research was detailed by the Company's Chief Executive in her evidence to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 2 December and is recorded in the Committee's Second Report, Volume II, Minutes of Evidence and Appendices. Copies of this report are available in the libraries of the House.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when negotiations between NMEC and Koch Hightex over compensation are expected to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [39970]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 29 April 1998]: Negotiations between the New Millennium Experience Company and Koch Hightex over compensation under the terms of their contract are continuing. It is not possible at
  308
  this stage to give an indication of when the negotiations might be concluded.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many and what percentage of the (i) paid and (ii) unpaid appointments which he has made to non-departmental public bodies since 1 May 1997 were women. [39403]

  Dr. David Clark
  [holding answer 29 April 1998]: Since 1 May 1997, I have appointed (or re-appointed) 35 men and 27 women to serve on the boards of non-departmental public bodies. Of these, seven man (78%) and two women (22%) were appointed to paid posts and 28 men (53%) and 25 women (47%) were appointed to unpaid posts.

  The Government are committed to increasing the representation of women in public life. In support of this, my Department is drawing up an action plan for increasing the number of women and ethnic minorities holding public appointments.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many regulations have been repealed in order to reduce the burden on business since 1 May 1997. [39859]

  Dr. David Clark
  My Department has been informed of 27 amending or repealing regulations made between 1 May 1997 and 30 April 1998 which resulted in compliance cost savings to business and others.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Pension Funds
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the cost to local government pension funds in 1998–99 of the abolition of advance corporation tax credit. [39514]

  Ms Armstrong
  Representations have been received from a number of individual local authorities, as well as from the Local Government Association and the United Kingdom Steering Committee on Local Authority pensions.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the percentage change which will be required in council tax rates in order to take account of changes to the taxation of local government pension funds in the last year. [39516]

  Ms Armstrong
  No estimates of cost implications can be made until the results of the actuarial valuations of the local authority pension funds as at 31 March 1998 are known later this year.

  Limestone Pavements
  Mr. Tipping:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the landscape and environmental value of limestone pavements; and what plans he has to protect them. [39515]

  Angela Eagle
  The value of limestone pavement is acknowledged by inclusion within Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and by Limestone Pavement Orders, which offer protection against physical damage. The best examples have been identified as candidate Special Areas of Conservation under the EC Habitats Directive. In addition, limestone pavement is one of 14 key habitats for which we have published action plans, as part of the implementation of the UK's Biodiversity Action Plan.

  Brown-field Sites
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what support he will give for re-establishing industrial use of brown-field sites. [39519]

  Mr. Caborn
  Through its programmes and agencies the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions sponsors a range of projects which support the re-establishment of industrial uses on previously used sites. Information on land reclaimed, new business start-ups and jobs created is available in the Department's Annual Report 1998 (Cm 3906). Among the key output measures of English Partnerships, which has a statutory objective to promote job creation and environmental improvement through the reclamation of vacant and derelict land, are the amount of industrial and commercial floorspace created, and land reclaimed and/or serviced. For the year 1996/97 these figures were 910,000 square metres and 1,100 hectares respectively.

  Local authorities have powers to designate sites for industrial use in their development plans and, if necessary, to assemble sites using compulsory purchase powers. I am looking at the effectiveness of current powers for site assembly, and a Task Force has been created under Lord Rogers to look at better use of recycled land.

  My Department has commissioned a National Land Use Database, which will, as an early output, identify vacant and derelict previously-used land and buildings. Although primarily aimed at identifying land for housing, the exercise could help identify and assess potential sites for industrial use. This will complement existing local authority studies of commercial land availability.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the brown-field sites he has located in mid-Sussex. [40770]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information is not centrally available in this form, but the Regional Planning Conference for the South East is looking at the potential of different sites, including previously developed sites, for accommodation housing growth. We have commissioned a survey which will lead to the production of a national database of land use. This will provide a national assessment of previously developed land available for housing. Also, we have recently established a task force 310
  under the chairmanship of Lord Rogers to develop best practice and innovation on housing on previously developed land, especially in urban areas.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy on local business rates. [39520]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We issued our consultation paper "Modernising local government: Business rates" on 30 March, with our proposals for a local supplement on the business rate. The consultation period ends on 1 June. We are continuing our detailed discussions with representatives of business and local government, and we shall consider all responses to the consultation paper before we make a final decision on a local supplement.

  Bellwin Formula
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the Bellwin formula. [39522]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Bellwin Scheme of emergency financial assistance is intended to help local authorities deal with the immediate aftermath of an emergency or disaster. Grant is discretionary and is paid at the rate of 85 per cent. on qualifying expenditure above a threshold, related to an authority's Standard Spending Assessment.

  Housing
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his plans to increase the supply of affordable housing. [39523]

  Ms Armstrong
  We are currently considering the need for affordable housing and the appropriate level of Government support within the Comprehensive Spending Review of Housing Programmes. We expect to announce our decision on this in the summer.

  Local Authority Capital Receipts
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for changes in the method of calculating receipts taken into account in connection with local government expenditure. [39524]

  Ms Armstrong
  Some options for changes to the system of capital receipts taken into account (RTIAs) have been put forward in the Government's recent consultation paper on local government capital finance. Decisions on changes to the system of RTIAs will be considered in the light of responses to the paper.

  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each council in England the capital receipts(a) released in 1997–98 and (b) to be released in 1998–99, giving for each year the proportion used on new building and capital repairs and the number of homes involved in each case. [39281]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Details of the 1997–98 and 1998–99 total allocations of Capital Receipts Initiative resources to each local authority in England have been placed in the
  311
  Library. I will write further to my hon. and Learned Friend in a few weeks' time when the detail on the returns has been analysed.

  Housebuilding (West Sussex)
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many residents of West Sussex have expressed to him their opposition to Government plans for additional housebuilding in the county. [39525]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has received around 3,000 objections about the proposed increase in the number of houses to be provided in West Sussex.

  Local Authority Services
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the cost of running local authority services in sparsely populated rural areas. [39526]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government recognise that sparsity of population is likely to increase the cost of providing some local authority services. This is reflected in the calculation of standard spending assessments.

  London Government
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his programme for the implementation of his proposals for the governance of London if they are approved in the referendum on 7 May. [39527]

  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the time scale for implementing his plans for a London mayor and assembly. [39528]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the event of a majority Yes vote in the referendum in London on 7 May, the Government will bring forward legislation to implement their proposals for the governance of London with a view to holding elections in late 1999 or 2000 for a Mayor and Assembly.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the impact on council tax levels in 1998–99 of the abolition of the advance corporation tax credit. [39529]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Department has received representations from a number of individual local authorities as well as from the Local Government Association and the United Kingdom Steering Committee on Local Authority Pensions, on the impact on local authority budgets of the abolition of advance corporation tax and its effect on the local authority pension scheme. The abolition of ACT should not have affected council tax bills in 1998–99 because it will not start to affect local authorities' pension schemes until the following financial year.

  Regional Government (South-West)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantages of a regional assembly for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. [39531]

  Angela Eagle
  We are committed to more accountable regional government in England. But we are not in the business of imposing solutions. We welcome the active participation of all the Cornish local authorities in the development of a South West regional chamber.

  Endangered Species
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is setting in train to prevent plant species extinction, following the publication of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature red list of threatened plants compiled by the world conservation monitoring centre; and what funding he is providing for the sustained updating of the red list. [39532]

  Angela Eagle
  I have asked the Department's statutory advisors, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, to consider in detail the IUCN Red List of Threatened Plants, which indicates that over 33,000 plant species are under threat of extinction worldwide, and to advise me on the conservation status of the UK plant species identified in the Red List. I will write to my hon. Friend once I have had an opportunity to consider in detail the Committee's advice.

  My Department has not been approached by IUCN or the World Conservation Monitoring Centre for funding towards the updating of the Red List. As UK State Member of IUCN my Department already contributes £155,000 as its annual subscription to IUCN. In February 1998 my Department offered IUCN £75,000 towards the costs of establishing a Species Conservation Centre in the UK including the appointment of a Red List officer.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 31 March 1998,Official Report, column 492, what steps he is taking to enforce rigorously the controls relating to CITES listing of species with particular reference to Amazonian (a) fauna and (b) flora listed in the recent international plants red list. [39479]

  Angela Eagle
  Enforcement of CITES import and export controls rests with HM Customs and Excise, whose officers are trained in the requirements of the EU Regulation which implements CITES within the Community. The Regulation applies stricter measures than those required by CITES, on the basis of the advice from Member States' scientific advisors drawing on a variety of sources, including the red data lists produced by the IUCN. Customs officers are aware of those areas and species which pose the greatest risk in terms of illegal trade.

  Internal controls on the wildlife trade are enforced by the police. My Department co-operates closely with them and HM Customs through the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW), which provides a strategic overview of wildlife law enforcement in the UK.
  313
  My Department and HM Customs recently launched the second phase of a major publicity campaign to alert holiday makers and business travellers to the rules governing international trade in endangered species. "Check it Out" posters are on display in the major UK airports. Leaflets providing general advice and details of a telephone inquiry point are being distributed with travel tickets and are available at a number of airport retail outlets.

  We have also organised several events to discuss ways of furthering the fight against wildlife crime. These include the annual two day Police Wildlife Liaison Officers Conference and the EU Wildlife Law Enforcement Workshop which my Department hosted in March this year as part of the UK's Presidency of the EU. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister also chaired the informal summit of G8 Environment Ministers earlier this month, which agreed a package of measures to crack down on environmental crime.

  Roads Review
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects his Department to conclude its roads review. [39540]

  Dr. Strang
  We are currently working hard to complete the Roads Review and intend to publish the outcome later this year.

  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the current levels of investment in Britain's motorway and trunk road network; and when he plans to complete his review of Britain's roads programme. [39549]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We plan to spend £1,352m on maintaining, managing and improving our motorways and trunk roads in 1998–99. Of this £562m will be spent on major improvement schemes. We hope to publish the results of the Roads Review later this year.

  Road Charges
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to allow local authorities to levy road charges. [39543]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a matter under consideration in the context of the preparation of the Government's forthcoming White Paper on developing an integrated transport policy.

  Cars
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the purchase of cars which are less polluting and more fuel efficient. [39544]

  Dr. Strang
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones).

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to ensure the safety of rail passengers. [39545]

  Dr. Strang
  The Government attach the highest priority to safety on our railways. Railways are one of the safest forms of transport but there is room for improvement. Following the report of the Transport Sub-Committee the HSC has agreed to my request and brought forward its planned review of railtrack's role in rail safety.

  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the representations made to him by the train drivers union expressing concern that criminal proceedings are delaying and could pre-empt, public inquiries into rail safety. [39980]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are not aware of any representations being made direct to Ministers by the train drivers union, expressing concern that criminal proceedings are delaying and could pre-empt public inquiries into rail safety. However, a statement to this effect was made at the Health and Safety Commission's Railway Industry Advisory Committee, Chaired by HM Chief Inspector of Railways, on 20 February 1998.

  Motorway Services
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the standard of the food services provided on the motorway system. [39546]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The provision of refreshments at motorway service areas is a commercial matter for their operators. My right hon. Friend has not carried out any assessment of this aspect of their operations in the past and has no plans to do so in future.

  Traffic Congestion (London)
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the recent research on the effect of congestion on traffic speeds in London. [39548]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The latest traffic surveys in London show that average speeds are about 10 mph throughout the day in central London, between 13 mph and 15 mph in the rest of inner London, and between 17 mph and 23 mph in outer London.

  Integrated Transport Policy
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on how his integrated transport policy will apply to rural areas. [39550]

  Dr. Strang
  The Government recognise the particular needs of rural communities, and wants to improve rural services. The forthcoming Transport White paper will set out how our integrated transport policy should be delivered in order to meet the environmental and economic needs of all parts of the country, both urban and rural. In advance of the White Paper, the Chancellor has announced an additional £50m a year to improve public transport in rural areas.

  Road Safety
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met representatives from the Automobile Association to discuss road safety. [39551]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport met the Automobile Association on 8 September 1997, my noble Friend the Minister for Roads met them on 11 November 1997 and I met them on 15 October 1997. None of these occasions, however, was specifically to discuss road safety matters.

  Coastguard
  46. Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met the chief coastguard to discuss the future of the Coastguard service; and if he will make a statement. [39552]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I last met with the Chief Coastguard on 23 April to discuss issues arising out of the recent consultation on the five year strategy for Her Majesty's Coastguard. Ministers will take that discussion into account in their deliberations on the strategy.

  Rural Bus Partnership Fund
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the distribution of the rural bus partnership fund in England. [39554]

  Dr. Strang
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). Subject to Parliamentary approval, the detailed provisional allocation to local authorities of additional funding for rural bus services is as follows:

  Rural population estimate (1991 Census)

  Provisional allocation £

  Shire Counties

  Bedfordshire

  81,363

  450,000

  Buckinghamshire

  103,062

  570,000

  Cambridgeshire

  145,152

  800,000

  Cheshire

  112,558

  620,000

  Cornwall

  224,279

  1,230,000

  Cumbria

  175,847

  970,000

  Derbyshire

  128,373

  700,000

  Devon

  258,468

  1,420,000

  Dorset

  104,894

  580,000

  Durham

  111,568

  610,000

  East Sussex

  102,716

  560,000

  Essex

  192,326

  1,060,000

  Gloucestershire

  145,853

  800,000

  Hampshire

  164,291

  900,000

  Hertfordshire

  81,499

  450,000

  Kent

  234,521

  1,290,000

  Lancashire

  134,618

  740,000

  Leicestershire

  102,842

  560,000

  Lincolnshire

  219,378

  1,200,000

  Norfolk

  286,356

  1,570,000

  North Yorkshire

  253,516

  1,390,000

  Northamptonshire

  125,196

  690,000

  Northumberland

  87,380

  480,000

  Nottinghamshire

  96,004

  530,000

  Oxfordshire

  168,830

  930,000

  Shropshire

  115,780

  640,000

  Somerset

  186,942

  1,030,000

  316

  Rural population estimate (1991 Census)

  Provisional allocation £

  Staffordshire

  147,094

  810,000

  Suffolk

  219,920

  1,210,000

  Surrey

  109,417

  600,000

  Warwickshire

  109,541

  600,000

  West Sussex

  106,407

  580,000

  Wiltshire

  144,395

  790,000

  Worcestershire

  103,905

  570,000

  Passenger Transport Authorities

  Greater Manchester

  24,304

  130,000

  Merseyside

  15,332

  84,000

  South Yorkshire

  62,223

  340,000

  Tyne and Wear

  15,070

  83,000

  West Midlands

  15,820

  87,000

  West Yorkshire

  104,032

  570,000

  Unitaries

  Bath & NE Somerset

  25,709

  140,000

  Blackburn with Darwen

  7,168

  39,000

  Bracknell Forest

  7,354

  40,000

  Bristol

  1,198

  7,000

  Darlington

  8,881

  49,000

  East Riding

  98,149

  540,000

  Halton

  2,330

  13,000

  Hartlepool

  3,099

  17,000

  Herefordshire

  95,963

  530,000

  Isle of Wight

  29,254

  160,000

  Medway

  16,067

  88,000

  Middlesbrough

  2,120

  12,000

  Milton Keynes

  13,132

  72,000

  NE Lincolnshire

  7,834

  43,000

  North Lincolnshire

  47,287

  260,000

  North Somerset

  24,402

  130,000

  Peterborough

  15,436

  85,000

  Plymouth

  1,792

  10,000

  Poole

  1,363

  7,000

  Redcar & Cleveland

  10,377

  57,000

  Rutland

  19,655

  110,000

  South Gloucestershire

  34,613

  190,000

  Stockton-on-Tees

  5,393

  30,000

  Stoke-on-Trent

  996

  5,000

  Swindon

  10,244

  56,000

  Telford and the Wrekin

  9,452

  52,000

  Thurrock

  7,012

  38,000

  Torbay

  1,540

  8,000

  Warrington

  10,955

  60,000

  West Berkshire

  42,723

  230,000

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  9,291

  51,000

  Wokingham

  14,223

  78,000

  York

  13,448

  74,000

  Total

  5,919,532

  32,500,000

  In the table authorities that would have received less than £5,000 under a strict application of the formula have been eliminated from the distribution. Any discrepancy in the total is because of rounding.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the change in the levels of rail freight since 1993. [39555]

  Dr. Strang
  Over the last decade the trend for freight carried by rail has been one of decline, largely reflecting the fall in coal traffic. This is also generally true of the levels of rail freight since 1993 although post-privatisation figures are calculated slightly differently from those under
  317
  British Rail. However, last year's figures indicate a small but welcome increase from those of 1996–97, having stabilised at around 26 million tonnes per quarter. We will continue to encourage more freight on to the railways as part of promoting our integrated transport strategy.

  Rainworth Bypass, Nottinghamshire
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the Rainworth bypass, Nottinghamshire. [39556]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has received two letters of support for the scheme and two requests for clarification of the additional information sought in his letter of 3 February 1998; otherwise, he has received no representation about the Rainworth Bypass since the issue of that letter.

  London Underground
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he intends to attract capital to London Underground. [39557]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Deputy Prime Minister announced the Government's plans for the future of London Underground on 20 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1539–56. We will keep the single public sector operator that passengers want, and award one, two or three contracts to finance, maintain and modernise the Underground's infrastructure. Under this innovative solution, the private sector will provide the capital needed for a massive programme of investment.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he received from (i) London Underground Ltd. and (ii) London Transport regarding the relative merits of the different options for the future of London Underground, prior to announcing his decision to pursue the public-private partnership option. [40813]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government asked London Transport (LT) for their views on public-private partnership options and the dialogue with LT was useful in helping the Government formulate their policy—a process which also took account of the views of, for example, the Government's financial advisers on the project and the Health & Safety Commission. London Transport incorporated the views of its subsidiary, London Underground Ltd. in the advice it gave to Government.

  London Transport's suggestion was to retain the existing structure of London Underground, but to ensure higher and stable funding through long-term committed Government grant, direct borrowing or the right to review hypothecated from other transport sources. Their second option was a flotation of the existing Underground business, but with tight hands-on regulation and supervision. These options were seriously considered by the Government, but not chosen. The key facts and analysis underlying the Government's policy analysis were set out in a paper deposited in the Library of the House on 20 March 1998, Official Report, column 1539. London Transport is now working very closely with the Government and it is committed to the success of our policy.
  318

  Gloucestershire Structure Plan
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Government office for the south-west regarding Gloucestershire's structure plan. [39517]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Officials at the Government Office for the South West have commented on the structure plan on my behalf and keep me briefed on issues as necessary.

  Regional Development
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the contribution of air traffic provision to English regional development; and if he will make a statement. [39521]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We attach great importance to the contribution which air services can make to English regional development.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the impact of his Department's policy on sustainable development on the elderly in rural areas. [39530]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government's vision of sustained development has four broad objectives: social progress which recognises the needs of everyone; effective protection of the environment; prudent use of natural resources; and maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. It aims to ensure a better quality of life for everyone, including the elderly.

  The consultation paper "Opportunities for Change" launched earlier this year seeks views on what a sustainable development strategy should contain. Our Manifesto pledged us to recognise the special needs of rural areas and communities and the consultation paper highlights the need for building sustainable communities including in rural areas.

  Motoring Charges
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of increased motoring charges on elderly people and those living in rural areas. [39547]

  Dr. Strang
  As part of the fundamental transport review leading to the forthcoming Transport White Paper, officials in my Department have been examining the impact of a range of transport policies, including motoring taxation, on different groups. This work suggests that the impact of an increase in fuel duty on a particular household will depend on a great many factors, the most important of which are car ownership and income. Recent research by the Institute of Fiscal Studies suggests that location is also important, but less so than income and car ownership.

  Cycle Lanes
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage the provision of cycle lanes in(a) London and (b) other major conurbations. [39553]

  Dr. Strang
  Our policy guidance and technical advice to local authorities stresses the need to develop cohesive solutions for cycle provision. Cycle lanes are one of a number of features that need to be considered. Decisions on the right blend of facilities are for local highway authorities themselves to take.

  In London the Government are supporting the provision of the 2,500 km London Cycle Network (LCN). Now is its fourth year of funding, the LCN has received Transport Policies and Programme (TPP) allocations totalling £15.55 million.

  East London River Crossing (Property Disposals)
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many houses purchased by the Department of Transport to accommodate the building of the East London River Crossing are still required by the Highways Agency; and what progress has been made by the Highways Agency in disposing of properties purchased for this function. [39465]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Clive Efford, dated 5 May 1998:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to reply to your recent question about houses purchased by the Department in connection with the East London River Crossing.
  None of the 164 houses purchased by the Department for the East London River Crossing are now required by the Highways Agency. 154 remain in our ownership and are to be sold. An active sales programme is well underway.
  We are working closely with the London Borough of Greenwich as the main local housing authority and are looking to sell a substantial number of our properties to housing associations working with them. A few properties are also likely to be sold to the London Borough of Bexley, and a further small number of tenants are looking to buy their properties themselves.

  Road Traffic
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 19 March 1998,Official Report, column 697, if he will list the national road traffic forecasts which were available at the end of March; and if he will make a statement on the availability of the remaining papers. [39845]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I regret that, owing to competing pressures on resources only one of the six Working Papers (Working Paper number 2: Car Use: Modelling and Forecasting) accompanying the NRTF 1997 was available at the end of March 1998. Two more (Working Paper numbers 3 and 6) were released on 20 April 1998. The remaining three papers will be made available by the end of the first week in May.

  Southall Rail Accident
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set up a public inquiry into the Southall rail accident; and if he will make a statement on the implications of criminal proceedings for such an inquiry. [39992]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A public inquiry into the Southall rail accident was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on 24 September 1997. The Southall Rail Accident Inquiry formally opened and then adjourned on 24 February 1998, in order that criminal proceedings stemming from the accident should not be prejudiced.

  The Inquiry will resume to hear evidence in public as soon as criminal proceedings are complete.

  A1 Tempsford Public Inquiry
  Sir Nicholas Lyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he received the Inspector's report on the A1 Tempsford Public Inquiry; and when he expects to announce his decision. [39983]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Inspector's report on the public inquiry into the proposed Al Tempsford junction improvements was received on 21 April. My right hon. Friend will announce his decision in the light of the Inspector's recommendations as soon as possible.

  London Development Group
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations are planned between the London Development Group and environmental organisations. [40018]

  Angela Eagle
  I am not aware of a London Development Group, though we have welcomed the formation of the recently launched London Development Partnership, chaired by Sir Colin Marshall. While the Government Office for London will be working closely with the Partnership on a number of specific projects, the Partnership is not government sponsored and I cannot answer for its plans to consult environmental organisations.

  Thameslink Farringdon-Moorgate Line
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the level of investment by British Rail and Thameslink in the Farringdon/Bishopsgate branch line over the last 10 years. [40146]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I assume that the question refers to the Thameslink Farringdon to Moorgate branch line.

  The branch line was last the subject of investment expenditure in 1985 as part of British Rail's significant upgrade and electrification of the route from Bedford to London St. Pancras. I understand from Railtrack that there has been no investment expenditure on the branch line in the last 10 years. As with all routes, it is subject to routine checks to ensure safety and infrastructure quality is maintained.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy to strengthen the statutory rights and means of redress for rail travellers, not holding season tickets, for delays, and cancellations under the present National Conditions of Carriage. [40147]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The National Conditions of Carriage are currently being reviewed by the Association of Train Operating Companies. I understand that train operators have voluntarily agreed in principle to double the minimum level of compensation offered for delays of more than one hour from 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. of the fare paid. Any changes to the National Conditions of Carriage will be subject to the approval of the Franchising Director and the Rail Regulator.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each year since rail privatisation(a) the total number of rail passengers and the number of passenger complaints, (b) the level of investment in the rail infrastructure and (c) the level of public subsidy given to train operating companies. [40260]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested on the number of passengers complaints is not held centrally be DETR and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The other information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Total passenger journeys (millions)1

  Rail infrastructure investment (£ million)

  Net support for passengers rail services spend (£ million)1

  1995–96

  761.2

  900

  1,669

  1996–97

  801.4

  1,178

  1,809

  1997–98

  n/a

  1,269

  1,425

  1Excludes payments to Passenger Transport Executives. Figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 include payments to train operating companies owned by British Rail.

  Note:

  The figures shown include an element of double counting, where a journey goes through more than one operators route it is scored against each operator.

  Countryside Access (Disabled People)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice his Department has given to the Countryside Commission on policy on access to the countryside for people with disabilities. [40170]

  Angela Eagle
  The Countryside Commission has a duty under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which requires those providing goods, facilities and services not to discriminate against disabled people. The Commission is currently preparing a policy statement on improving enjoyment of the countryside for disabled people. This will recognise that much can be done to make the countryside easier for people to have access to and enjoy, although the countryside cannot be made accessible to everyone, everywhere.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 20 April 1998,Official Report, column 422, on Eurostar, if he will publish the independent inquiry which the Government commissioned into the Eurostar traffic forecasts produced by the parties. [40148]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No. The Government commissioned view of Eurostar traffic forecasts is based on information provided in commercial confidence by the private sector parties concerned.

  Rural Shop Closures
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reverse the trend of rural shop closures. [40134]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997, as of 1 April 1998 the sole general store and the sole post office in a rural settlement of 3,000 people or fewer are entitled to 50 per cent. mandatory relief, subject to a rateable value limit of £5,000. Local authorities may top this relief up to 100 per cent. if they wish.

  In addition, the Rural Development Commission operates a Village Shop Development Scheme which provides grants to help rural shopkeepers maintain and wherever possible, improve the performance of village shops in settlements of less than 3,000.

  Great Western Trains
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if, pursuant to his answer of 24 April 1998,Official Report, columns 707–08 on Great Western trains, he will assess the effects of calculating train punctuality statistics in terms of the proportion of passengers who are delayed. [40245]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The method for calculating train punctuality statistics, which measures the number of scheduled services which arrive on time, is effective in monitoring the standard of punctuality that passengers generally receive and for assessing any compensation due under the terms of the relevant Passengers Charter. No change in method is proposed. A train is deemed on time if it arrives within a specified period of the scheduled arrival time. In respect of the former Intercity and long distance regional services this is 9 minutes 59 seconds; in respect of the former Network SouthEast and short distance Regional services this is 4 minutes 59 seconds; and in respect of Scottish sleeper services this is 30 minutes. Certain services may be excluded from the calculations. More details are set out in the notes attached to OPRAF's Performance Bulletins, copies of which are in the Library.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the current planning laws relating to(a) mobile phones and (b) radio phone masts; and what plans he has to amend these laws. [40563]
  323
  Mr. Raynsford
  Under current planning legislation, telecommunications operators licensed by the Department of Trade and Industry generally have permitted development rights to erect masts of up to 15 metres in height. This is subject to a prior approval procedure which gives the local planning authority the opportunity to say whether it wishes to approve, within 28 days, details of the mast's siting and appearance. If the authority considers that the development will pose a serious threat to amenity, it may refuse approval. A planning application is required for the erection of a mast in protected areas such as National Parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and conservation areas, and for masts above 15 metres in height elsewhere. We have received a number of representations about these controls, including those made by the working group of local authority and telecommunications industry representatives who have been reviewing my Department's Code of Best Practice for telecommunications prior approval procedures as applied to mast/tower development. We are giving careful consideration to the representations made by the working group, and expect to announce our conclusions in due course.

  Housing (Flood Plains)
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice his Department has received from the Environment Agency about the building of homes on flood plains. [40594]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In 1997, the Environment Agency published Policy and practice for the protection of floodplains. This document set out the flood defence policies of the Environment Agency and explained the reasoning behind them. It aimed to reinforce and complement current Government guidance on flood risk issues contained in Department of the Environment Circular 30/92 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Circular FD 1/92; Welsh Office Circular 68/92) on Development and flood risk and in Planning Policy Guidance and Regional Planning Guidance.

  The Government look to local planning authorities to use their planning powers to guide development away from areas that may be affected by flooding and to restrict development that would itself increase the risk of flooding. Flood defence considerations should always be taken into account in preparing development plans and in determining planning applications. The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee in the preparation of development plans and for certain types of development and should be consulted by local planning authorities on the building of homes in flood plains.

  Heathrow Terminal Five
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of the time spent by the Heathrow Terminal Five public inquiry in the receiving and questioning of oral evidence has been devoted to evidence from(a) BAA, (b) British Airways, (c) the Highways Agency and (d) objectors to the T5 scheme. [40481]
  324
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The approximate proportion of time spent by the Heathrow Terminal Five inquiry in hearing evidence and cross-examination of witnesses to date is set out.

  BAA: 30 per cent.

  British Airways: 8 per cent.

  Highways Agency: 11 per cent.

  Objectors: 41 per cent.

  A further 10 per cent. of time has been spent hearing evidence from neutral witnesses, principally from the DETR and CAA, who have an explanatory role at the inquiry.

  Railway Infrastructure
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for legislation to permit the direct payment to Railtrack on behalf of the train operating companies, of that part of the public service obligation grant concerned with the provision of improvement to the railway infrastructure. [40258]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are committed to ensuring that public subsidy to the railway serves the public interest. Our proposals will be published shortly.

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the planned reduction of public service obligation grants to TOCs outlined in the franchise agreements will continue regardless of the financial circumstances of the TOCs. [40259]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Support payments from the Franchising Director to the TOCs are contractually committed payments as set out in the franchise agreements. Franchise agreements are legally enforceable contracts. Franchise payments are variable only in circumstances prescribed in the franchise agreements; for example, where performance penalty or bonus payment are applicable or changes are made to the Passenger Service Requirement. A franchise operator may seek change to the terms of the franchise agreement if its financial viability is at risk. The Franchising Director has discretion to provide additional subsidy or not but would be under no obligation to do so. Insolvency is an event of default under the franchise agreement for which the Franchising Director may terminate the agreement. In the event of termination of a franchise agreement the Franchising Director has a statutory duty under S30 of the Railways Act 1993 to secure the provision of services for which no further franchise agreement has been entered into, and the railway administration provisions of the Act would ensure that the assets required for the provision of services continue to be available. The franchise agreements also provide for franchises to post a performance bond which could be claimed by the Franchising Director in these circumstances.

  Railway Companies (Penalty Fares)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the powers of the rail companies in respect of on-the-spot fines. [40261]
  325
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  All penalty fares schemes operated by train operating companies have to be approved by the Rail Regulator. We are conducting a thorough review of rail regulation with the aim of making regulation more effective and accountable. Our proposals will be outlined in our forthcoming White Paper.

  Street Works
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many prosecutions there have been under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. [40407]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No central record is kept of prosecutions initiated under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (which came into force in 1993).

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the operation of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. [40398]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government keep the implementation of the street works provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 under continual review, in co-operation with bodies representing the highway authorities and the utilities.

  Parish and Town Councils
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the auditing procedures for parish and town councils. [40403]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have no plans to review the auditing procedures for parish and town councils.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proposals he has to review the financial arrangements for parish and town councils. [40408]

  Mr. Raynsford
  None.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many cases have been identified by the District Audit Service in the past five years where financial arrangements for parish and town councils have been deemed to be unsatisfactory. [40409]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not held centrally. When parish council auditors identify unsatisfactory financial arrangements, they will bring them to the attention of the council in the annual management letter, or make a public interest report, using powers under Section 15(3) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. Auditors make no reports to the Secretary of State. The independent Audit Commission receives copies of reports made under Section 15(3).

  Roads and Pavements (Reinstatement)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department takes to investigate complaints about the failure of statutory undertakers to reinstate roads and pavements. [40399]
  326
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Complaints about individual failures are matters for the undertaker and the highway authority concerned. The Department keeps the national reinstatement specification under review, and will be consulting shortly on proposed revisions to it. The Department also discusses general issues, including levels of compliance, with bodies representing the highway authorities and the utilities.

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the future of opencast coal extraction. [39510]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning announced on 4 March 1998,Official Report, column 65, that there would be a full review of Minerals Planning Guidance Note 3 on Coal Mining and Colliery Spoil Disposal. This will run in conjunction with the present review of energy policy, will take into account its conclusions, and will apply to England. The energy policy review will in turn take into account the planning issues raised by coal extraction. Policy on opencast coal extraction in Wales and Scotland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland respectively.

  Sewage Treatment Technology
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with his counterparts in Jersey regarding sewage treatment technology; and if he will make a statement. [39507]

  Angela Eagle
  My right hon. Friend has had no discussions with the Jersey authorities regarding sewage treatment technology. My Department is aware of the ultra-violet irradiation process used at the Bellozanne works discharging into St. Aubin's Bay. I would refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 22 January 1998,Official Report, columns 613–14, and 12 February 1998, Official Report, column 317, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) relating to the ultra-violet treatment of sewage.

  A27
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the Highways Agency regarding safety improvements on the A27 in West Sussex; and if he will make a statement. [39533]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There has been recent discussion between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and the Highways Agency about the need for safety improvements along the A27 in West Sussex. We are fully committed to improving the situation and we are aware that there is a considerable amount of local concern about the accident record along this stretch of road.

  For the short term the Highways Agency has implemented a scheme at the Boundstone College pelican crossing in Sompting and for the longer term they are considering the provision of a segregated crossing at this

  327
  location. In addition, a traffic and safety study of the Chichester Bypass is almost complete and cycle/footbridge is under construction on the Chichester Bypass.

  Other proposed safety measures for 1998/99 are improvements at the Sussex Pad; the closure of certain central reservation gaps between Chichester and Worthing; a pedestrian movement study to identify sites for pelican crossings and pedestrian refuges; safety improvements to Burpham Road junction, Arundel; cycle crossing facilities between Chichester and Tangmere, and a study of options to improve traffic management and enhance journey time reliability through Worthing and Lancing.

  Contaminated Land
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to issue the technical and procedural guidelines for the treatment of contaminated land. [39731]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, (Ms Walley), on 23 April 1998,Official Report, column 670.

  Disabled People (Taxis and Coaches)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what were the outcomes of the recent consultation exercises on the accessibility of(a) taxis and (b) coaches to disabled people. [40829]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Informal consultation on our proposals for taxis and for buses and coaches under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 has recently been completed. A large number of responses have been received from industry, from local authorities and from disability organisations. Those responses are still being analysed and the results will be incorporated in a further stage of consultation on the basis of draft regulations which will take place later in the year.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 April 1998,Official Report, column 286, on regional development agencies, if he will list the nominations submitted for regional development agencies; if unsuccessful nominees will be informed of the reasons for their rejection; and if they will be considered for any vacancies which occur after the boards are set up. [40828]

  Mr. Caborn
  All dealings between Ministers and candidates for appointment are private; we do not intend to list the nominations submitted nor publicise the reasons for the rejection of candidates. We are considering a large number of high calibre candidates, not all of whom can be appointed this time round. We will therefore reconsider those who have been unsuccessful this time when future appointments come to be made.
  328

  Litter
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people have been prosecuted for leaving litter in a public open-air place under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. [40776]

  Angela Eagle
  During 1996, 626 people were prosecuted for littering offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990; of these 468 were convicted. Figures for 1997 are not yet available.

  Travel Agents
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many travel agents in the United Kingdom operate under(a) ATOL, (b) IATA and (c) ABTA. [40850]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Travel agents in the UK are not required to hold Air Travel Organisers' Licences. However, some travel agents do hold ATOLs because, as well as being agents, they also act as travel organiser principals. There are 1,740 ATOL holders at present but we are unable to say how many of these also undertake agency business. Information obtained from IATA and ABTA indicates that the number of travel agent members of these organisations is presently 1,548 and 2,330 respectively.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the operation of ATOL. [40851]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Air Travel Organisers' Licensing (ATOL) scheme was introduced in 1972 to protect air passengers in the event of the failure of a tour operator by ensuring the availability of funds to repatriate passengers stranded abroad and reimburse those who had paid for their holidays but had yet to travel. The scheme is operated by the Civil Aviation Authority under the Civil Aviation (Air Travel Organisers' Licensing) Regulations 1995, as amended in 1996 and 1997.

  To hold an ATOL, a travel organiser must put up a bond and satisfy certain financial fitness criteria established by the CAA. The bond is determined according to the projected level of turnover and the nature and risk of the business. In the event of failure the CAA may call in the bond to provide funds to repatriate and reimburse customers of the failed operator. If the bond proves insufficient to cover the liabilities a back-up fund, called the Air Travel Trust Fund (ATTF), is available to meet any shortfall.

  The ATOL scheme operates effectively to protect passengers and the bond levels imposed by the CAA are generally sufficient to cover the majority of failures. Although the CAA monitors carefully the performance of ATOL holders, unpredictable and sometimes very large failures do occasionally occur.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has for changes in the regulation of travel agents by the Civil Aviation Authority. [40852]
  329
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority does not regulate travel agents. This is a matter for consideration by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs at the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total value of the bonds held by the CAA under the ATOL scheme; and what plans he has to raise the level of the ATOL bond. [40853]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The total value of bonds held by the CAA under the ATOL scheme is £1.3 billion. Bond levels are an operations matter for the CAA but I am advised that they have no plans to increase the level of bond.

  Traffic Management, Harrogate
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding the decision of North Yorkshire County Council to reject the proposals by Harrogate Borough Council for the use of on-street car parking revenues for traffic management in Harrogate; and if he will make a statement. [40396]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No representations have been received regarding this matter. Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 it is for the County Council as highway authority to decide how any surpluses from on-street parking charges are spent, subject to the restrictions set out in Section 55 of the Act.

  Plutonium Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Government have for the management of the plutonium waste held in the United Kingdom; and what plans he has to fund research into its safe disposal. [40184]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are quantities of plutonium waste, usually referred to as plutonium contaminated material, or PCM, held at a number of sites owned by BNFL, UKAEA, and MoD. Subject to compliance with all the relevant legislation, the management of these wastes is the responsibility of the owners of the material.

  It was intended that this material should be disposed of to the repository which Nirex hoped to build if investigations near Sellafield had shown the site to be suitable. Planning permission for a rock characterisation facility at that site was not, however, granted. The waste will therefore remain in safe, secure storage pending the recommendations of the House of Lords Select Committee which is inquiring into radioactive waste management, and wide consultation on this topic which my right. hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has indicated will follow the report of that Committee.

  The waste owners will no doubt review what research it is appropriate to fund in the light of the forthcoming recommendations.

TREASURY

  Amusement Machines
  Mr. Purchase
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional yield was anticipated from skill-with-prizes machines following increases in amusement machine licences duty in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98; and what are the actual yields. [39730]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 29 April 1998]There were no increases in amusement machine licence duty in 1996–97 and 1997–98. Separate figures for the duty yield from skill-with-prizes machines cannot be calculated. The actual yield in 1996–97 from amusement machine licence duty was £128 million and in 1997–98 was –131 million (provisional figures).

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the National Audit Office has approved the change in presentation in the Red Book explained at paragraph B60 in which tax credits are netted off against tax receipts. [39772]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 April 1998]The NAO have not been asked to look at how the public finances projections are presented in the FSBR. At the Chancellor's request, they have audited key assumptions and conventions underlying the projections of the public finances.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the expenditure on working families tax credit in 1999–2000 identified in the Red Book(a) will comprise payments to recipients and (b) relates to initial set-up and other costs. [40326]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]All expenditure on the Working Families Tax Credit identified in the Red Book relates to payments to recipients.

  Fuel Duty
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what data he has evaluated indicating that increasing the duty on fuel results in lower car use; and if he will make the studies available in the Library. [39780]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 27 April 1998]The Government have evaluated many studies based on evidence from both trends over time and from different countries, which demonstrate that higher fuel costs dissuade motorists from using their vehicles. The majority of these studies are available publicly, and are too numerous to be placed in the Library. A review of these studies was compiled by Professor P. Goodwin and was published in the Journal of Transport and Economics and Policy (May 1992).

  In addition, the DETR published the National Road Traffic Forecasts Great Britain (1997) last October, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House. The

  331
  forecasting methodology takes account of the effect of motoring costs on vehicle use through a relationship based on data going back to 1950.

  Taxation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide estimates of the amounts of(a) income tax, (b) NICs, (c) VAT, (d) other indirect taxes, (e) local taxes (i) paid by typical families in each year since 1995–96, and (ii) forecast to be paid in 1998–99 on a basis consistent with Table 13.7 of the Treasury Tax-Benefit Reference Manual; [35235]

  (2) if he will update to include the latest information from 1993–94 to 1998–99 the figures for the burden of direct and indirect taxation in the format used in the answer of 26 February 1996, Official Report, columns 339–51, taking into account (a) changes made in the 17 March Budget and (b) revisions to figures for earlier years, providing separate figures for (i) VAT, (ii) other indirect taxes and (iii) the council tax. [37885]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 23 March and 7 April 1998]The available information, which shows tax payments at multiples of median full-time earnings, is given in the table.

  Income Tax, National Insurance, Child Benefit and Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit at multiples of median full-time earnings

  1998–99

  50%

  75%

  100%

  150%

  200%

  300%

  Single

  Gross income

  168.50

  252.75

  337.00

  505.50

  674.00

  1,011.00

  Income tax

  17.72

  37.10

  56.47

  95.23

  146.25

  281.05

  NICs

  11.73

  20.16

  28.58

  43.38

  43.38

  43.38

  Net income

  139.05

  195.50

  251.95

  366.89

  484.37

  686.57

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  10.5

  14.7

  16.8

  18.8

  21.7

  27.8

  NICs

  7.0

  8.0

  8.5

  8.6

  6.4

  4.3

  Income tax and NICs

  17.5

  22.7

  25.3

  27.4

  28.1

  32.1

  Net income

  82.5

  77.3

  74.8

  72.6

  71.9

  67.9

  Married (no children)

  Gross income

  168.50

  252.75

  337.00

  505.50

  674.00

  1,011.00

  Income tax

  12.24

  31.62

  50.99

  89.75

  140.77

  275.57

  NICs

  11.73

  20.16

  28.58

  43.38

  43.38

  43.38

  Net income

  144.53

  200.98

  257.43

  372.37

  489.85

  692.05

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  7.3

  12.5

  15.1

  17.8

  20.9

  27.3

  NICs

  7.0

  8.0

  8.5

  8.6

  6.4

  4.3

  Income tax and NICs

  14.3

  20.5

  23.6

  26.4

  27.3

  31.6

  Net income

  85.8

  79.5

  76.4

  73.7

  72.7

  68.5

  Married (2 children)

  Gross income

  168.50

  252.75

  337.00

  505.50

  674.00

  1,011.00

  Income tax

  -55.04

  3.86

  30.24

  69.00

  120.02

  254.82

  NICs

  11.73

  20.16

  28.58

  43.38

  43.38

  43.38

  Net income

  211.81

  228.74

  278.18

  393.12

  510.60

  712.80

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  -25.7

  1.5

  9.0

  13.6

  17.8

  25.2

  NICs

  7.0

  8.0

  8.5

  8.6

  6.4

  4.3

  Income tax and NICs

  -18.7

  9.5

  17.5

  22.2

  24.2

  29.5

  Net income

  125.7

  90.5

  82.5

  77.8

  75.8

  70.5

  Married (2 earners, no children)

  Gross income

  168.50

  252.75

  337.00

  505.50

  674.00

  1,011.00

  Income tax

  0.00

  12.80

  30.82

  68.71

  107.47

  185.79

  NICs

  6.61

  15.04

  23.46

  40.31

  57.16

  78.70

  Net income

  161.89

  224.92

  282.72

  396.48

  509.37

  746.51

  332
  Changes which will take effect in 1999 will offer significant help to families, particularly low income families. A one earner couple with 2 children with half median earnings (£168.50 per week) will gain £18.68 a week from the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit. No family with children with earnings less than £220 per week will pay income tax. Child benefit for the eldest child will be increased by £2.50, the largest real increase since 1978. And all employees earning more than the Lower Earnings Limit will gain £1.28 a week from the abolition of the NICs entry fee. Moreover figures in the table do not take account of the additional help with childcare available to working families through the childcare tax credit within the WFTC. A 2 earner couple on median earnings, with 2 children and childcare costs of £80 per week will gain £46 per week towards this cost. Further consideration is being given to whether the information provided is typical of families in the UK. Similarly, estimating the impact of indirect taxes is imprecise as spending patterns vary widely between households with the same composition and income. The level of council tax payments will also vary depending on where families live. Further consideration is being given to whether the conventions, assumptions and sampling methods can be improved in order to provide information which is meaningful and reliable.
  333

  Income Tax, National Insurance, Child Benefit and Family Credit/Working Families Tax Credit at multiples of median full-time earnings

  1998–99

  50%

  75%

  100%

  150%

  200%

  300%

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  0.0

  5.1

  9.1

  13.6

  15.9

  18.4

  NICs

  3.9

  5.9

  7.0

  8.0

  8.5

  7.8

  Income tax and NICs

  3.9

  11.0

  16.1

  21.6

  24.4

  26.2

  Net income

  96.1

  89.0

  83.9

  78.4

  75.6

  73.8

  Including tax and benefit measures announced in the Budget and due to be introduced in 1999 (MCA at 10%, abolition of employee NI entry fee, introduction of WFTC, increase in Child Benefit)

  1998–99

  50%

  75%

  100%

  150%

  200%

  300%

  Single

  Gross income

  168.50

  252.75

  337.00

  505.50

  674.00

  1,011.00

  Income tax

  17.72

  37.10

  56.47

  95.23

  146.25

  281.05

  NICs

  10.45

  18.88

  27.30

  42.10

  42.10

  42.10

  Net income

  140.33

  196.78

  253.23

  368.17

  485.65

  687.85

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  10.5

  14.7

  16.8

  18.8

  21.7

  27.8

  NICs

  6.2

  7.5

  8.1

  8.3

  6.2

  4.2

  Income tax and NICs

  16.7

  22.2

  24.9

  27.1

  27.9

  32.0

  Net income

  83.3

  77.9

  75.1

  72.8

  72.1

  68.0

  Married (no children)

  Gross income

  168.50

  252.75

  337.00

  505.50

  674.00

  1,011.00

  Income tax

  14.07

  33.44

  52.82

  91.58

  142.60

  277.40

  NICs

  10.45

  18.88

  27.30

  42.10

  42.10

  42.10

  Net income

  143.98

  200.43

  256.88

  371.82

  489.30

  691.50

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  8.3

  13.2

  15.7

  18.1

  21.2

  27.4

  NICs

  6.2

  7.5

  8.1

  8.3

  6.2

  4.2

  Income tax and NICs

  14.5

  20.7

  23.8

  26.4

  27.4

  31.6

  Net income

  85.5

  79.3

  76.2

  73.6

  72.6

  68.4

  Married (2 children)

  Gross income

  168.50

  252.75

  337.00

  505.50

  674.00

  1,011.00

  Income tax

  -74.39

  -23.97

  26.45

  68.33

  119.35

  254.15

  NICs

  10.45

  18.88

  27.30

  42.10

  42.10

  42.10

  Net income

  232.44

  257.84

  283.25

  395.07

  512.55

  714.75

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  -44.2

  -9.5

  7.8

  13.5

  17.7

  25.1

  NICs

  6.2

  7.5

  8.1

  8.3

  6.2

  4.2

  Income tax and NICs

  -38.0

  -2.0

  15.9

  21.8

  23.9

  29.3

  Net income

  137.9

  102.0

  84.1

  78.2

  76.0

  70.7

  Married (2 earners, no children)

  Gross income

  168.50

  252.75

  337.00

  505.50

  674.00

  1,011.00

  Income tax

  0.43

  14.63

  32.64

  70.54

  109.30

  187.62

  NICs

  4.05

  12.48

  20.90

  37.75

  54.60

  76.14

  Net income

  164.02

  225.65

  283.46

  397.21

  510.11

  747.24

  Percentage of earnings

  Income tax

  0.3

  5.8

  9.7

  14.0

  16.2

  18.6

  NICs

  2.4

  4.9

  6.2

  7.5

  8.1

  7.5

  Income tax and NICs

  2.7

  10.7

  15.9

  21.5

  24.3

  26.1

  Net income

  97.3

  89.3

  84.1

  78.6

  75.7

  73.9

  Notes:

  1. Income tax payments are calculated on the basis that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and have income only from employment. All earners including wives, are assumed to pay Class 1 national insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  2. Earnings are taken to be the median gross weekly earnings of all full-time employees on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. (Median earnings are more representative of the population as a whole than mean male full-time earnings). The level of earnings in 1998–9 is based on a stylised assumption in line with the actual outturn for earnings growth in the year to January 1998.

  3. A family with 2 children is assumed to have one child aged under 11 and the other between 11 and 15.

  4. In line with the convention in the Tax Benefit Reference Manual, child benefit is treated as negative income tax. Following the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit, Family Credit, although it is not part of the tax system, has been treated in the same way so as to provide comparability with the tax system following the introduction of the WFTC.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) when he expects to answer the question from the hon. Member for Gordon of 23 March 1998 (35235) on taxation paid by typical families; [40425]

  (2) when he expects to answer the questions from the hon. Member for Gordon of 7 April 1998 on (a) the costs of resolving the millennium bug problem in the National Health Service (37992) and (b) the burden of taxation (37885); what factors underlie the delay in answering; and if he will make a statement. [40426]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Question 37992 about the millennium bug problem in the National Health Service was addressed to the Secretary of State for Health, not to me. Questions 35235 and 37885 have been answered today.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to answer the question from the hon. Member for Gordon of 23 January 1998 (24778) on receptions held at 11 Downing Street, what factors underlie the delay in answering; and if he will make a statement. [40424]

  Mrs. Liddell
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor did so on 26 February 1998,Official Report, columns 358–59.

  Credit Unions
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review existing arrangements for those saving via credit unions. [40400]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on 20 March 1998,Official Report, columns 743–44.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 8 April 1998, Official Report, column 243, if he will estimate the number of employees in respect of whom employers will pay higher NICs as a result of the measures announced in his recent Budget. [39242]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 20 April 1998]From April 1999, employers will no longer pay NICs in respect of up to one million employees earning between £64 and £81 a week. Employers will also pay lower NICs in respect of approximately twelve million employees earning between £81 and £450 a week (broadly, male average earnings). Employer NICs will increase in respect of approximately seven million employees. The majority of these employees will be earning more than average male earnings.

  Electronic Version Return System
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what indemnity is offered to consumers for errors in tax status as a result of using the EVR system. [39927]
  336
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Electronic Version of the Tax Return (EVR) has the same status as a conventional paper Return and carries with it no indemnities for error in completion. The taxpayer is required to sign the same declaration on the EVR as on Paper returns.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the future development of the EVR system. [39925]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There are no immediate plans to develop the EVR system further. The Inland Revenue is looking at possible options and will consult appropriately when it is in a position to make proposals.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many copies of EVR have been issued to taxpayers since its launch; and how many have been used. [39924]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Just over 120,000 copies of the EVR have been issued to taxpayers since its launch. For the tax year 1996–97 around 70,000 copies were issued and at least 28,000 were used to file a tax return. For the 1997–98 tax year just over 50,000 copies of the EVR have been issued to date.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the profit made by Her Majesty's Treasury following sales of EVR. [39926]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The EVR pack is not sold but is freely available to any taxpayer who requests it. There is therefore no profit attached to provision of the EVR.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the amount spent by the Inland Revenue on developing and marketing the electronic version of the return EVR system. [39922]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The amount spent by the Inland Revenue on project managing, prototyping, developing and testing the electronic version of the return was £600,000. There were no marketing costs as the EVR is offered to individual taxpayers only as an alternative to the paper return.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what payments(a) Her Majesty's Treasury and (b) the Inland Revenue have made over the last two years to EDS for the development of the EVR system. [39923]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue, a Department of Her Majesty's Treasury, has paid £201,000 to EDS for the IT development of the EVR system.

  Married Couples Allowance
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what amount the real value of the over 65 married couples allowance will have changed between 1990–91 and(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000 taking account of the reduction in the rate at which the allowance is given and assuming that the allowance is increased in 1999–2000 in line with inflation and that it is increased to protect its real value to pensioners, when the rate at which the allowance is given is reduced. [40161]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is given in the tables. These compare the level of the 1990–91 revalorised married couple's allowance against the actual
  337
  level in 1998–99 and 1999–2000. It is assumed that allowances in 1999–2000 are indexed in line with an illustrative assumption of 3¼ per cent. given in the Financial Statement and Budget Report, March 1998.

  Married couple's allowance (aged 65–74)

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1990–91 revalorised level

  2,885

  2,985

  Actual level

  3,305

  5,135

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1990–91 revalorised value1

  Lower rate taxpayer

  577

  597

  Basic rate taxpayer

  664

  687

  Higher rate taxpayer

  1,154

  1,194

  Actual value2

  496

  513

  Reduction in value

  Lower rate taxpayer

  81

  84

  Basic rate taxpayer

  168

  174

  Higher rate taxpayer

  658

  681

  1MCA given at marginal rates.

  2MCA given at 15 per cent. in 1998–99 and 10 per cent. in 1999–2000.

  Married couple's allowance (aged 75 and over)

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1990–91 revalorised level

  2,935

  3,035

  Actual level

  3,345

  5,195

  £

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  1990–91 revalorised value1

  Lower rate taxpayer

  587

  607

  Basic rate taxpayer

  675

  698

  Higher rate taxpayer

  1,174

  1,214

  Actual value2

  502

  519

  Reduction in value

  Lower rate taxpayer

  85

  88

  Basic rate taxpayer

  173

  179

  Higher rate taxpayer

  672

  695

  1MCA given at marginal rates.

  2MCA given at 15 per cent. in 1998–99 and 10 per cent. in 1999–2000.

  VAT (Sporting Facilities)
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate how much revenue would be raised in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000, (iii) 2000–01, (iv) 2001–02, and (v) 2002–03, if the supply of sporting facilities was subject to VAT liability at 17.5 per cent. [40159]

  Dawn Primarolo
  If VAT were to be charged at 17.5 per cent. on the supply of sporting facilities by non-profit making organisations, the estimated annual revenue yield would be some £40 million.

  Beer Brewing Industry
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the methodology and structure of the model used by Oxford Economic Forecasting to study the implications of different levels of duty for the beer brewing industry. [40086]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Officials from Customs and Excise and HM Treasury have met Oxford Economic Forecasting to discuss their work on forecasting the impact on the economy of a cut in beer duty. We do not believe that this work demonstrates that cutting beer duty would provide a sustainable benefit to the economy.

  Oil and Gas Revenue
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the net annual income obtained by the Treasury from the extraction of oil and gas in the North Sea in the last year for which figures are available. [39990]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Government revenues from North Sea oil and gas were £3.4 billion in 1997–98.

  Inheritance Tax (Access Agreements)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the location of and access arrangements for items within Derbyshire in respect of which owners have been granted exemption from inheritance tax on condition of reasonable access being given to the public. [39698]

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the location and access arrangements of sites in Derbyshire where owners have been granted exemption from inheritance tax on condition that reasonable public access is given to the land. [39959]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Details of conditionally exempt works of art and other objects to which public access is by appointment only, including those in Derbyshire, are listed in the Inland Revenue's Register.

  The computerised Register is available on the Internet at www.cto.eds.co.uk. The Register may also be consulted at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, the National Library of Scotland, Edinburgh, the National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, and the Ulster Museum, Belfast.

  The statutory rules on taxpayer confidentiality prevent me from providing the requested information about other conditionally exempt assets.

  Milk Development Council
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Milk Development Council will be exempt from corporation tax. [40103]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I cannot disclose details of anybody's tax position. However, I understand from its Annual Report that the Milk Development Council regards itself as a scientific research association. Whether an organisation qualifies as a scientific research association and is therefore eligible for tax relief under section 508, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, is decided by the Department of Trade and Industry. They are reviewing their criteria for this status.

  Migration
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people(a) emigrated from and (b) immigrated into the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years. [40597]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Andrew George, dated 5 May 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about estimates of international migration into and out of the United Kingdom.
  The information requested is shown below:

  Overall international migration: 1987 to 1996

  Thousands

  Inflow to UK

  Outflow from UK

  1987

  257.4

  227.3

  1988

  273.4

  255.5

  1989

  314.3

  223.4

  1990

  340.2

  251.9

  1991

  337.0

  263.7

  1992

  286.6

  251.5

  1993

  272.2

  236.8

  1994

  321.4

  212.6

  1995

  320.7

  212.0

  1996

  331.4

  238.4

  The estimates in the table are derived from data on migration intentions obtained from the International Passenger Survey, from information on migration to and from the Irish Republic obtained from the National Health Service Central Register and the Irish Labour Force Survey, and from data on short-term visitors who were granted an extension of stay obtained from the Home Office.

  International Debt
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much debt was owed to the Department for International Development by each individual debtor country at 31 December 1997. [39668]

  Clare Short
  I have been asked to reply.

  At 31 December 1997 a total of £160,777,000 was outstanding to my Department in the form of loans agreed under bilateral arrangements.

  The following list shows the individual amounts due to be repaid.

  Total bilateral debt outstanding at 31 December 1997

  Country

  £

  Brazil

  2,569,000

  Cameroon

  67,000

  Cayman Islands

  265,000

  Colombia

  222,000

  Costa Rica

  1,434,000

  Cyprus

  161,000

  Ecuador

  12,421,000

  Falkland Islands

  7,000

  Gibraltar

  185,000

  India

  13,643,000

  Jamaica1

  47,347,000

  Laos

  4,000

  Liberia

  78,000

  340

  Total bilateral debt outstanding at 31 December 1997

  Country

  £

  Malaysia

  3,814,000

  Nigeria

  4,929,000

  Paraguay

  2,109,000

  Philippines

  3,459,000

  Seychelles

  7,580,000

  Solomon Islands

  3,833,000

  St. Kitts

  3,023,000

  St. Vincent

  3,552,000

  Swaziland

  2,247,000

  Turkey

  34,318,000

  Zimbabwe

  13,510,000

  Total

  166,777,000

  1Subject to review in April 1999

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Western Sahara
  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government during their presidency of the EU to support the United Nations peace plan for Western Sahara. [39950]

  Mr. Fatchett
  At every available opportunity we continue to urge Morocco and Polisario, and to a lesser extent Mauritania and Algeria, to co-operate with MINURSO. We are in regular contact with the Moroccan Embassy and Polisario office in London and with the Moroccan Government in Rabat.

  We believe our role, and that of the EU, should be to support the work of the United Nations, where our seat on the Security Council, and our position as co-ordinators of the Friends of Western Sahara Group, enabled us to play a central role in the negotiations over the extension of MINURSO's mandate to 20 July.

  I held talks with the new UN Special Representative to the Western Sahara, Mr. Charles Dunbar when he visited London on 19 February on his way to the territory. I underlined our continued support for the Secretary General, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Dunbar, and our readiness to assist.

  We were instrumental in altering EU policy on visits to the Western Sahara so that Ambassadors and senior officials can visit the territory, whereas beforehand visits had been restricted to junior staff.

  Foreign Office officials visited Laayoune in January and March. As well as bringing us up to speed on developments and establishing an important visible presence, they were able to support MINURSO on the spot and provide a full report for the EU on developments there.

  Officials propose visiting Tindouf, Algeria, in June, as part of our next visit to the territory. Our Ambassador to Rabat is in northern Mauritania at the present time.

  Visits (Universities)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 1998,Official Report, column 238, what factors

  341
  underlay the selection of universities his Department's officials will visit; and what plans his Department's officials have to visit Exeter University. [40203]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Our aim is to visit each university every 4–5 years. In addition we are paying particular attention to:

  former polytechnics

  good source of minority ethnic students according to the Windsor Fellowship

  high proportion of female students

  good hard language department

  leading university in the field of EU studies (included from 1997).

  Exeter university was last visited in 1993 and will be targeted for either a careers fair or careers presentation this autumn.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the minutes of the discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the USA and Georgia concerning the forthcoming shipments of radioactive material from Georgia to the United Kingdom. [39900]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]: In July 1997 US officials approached the UK and France, via our respective Embassies in Washington, to ask whether we would consider accepting approximately 5kg of fresh and spent highly enriched uranium fuel from Tbilisi, Georgia. The US also provided written details of the fuel. The proposal was subsequently considered by UK Ministers and officials. In early February 1998 the UK informed the US that we had decided to accept the material. After the decision to accept the fuel had been made, UK and US officials met to discuss how best to arrange to transport the fuel to the UK safely, securely and in conformity with national and international requirements. No official minutes were taken at that meeting.

  No discussions were held between the UK and Georgian Governments prior to UK agreement. The British Embassy in Tbilisi informed the Georgian Government of our decision on 2 March.

  Papers relating to this transfer will be laid in the House shortly, in line with the commitment made by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) on 22 April 1998, Official Report, columns 821–27.

  Regional and Minority Languages
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) of 9 March 1998,Official Report, column 56, when he expects to announce the United Kingdom's signing of the Council of Europe Charter on Regional or Minority Languages. [40600]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The relevant Government Departments are continuing to take the question forward and an announcement will be made regarding UK signature and ratification of the Charter in due course.

  Treaty of Rome
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement identifying the types of derogation from the Treaty of Rome, as amended, that are without time limit. [40479]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are a number of Articles in the Treaty of Rome which allow Member States to derogate from the normal application of Community law rules. Examples are Articles 36, 55, 56, 222 and 223.

  Derogations may also be found in the protocols to the Treaty, for example the protocols which permit the UK and Denmark not to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Unlike transitional provisions which give newly acceded Member States certain derogations of limited duration, these derogations are not time limited in their application.

  Child Labour (Pakistan)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Pakistani High Commissioner to discuss the issue of bonded child labour in Pakistan. [40438]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary nor have I immediate plans to meet the Pakistan High Commissioner. Pakistan law prohibits bonded labour. We raise the issue with the Pakistan authorities both bilaterally and with EU partners. We shall continue to urge them to implement the legislation fully.

  Sudan
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Sudanese Government to ensure that food aid can be delivered rapidly to the areas affected by famine. [40460]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Through our Ambassador in Khartoum we have urged the Government of Sudan (GoS) to facilitate the rapid delivery of aid to the areas affected by famine. We welcome the GoS decision to resume aid flights to Bahr El Ghazal and will be pressing them to agree to requests by the UN for increases in the daily aid flights.

  Kenny Richey
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United States Government on behalf of Kenny Richey, a British citizen currently sentenced to death in the State of Ohio. [40401]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have been aware of Mr. Richey's case since 1990 and are watching developments closely (though this is not always easy because Mr. Richey is not a British citizen and because of the strict privacy laws in the United States). As Mr. Richey's case is under appeal, we are not intervening directly with the US authorities at this stage, but we shall keep this under review.

  Iraq
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the
  343
  conditions contained in United Nations Security Council resolutions which require to be fulfilled before sanctions on Iraq can properly be lifted. [40427]

  Mr. Fatchett
  United Nations Security Council resolution 687 provides that the Security Council will consider lifting the sanctions imposed on Iraq"in the light of the policies and practices of the Government of Iraq, including the implementation of all relevant resolutions of the Security Council".

  These of course include resolution 687 itself which imposed obligations on Iraq with regard to the elimination under international supervision of weapons of mass destruction.

  Broadcasting Expenditure
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's estimated expenditure on(a) radio programming, (b) television and (c) British Satellite News, for the current financial year; and what were the figures for each service over the last three years. [40428]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Total expenditure on(a) radio programming, (b) television and (c) British Satellite News (BSN) for the current financial year and last three years is as follows:

  £

  1998–99 budget

  1997–98 outturn

  1996–97 outturn

  1995–96 outturn

  Radio

  1,644,000

  1,475,338

  1,245,544

  1,343,000

  Television

  997,637

  1,512,719

  1,289,864

  1,844,883

  BSN

  2,102,000

  2,322,187

  2,257,477

  2,147,546

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's future spending plans for international broadcasting; and if he will make a statement. [40429]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are examining with the Treasury how we deploy all our resources, including those dedicated to the World Service, as part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Court of Human Rights
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what instructions his Department gave to Her Majesty's Ambassador to the Council of Europe to inform the British Parliamentary Delegation to the Council of Europe of the advantages of a particular candidate for the post of British candidate for the Court of Human Rights; [40578]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the procedures followed by his Department in choosing the British candidate for the Court of Human Rights indicating (a) the criteria determining the selection of candidates, (b) the means by which the shortlist was made, (c) the number of candidates interviewed before the final selection was made and (d) those officials, departments and ministers involved in the selection; [40584]
  344
  (3) for what reasons Her Majesty's Government prioritise their candidates in order of preference for the position of British judge in the Court of Human Rights; [40579]

  (4) for what reasons his Department did not accept the recommendations of the Kirkhill Sub-Committee of the Committee of Legal Affairs of the Council of Europe on the most suitable British candidate for the Court of Human Rights; [40583]

  (5) from which (a) countries and (b) individuals his Department received requests for advice on whom to vote for among the British candidates for the post of judge for the Court of Human Rights; [40585]

  (6) if he will list those members of the Council of Europe who prioritised their order of preferences for candidate judges for the Court of Human Rights; [40582]

  (7) whether, following the recommendation of the Kirkhill Sub-Committee of the Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe on the Sub-Committee's preferred candidate, his Department made any approaches to the Chairman or other members of the Committee or the Secretariat as to the Sub-Committee's recommendation; [40586]

  (8) which ministers and officials were responsible for (a) choosing the British candidates for the Court of Human Rights and (b) determining the order of preferences of the candidates; [40611]

  (9) what response officials in his Department gave to inquiries from (a) foreign nationals and (b) others seeking advice on whom to vote for in the election for the British judge in the Court of Human Rights. [40580]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  This Department, in collaboration with the Lord Chancellor's Department (LCD) and the Home Office, drafted a set of objective criteria for the selection of candidates for the European Court of Human Rights. These criteria incorporated the requirements for election as a judge set out in Protocol 11 to the European Convention on Human Rights, and included in addition the criteria applied by the LCD for the selection of circuit judges. The criteria were used for the selection of candidates by the assessment and interview panel established for the selection process. They were also made available to candidates.

  The assessment and interview panel consisted of two judicial members (Lord Justice Simon Brown and the Lord President Lord Rodger of Earlsferry), two legally qualified Government officials (Sir Thomas Legg, then Permanent Secretary at the LCD, and Sir Franklin Berman, FCO Legal Adviser) and a lay member (Ms Joanna Foster, Director of the BT Forum and former Chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission).

  Following advertisement of the position in the national and legal press, the panel met to consider which of the candidates to invite to interview. Of the 33 candidates identified, the panel interviewed five. The panel proposed three candidates to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in a specific order of preference, while making it clear that each of the three was a highly creditable candidate. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor sought and received formal agreement to these candidates from me. This correspondence was copied for information to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the

  345
  Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my noble Friends the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General. The selection procedure for the three UK candidate judges was a model process which, as far as we are aware, went beyond procedures in other Council of Europe countries for transparency and thoroughness.

  We decided to submit the names of the three candidates in the order of preference recommended by the panel because it believed that the rigorous national selection process had identified a clear order of suitability in respect of the three candidates. We believed it was right to reflect the results of this process in submitting the candidate list to Strasbourg. There are no rules, procedures or understandings in Strasbourg to prevent this, and 29 of the 39 states parties to the Convention submitted candidate lists, explicitly or implicitly, in order of preference.

  We considered it important to discuss these matters with the UK Parliamentary Delegation to the Council of Europe. I met the leader of the UK Parliamentary Delegation in December to discuss the list before it was sent to Strasbourg.

  We were not required to take a position on the recommendations of the Council of Europe Sub-Committee chaired by my noble Friend Lord Kirkhill, which made recommendations on the appointment of judges to the Parliamentary Assembly. Officials did however make unambiguously clear to the Council of Europe Secretariat and others outside the Parliamentary Assembly that the Government, considering the comprehensive national selection process they had undertaken, believed that the order in which the list of candidates had originally been submitted to the Committee of Ministers' Deputies in Strasbourg best represented the relative suitability of the three candidates for the post, particularly with regard to their potential contribution to the new Court.

  Officials had no contact with any individual seeking advice on how to vote in the election of the British judge. Following Protocol 11, we took the view that the election was strictly for the Parliamentary Assembly and, accordingly, neither spoke to nor lobbied any member of the Assembly about the election. Nor did the Government lobby the Chairman or members of the Sub-Committee.

  British Government officials were in touch with a number of officials in other member states of the Council of Europe, and officials in the Council of Europe Secretariat, as they are on a regular basis. UK officials also had contact with members of non-governmental organisations in the UK.

  Officials made it clear that we continued to support the candidates in the order it had been proposed, for the reasons set out in this response, but that the final selection process was entirely a matter for the Parliamentary Assembly. The UK Permanent Representative in Strasbourg took this line with members of the UK Parliamentary Delegation when the issue was raised during a meeting in Strasbourg on 20 April.

  From the large number of votes received by our first candidate, Nicolas Bratza QC, who since 1993 has been the British member of the European Commission of Human Rights, it is clear that our opinion was widely shared in the Assembly. We welcome his appointment and
  346
  wish him and his colleagues well in establishing procedures for the new Protocol 11 Court, which will be the central instrument in guaranteeing human rights in Europe.

  I will write separately to my hon. Friend with the details of the states parties that submitted their candidate lists in order of preference. A copy of the letter will be deposited in the Library of the House.

  Cuba
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Cuba. [40538]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have normal diplomatic relations with Cuba and support normal trade relations in civil goods and services. The EU' s Common Position on Cuba, binding on all Member States, enshrines the principle that constructive dialogue and co-operation, not isolation, is the best way to promote change to a pluralist democracy, and encourage respect for human rights, in Cuba.

  UK firms are encouraged to exploit the growing civil market opportunities which arise as Cuba undergoes a process of economic liberalisation. We have opened a dialogue with the Cuban Government on the issue of outstanding debt to ECGD and UK firms.

HEALTH

  Asthma
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reported cases of child asthma there have been by area health authority, in each of the last five years. [40402]

  Ms Jowell
  The information for in-patient treatment for children aged 16 years or under is contained in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library. They are based on finished consultant episodes, which represent the number of episodes of care under individual consultants. The same child may be counted more than once if they have more than one episode of care.

  There are no comprehensive data on the number of children with asthma. On the basis of all the information available, it has been estimated that
  "the prevalence of asthma sufficiently severe to require regular medical supervision is from 4–6 per cent. in children."

  This estimate is quoted in "Asthma: An Epidemiological Overview" (Central Health Monitoring Unit, 1995), which brought together a broad range of the best statistics on asthma. Copies are available in the Library.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the cost to the Health Service of treating asthma(a) nationally and (b) in London in (a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96, (c) 1996–97 and (d) 1997–98. [40155]

  Ms Jowell
  The available information about the cost of prescriptions for asthma in the community is shown in the table. Information on the other costs to the National Health Service is not available centrally for individual conditions. However, a discussion document "Burdens of
  347
  Disease" was issued in October 1996 which illustrated one approach to estimating the burdens of particular diseases on the NHS. This suggests that in 1992/3 the total cost of other, non-prescribing costs of the NHS services for treating asthma was of the order of £150 million.

  Net ingredient cost of prescriptions dispensed in the community in England and London for asthma medication, 1994 to 1996

  £ million

  Year

  England

  London

  1994

  378.9

  45.2

  1995

  410.9

  49.0

  1996

  437.5

  51.4

  Notes:

  1. The data cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors and dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England. The information was obtained from the Prescription Cost Analysis system for drugs used in the treatment of asthma contained in British National Formulary sections 3.1 (bronchodilators), 3.2 (corticosteroids) and 3.3 (Cromoglycate and related therapy). Some of the drugs may be used for the treatment of other conditions.

  2. The net ingredient cost refers to the cost of the drug before discounts and does not include any dispensing costs or fees. It does not include any adjustment for income obtained where a prescription charge is paid at the time the prescription is dispensed or where the patient has purchased a pre-payment certificate.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of nv-CJD have occurred in families which have a history of CJD. [40765]

  Ms Jowell
  None of the cases of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD) confirmed by the National CJD Surveillance Unit to date has occurred in families which have a history of CJD.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many victims of nv-CJD died in the first quarter of 1996. [40766]

  Ms Jowell: Five of the cases of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (nvCJD) so far confirmed by the National CJD Surveillance Unit died in the first quarter of 1996.

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) upon what regularly published data series he relied in making his announcement on 1 April with regard to NHS patients waiting longer than 18 months for surgery; [40461]

  (2) how many patients were waiting 18 months or longer for surgery in the NHS on (a) 19 February and (b) 1 April. [40462]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the numbers of patients awaiting admission to hospital, whether it be for surgery or some other form of treatment, and how long they had been waiting is published quarterly and shows the position at the end of the quarter. Figures showing the position on 19 February and 1 April are not therefore available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State based his announcement about the number of patients waiting longer than 18 months on 31 March on management 348
  intelligence obtained from health authorities and trusts as a special exercise. Detailed provisional figures for 31 March will be published later this month.

  Antibiotic Resistance
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of recent reports on the risks of human beings dying as a result of the development of antibiotic resistance. [40376]

  Ms Jowell
  Antibiotic resistance can complicate the treatment of some frail patients in hospital and can occasionally be life threatening. In any individual patient, it is usually very difficult to assess the contribution of antibiotic resistance on the outcome of an infection, since many of them are seriously ill from other conditions.

  Such resistance is, to some extent, an inevitable result of antibiotic use. Nevertheless, the increasing prevalence of resistant strains is something we are taking very seriously indeed. That is why we have set in hand a number of initiatives to tackle the problem of resistance, including a review of the clinical use of antibiotics and their use in the food chain.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made on the impact on the health of the population of the use of antibiotics by farmers to promote the growth of animals. [39947]

  Ms Jowell
  A working group of the independent expert Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food has been carrying out an in-depth review of the issue of antibiotic resistance in the food chain and hopes to report later this year. Views have been sought from a wide range of organisations to assist the working group in its deliberations.

  Continence Services
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budget has been allocated to continence care in real terms in each year since 1990–91 in the South and West Devon health authority area. [40761]

  Mr. Milburn
  The budget allocated to continence care in real terms in each year since 1990–91 in the South and West Devon Health Authority area is as follows. Figures are at 1997/98 outturn price levels.

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  430,000

  1991–92

  430,000

  1992–93

  430,000

  1993–94

  430,000

  1994–95

  1830,000

  1The large increase in 1994/95 is explained by the clarification of obligations by health authorities to fund continence care in nursing homes.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the NHS plans to issue national guidance on the treatment of incontinence. [40190]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Executive will conduct a review of continence policy to ensure that the most appropriate and effective continence services are
  349
  being planned and delivered. The aim will be to issue further guidance on continence services based on the conclusions of the review once it has been completed.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of funding his Department has given to voluntary organisations providing support for incontinent people in each year since 1990–91. [40191]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department runs a scheme whereby voluntary organisations operating in the health and personal social services field can apply for grants under Section 64 of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968. The following amounts have been paid under this scheme:

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  10,000

  1991–92

  nil

  1992–93

  56,250

  1993–94

  197,572

  1994–95

  164,559

  1995–96

  197,593

  1996–97

  182,492

  1997–98

  56,000

  1998–99

  54,750

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has undertaken into the number of incontinent people in the UK seeking advice and products outside the NHS. [40192]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department has not conducted any research into this specific area. However there have been four recent research studies on continence.

  The Department commissioned the Social Policy Research Unit of York University to research and produce a report on 'The Role of the Continence Advisers in England and Wales'. This was published in January 1994 and distributed to all health authorities, National Health Service trusts and continence advisers.

  Three other research projects on incontinence have recently reported:
  a feasibility study on costs, quality and effectiveness of continence services (Social Policy Research Unit, University of York);
  the development of methodologies to identify urinary incontinence and set targets for health gain (Health and Community Care Research Unit, University of Liverpool);
  evaluation of Health Interventions by Continence Services and Primary Health Care Teams on Patient Outcomes Related to Incontinence (Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Oxford).

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds have been allocated to improved continence services from the winter funding budget, following his Department's press release of 14 October 1997. [40193]

  Mr. Milburn
  An additional £159 million was allocated to health authorities in England in October 1997 to help ease pressures on the health and social care system during the winter period. This money funded some 1,500 schemes, many of which involved continence services and other services in the community.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons Parkinson's Disease is not included in the list of medical conditions exempted from prescription charges. [26198]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has to review the pre-payment certificate scheme for prescription charges in respect of those suffering chronic illness on low incomes; [40180]

  (2) if he will make the prescription charge exemption scheme for patients with chronic illnesses available to those who suffer from acute rheumatic arthritis; [40178]

  (3) if he will list the criteria for access to the prescription charge exemption scheme for long-term illness; and when he next expects to review the types of illnesses which qualify for exemption. [40179]

  Mr. Milburn
  The list of medical conditions exempt from prescription charges was agreed in 1968 following extensive discussions with the medical profession. These resulted in a limited list of readily identifiable, permanent, life-long conditions all of which require regular medication.

  All aspects of prescription charges are being examined as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review which will report in the summer. The review in the Department of Health is being undertaken in the context of our manifesto commitment:
  "if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay, or on who your general practitioner happens to be or on where you live".

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make diagnosed Sjogren's Syndrome sufferers eligible for free dental and prescription costs. [40355]

  Mr. Milburn
  All aspects of prescription and dental charges are being examined as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, which will report in the summer. The Review in the Department is being undertaken in the context of our manifesto commitment:"if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay, or on who your general practitioner happens to be or on where you live".

  Respite Services
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has issued to health authorities and community healthcare trusts following the LU Bournewood Community and Mental Health Trust judgment to prevent the sudden withdrawal of respite services to adults with severe learning difficulties without alternative provision being in place; and if he will make a statement. [40014]

  Mr. Boateng
  General guidance about the implications of the Court of Appeal judgment has been issued by the Department and by the Mental Health Act Commission. The note issued by the Commission includes discussion of the arrangements for provision of respite care for patients who lack capacity but the implications of the judgment for this group of patients are not clear and trusts
  351
  are therefore advised to seek formal legal advice. This is one of the issues that will be raised in the appeal to the House of Lords which is due to be heard in early June.

  It is for health authorities and trusts to decide locally what action they should take and whether there is a need to alter existing arrangements for respite care. I expect National Health Service managers to make every effort to ensure that any changes are implemented with minimum disruption to patients and their carers.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the meeting held on 10 March between the Chief Medical Officer and departmental officials and the BMA called to discuss the report on the therapeutic uses of cannabis. [40008]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chief Medical Officer met British Medical Association representatives to discuss future action on the BMA report "Therapeutic Uses of Cannabis" on 10 March. There was agreement on the importance of encouraging research on cannabinoids because of the potential benefits for people with multiple sclerosis and those with chronic pain, especially during terminal care. Research could take place within existing legislation and the Chief Medical Officer confirmed that the Home Office and Medicines Control Agency are prepared to look sympathetically at bona fide research proposals.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by local authority the number of local authority residential homes for the elderly(a) in 1992 and (b) at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement. [40007]

  Mr. Boateng
  Copies of a table giving the information requested have been placed in the Library.

  The independent sector has flourished during the period. Local authorities need to ensure in commissioning services, whether from the public or independent sector, that users' needs are considered, and that good quality, cost effective services are provided.

  Myasthenia Gravis
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the improvements in the purity of Pyridostigmine Bromide have resulted in improved resolutions in the medical treatment of myasthenia gravis. [40109]

  Ms Jowell
  Pyridostigmine bromide is a well established treatment for the management of myasthenia gravis. The European Pharmacopoeia specification has recently changed (with effect from 1 January 1998) and tighter and more detailed limits for impurities have been set. However, there is no reason to suppose that this would result in any improvement in the treatment of myasthenia gravis and the Medicines Control Agency has received no evidence on the effect of these improvements in the purity of pyridostigmine bromide.

  Public Health
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the 352
  impact of an increase in the price of Britain's sports facilities on the efficacy of advice given to take regular exercise. [40160]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department's advice on the benefits of physical activity does not depend on the use of special sports facilities. The main thrust of the Active for Life campaign, which is administered by the Health Education Authority, is that significant health benefits accrue from simple regular physical activity, such as walking and cycling. These activities can be built into people's normal routines and, therefore, do not require the use of special facilities.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria determine the level of provision of accident and emergency units in a given area. [40466]

  Mr. Boateng
  Health authorities and National Health Service trusts should provide an accident and emergency service which meets the needs of local people. The number and size of accident and emergency departments will therefore vary according to local circumstances.

  There is evidence that seriously ill and injured patients do better in larger departments where a high proportion of care is offered by consultant staff, with access to back-up from a range of specialist departments.

  In order to help inform local decisions the Department published in January 1997 a review of accident and emergency departments as part of the Health Care Needs Assessment series. In addition in May 1995 the Department published the "Review of Literature on Accident and Emergency Departments and Clinical Outcomes". Copies are available in the Library.

  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have died from contracting MRSA in hospital in the last 10 years. [40177]

  Ms Jowell
  Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection can take the form of many different diseases from trivial skin infections to pneumonia or septicaemia. Often the causative micro-organism is not specified on the death certificate. MRSA does not have a distinct code within the revision of the International Classification of Diseases used for encoding death registration data at the Office for National Statistics. Consequently there are no centrally held statistics on deaths from this cause.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to fund research into methods of controlling the spread of MRSA in hospitals. [40175]

  Ms Jowell
  We are considering, with the Medical Research Council and others, the need for any new research in this area and in the whole area of antimicrobial resistance, including taking account of the recommendations of the recent report of the House of Lords Committee on Science and Technology into antibiotic resistance.
  353
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many incidents of MRSA there have been in eazch of the last 10 years. [40309]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on the total number of cases of infection or colonisation with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is not collected centrally.

  National epidemiological data on MRSA are compiled by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) rather than centrally by the Department, from isolates submitted voluntarily by hospitals in England and Wales for specialist microbiological tests. From these data the number of incidents of MRSA—three or more patients infected or colonised by the same strain of MRSA in a month from the same hospital—is recorded. A table showing the number of incidents for the years 1992–1997 is given. Data before 1992 are not available.

  Year

  Number of incidents

  1992

  342

  1993

  544

  1994

  1,064

  1995

  1,616

  1996

  2,107

  1997

  11,136

  1Data for first six months only.

  The Department is currently discussing with the PHLS ways of improving surveillance systems to provide more complete data on MRSA.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to control the spread of MRSA in hospitals. [40176]

  Ms Jowell
  All hospitals have specialist infection control teams whose function is to advise on the precautions necessary to prevent the spread of infection in the individual circumstances of each hospital and according to the type of patient. The 1998/99 Priorities and Planning Guidance makes it clear that the obligations which health authorities have for communicable disease control in relation to the protection of the public health, must be fulfilled, (EL(97)39).

  Copies of current Departmental guidance to the National Health Service on the control of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and on hospital infection control, (EL(94)74,HSG(95)10) have been placed in the Library. The Department has worked closely with professional organisations on the preparation of new guidelines to the NHS on the control of MRSA, which are scheduled for issue later this year.

  Infant Formula
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines his Department has issued or intends to issue on the written information that can be made available by manufacturers on infant formula. [40312]

  Ms Jowell
  We aim to issue guidelines on donations of materials and of equipment for information and education relating to infant formula later this year.

  Rural General Practitioners
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the costs of the dispensing of medicines by rural GP practices in the last year for which figures are available. [40317]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the dispensing costs by rural general practitioner practices only is not available. However, the costs associated with prescriptions dispensed by doctors in England in 1997–98 are shown in the table. This includes items administered personally such as influenza vaccines as well as items dispensed by dispensing general practitioners.

  Payments made for prescriptions dispensed by doctors, 1997–98 England

  £ million

  1997–98

  Basic price

  291.4

  Discount

  26.9

  On cost allowance

  30.6

  Percentage addition to basic price

  —

  Fees

  32.8

  Container allowance

  1.3

  Total payment oxygen

  0.1

  VAT

  38.3

  Total cost

  367.6

  Notes:

  1. Information obtained from the Prescription Pricing Authority form PD1(A)DD.

  2. The information relates to prescriptions dispensed in the periods February to January, most of which are paid in the periods April to March.

  3. The information includes items personally administered by dispensing doctors.

  Community Hospitals
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 431, if he will now announce his decision on the proposals for service changes put forward by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority. [40421]

  Mr. Milburn
  The importance of this issue to local people is recognised, and it requires careful consideration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making a decision at the earliest opportunity on the proposals for service changes put forward by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority.

  Medical Devices Agency
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the key targets for 1998–99 for the Medical Devices Agency. [40926]

  Ms Jowell
  We have agreed the Agency's key targets for 1998–99, and placed copies in the Library.

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have multiple sclerosis in(a) Coventry and (b) the West Midlands. [40227]

  Mr. Boateng
  Multiple sclerosis is not a notifiable disease and therefore no register is kept of the number of patients in Coventry Health Authority or the West Midlands.
  355
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of treatment for those with multiple sclerosis in(a) the West Midlands and (b) England. [40228]

  Mr. Boateng
  The National Health Service provides a wide range of services to which people with multiple sclerosis have access, and such patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialties. Patients can discuss the options available to them with their general practitioner, and they may also request an assessment of their needs 356
  by local authority social services departments. It is currently up to health authorities and GP fundholders to assess the needs of their local population and commission services appropriately.

  The "New NHS" White Paper sets out a clear vision of the kind of NHS to which we are committed—a truly national service which has quality at its heart. We want to improve quality through a range of initiatives which will drive up standards of care in those areas where they are lacking.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Asylum Seekers
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions are given to immigration officers on how to identify an unaccompanied child seeking asylum in the absence of documentary evidence about the child's age. [39857]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Immigration officers identify unaccompanied minors by appearance and demeanour in making an initial assessment. Where there is no independent evidence of age, the burden of proof rests with the applicant to show that he/she is under 18, although the Immigration Service errs on the side of caution when age is in dispute.

  There are currently no specific guidelines to immigration officers on the identification of minors, but the drafting of such guidelines is under consideration.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences were committed by

  Table 1: Crime against adults and domestic property committed by school aged children (under 16)

  Proportions (%)

  Contact crime against people aged 16 or over

  Theft

  Vandalism

  All BCS offences

  Proportion of BCS incidents in which victim could say anything about offender

  99

  24

  36

  43

  Proportion of the above where victim said offender was of school age (under 16)1

  10

  21

  55

  21

  1If more than one offender, at least one was of school age.

  Notes:

  Contact crime comprises: wounding, common assault, robbery and snatch theft.

  Theft comprises: theft from the person, burglary, other household theft, thefts of and from vehicles—all including attempted thefts. Vandalism includes damage to vehicles and household property.

  Source:

  1996 British Crime Survey. Weighted data.

  Table 2: Number and proportion of persons cautioned or convicted at all courts by age group and type of offence, 1996

  England and Wales

  000

  Aged under 16

  All ages

  Type of offence

  Number

  Percentage

  [=-100%]

  Indictable

  68.1

  14

  489.9

  Summary non-motoring

  25.1

  4

  581.3

  Summary motoring

  1.1

  0.2

  640.6

  Total

  94.2

  6

  1,711.8

  Source:

  Cautions and Court Proceedings databases

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if references to imprisonment in section 9 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 include(a) detention in a young offender institution and (b) detention and training. [40188]
  358
  children under the age of 16 years in England and Wales (a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the total number of crimes committed. [40124]

  Mr. Michael
  Information reported by the police on notifiable offences does not include details on the offenders themselves. However, some information on the number and proportion of offences committed by children under 16 is available from the British Crime Survey (BCS) and the Cautions and Court Proceedings databases.

  The BCS information is given in table 1. The survey measures the extent of crime against adults and private households and gives victims' assessments of the age of offenders. For contact crimes—mugging and other violence—this will be fairly accurate. For other types of crime, the victim often cannot say anything at all about the culprit so the BCS findings will not be an accurate representation of the proportion of all domestic crime that is committed by children under the age of 16.

  The information from the Cautions and Court Proceedings databases on cautions and convictions is given in table 2.

  Mr. Michael
  In answer to(a), for the purposes of section 9 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, references to imprisonment do include detention in a young offender institution. By virtue of clause 97 of the Crime and Disorder Bill, currently before Parliament, which inserts a new section 9A in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, the crediting of remand time measures in section 9 of that Act will apply to sentences of detention in a young offender institution.

  In answer to (b), section 9 of the 1997 Act will not apply to sentences of detention under the new detention and training order. Instead, clause 70(6) of the Crime and Disorder Bill states that, in determining the term of a detention and training order for an offence, the court shall take account of any period for which the offender has been remanded in custody in connection with the offence, or any other offence the charge for which was founded on the same facts or evidence. The purpose of these different remand time arrangements in respect of the detention and training order is to ensure that a period of custody under the new order is sufficient to allow constructive

  359
  engagement with the young offender rather than the application of the section 9 direction, which might result in impractical very short periods in custody.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many young persons aged over 18 years and under 21 years were held in adult prison accommodation at the most recent available date. [40189]

  Ms Quin
  The latest available provisional information is for 31 March 1998. On that date, 1,150 males aged 18–20 years were held in adult prisons. All are normally accommodated separately from adult prisoners.

  There are no separate young offender institutions for young women but they are held in designated accommodation operating under Young Offender Institution rules within adult establishments. On 31 March, there were 358 females aged 18–20 years in prisons in England and Wales.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners completed(a) programmes accepted by his Department as being effective in reducing re-offending and (b) the sex offender treatment programme, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [40027]

  Ms Quin
  Since 1996, the Prison Service has been accrediting offending behaviour programmes where research evidence exists that such programmes are effective in reducing offending behaviour. The numbers prior to 1996 relate to programmes which were subsequently accredited.

  Sex offender treatment programme (SOTP)

  Number

  SOTP Core Programme

  1993–94

  439

  1994–95

  554

  1995–96

  406

  1996–97

  564

  1997–98

  1533

  SOTP Booster/Relapse Prevention

  1995–96

  33

  1996–97

  116

  1997–98

  1138

  Cognitive Skills

  Reasoning and Rehabilitation

  1993–94

  63

  1994–95

  44

  1995–96

  115

  1996–97

  190

  1997–87

  1405

  Enhanced Thinking Skills

  1993–94

  46

  1994–95

  241

  1995–96

  631

  1996–97

  580

  1997–98

  11,164

  1Provisional figures

  360
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average amount of time spent by(a) sentenced and (b) remand prisoners (i) in their cells, (ii) on education and other projects, (iii) working and (iv) on recreation; and if he will make a statement. [40076]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service does not monitor activity time or the time prisoners are unlocked by type of prisoner.

  (i) The Prison Service monitors the time that is available for prisoners to spend out of their cell, based on normal prison routines, rather than actual time that prisoners spend in their cell. At the end of February 1998, the average amount of time that prisoners spent unlocked was 10.9 hours per day on weekdays and 9.7 hours per day at weekends.

  (ii) In 1997–98, prisoners on average spent 4.2 hours per week in educational activity. This includes day-time and evening education, vocational, construction and industrial training.

  (iii) In 1997–98, prisoners on average spent 13.2 hours per week engaged in work. This includes support to works and maintenance staff around the prison, workshops, farms, gardens, kitchen and other domestic work.

  (iv) In 1997–98, prisoners on average spent 28.5 hours per week in recreation. Recreation covers time spent unlocked and able to participate in structured recreational or leisure activities, including mealtimes taken in association.

  All data for 1997–98 are still provisional but are not expected to change significantly.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were released from Prison Service custody in each of the three most recent years for which figures are available. [40082]

  Ms Quin
  Information on the number of persons discharged from determinate sentences in England and Wales, 1995–97 is given in the table.

  Year

  Number discharged from determinate sentences1

  1995

  59,810

  1996

  63,650

  19972

  68,500

  1 Excludes discharge following recall after release on Licence, non-criminals and fine defaulters.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Information regarding the number of persons discharged from determinate sentences in 1995 and 1996 is published in successive volumes of "Prison statistics, England and Wales" (tables 3.14, 4.12 and 5.11 of the 1996 edition, Cm 3732), copies of which are in the Library.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average amount of time spent by prisoners on(a) education, (b) vocational training, (c) Prison Service employment and (d) employment involving sale of products or services to the private sector in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97 and (iii) 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [40220]
  361
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]The total time spent by prisoners on education from the calendar year 1995 to date is detailed in table A.

  Comparable statistics for vocational training are not available. There is a wide range of accredited vocational and educational courses at various levels available which range from Associated Examination Board Basic Skills Tests in English and Arithmetic, through Wordpower and

  Table A

  Education provision for prisoners 1995–1998

  Year

  Hours of student study

  % reduction on previous year

  Teaching hours bought

  % reduction on previous year

  Average class size

  1995

  9,413,457

  —

  1,245,580

  —

  7.56

  1996

  8,947,305

  4.95

  1,169,717

  6.09

  7.65

  1997

  8,879,747

  0.75

  1,119,589

  4.28

  8

  1998 (to date)

  2,177,464

  —

  283,962

  —

  7.6

  Table B

  Time spent by prisoners in constructive activity 1995/96–1997/98

  Activity

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Works

  14.3

  13.5

  13.2

  Education

  5.0

  4.3

  4.2

  (of which vocational, construction and industrial training courses)

  1.4

  1.2

  1.1

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners are presently employed on work which involves payments from the private sector for services or products provided; and if he will make a statement. [40219]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]The total number of prisoners presently employed on work involving payment from the private sector is 3,334.

  Prisons
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria the Prison Service uses to allocate resources to individual prisons. [40019]

  Ms Quin
  Operational Directors and their area managers determine the budgets for individual establishments within the overall budget for each operational directorate. Budget proposals are discussed with each governor on the basis of the establishment's proposed strategic plan. Criteria include: planned changes in prisoner numbers or types of prisoner; changes in property requirements, for example, on security or drug treatment; local pressures or factors; and the comparative efficiency of each establishment, as indicated by cost comparisons between prisons, which are produced centrally.

  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the methodology used by his Department to compare the cost of public and private prisons; if he will publish details of the latest comparison; to what factors he attributes the differences in costs; and if he will make a statement. [40081]

  Ms Quin
  The methodology used to compare the cost of publicly and privately managed prisons was developed by Coopers & Lybrand for their Review of Comparative Costs and Performance of Privately and Publicly Operated
  362
  Numberpower to GCSE and GNVQs, and there has been a significant rise in the number of prisoners taking them. There is also a wide range of training for work.

  The total time spent by prisoners on the sale of products and services to the private sector in 1997–98 is 78,750 hours per week. Figures are not available for earlier years.

  The average hours spent each week by prisoners on constructive activities are given in table B.

  Prisons (1996) and has been used in subsequent studies carried out by the Home Office. The latest study, by the Home Office Offenders and Corrections Unit, covered 1996–97. It showed that the cost difference had narrowed and the costs of privately managed prisons were 8 per cent. to 15 per cent. lower than the public sector. The report was published in December 1997 and copies placed in the Library.

  The Prison Service carried out a separate study of the reasons for the cost difference which showed it was due primarily to lower average staff costs and fewer staff per prisoner in privately managed prisons. Contributory factors included lower salaries and pension costs, a longer working week, shorter holidays and lower levels of sick absence. Copies of this report have been placed in the Library.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of service level agreements by the Prison Service; and if he will give details of those service level agreements currently in operation. [40080]

  Ms Quin
  The one service level agreement in operation within the Prison Service is at Her Majesty's Prison Manchester. There has been a service level agreement between the Prison Service and the in-house management team since January 1994. The current agreement runs until 15 October 2001, with an option to extend until 6 March 2008.

  The Prison Service Review, published in October 1997, recommended the more widespread use of service level agreements of the type used at Her Majesty's Prison Manchester. The Prison Service is now planning how such arrangements might be introduced into other directly managed prisons as a means of improving the level of service and value for money across the prison estate. Initially this would take the form of pilot schemes in 1999–2000.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the effect of
  363
  the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] on the projected prison population statistics; and if he will make a statement. [40022]

  Ms Quin
  The Crime and Disorder Bill aims to reduce crime and disorder and to speed up justice. It provides for demanding new community penalties for young offenders and for drug-misusing offenders. As such, its overall effect should be to reduce the need for imprisonment. However, the legislation's impact on the prison population will largely depend on the independent sentencing decisions of the courts.

  The Home Detention Curfew provisions will have a direct impact on the prison population.

  If around half of the eligible prisoners are assessed as suitable this would result in around 4,000 prisoners being released under Home Detention Curfew at any one time and produce a reduction of around 3,000 in the estimated number of prison places required by the Prison Service.

  Prisoners on Licence
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions have been recorded under section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 since the commencement of that Act. [40186]

  Mr. Michael
  Section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 deals with the breach of licences by short-term prisoners and states:

  (1) A short-term prisoner—

  (a) who is released on licence under Part II—Early Release of Prisoners; and

  (b) who fails to comply with such conditions as may for the time being be specified in the licence, shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

  (2) The magistrates' court by which a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1) above may, whether or not it passes any other sentence on him—

  (a) suspend the licence for a period not exceeding six months; and

  (b) order him to be recalled to prison for the period during which the licence is so suspended.

  (3) On the suspension of the licence of any person under this section, he shall be liable to be detained in pursuance of his sentence and, if at large, shall be deemed to be unlawfully at large.

  The information requested in given in the table.

  Number of offenders convicted for an offence1 under Section 382,3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, 1992–96.

  England and Wales

  Convictions

  1992

  9

  1993

  64

  1994

  216

  1995

  350

  1996

  490

  1 Convictions for principal and non-principal offences given.

  2 An Offence of "failure by short-term prisoner to comply with licence conditions".

  3 S38 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 came into force on 1 October 1992.

  364
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times the Parole Board has exercised its powers in relation to the release on licence of prisoners under section 37(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. [40187]

  Ms Quin
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the average cost to public funds of the imprisonment of fine defaulters in each of the last three years.[40020]

  Ms Quin
  The Prison Service does not calculate the cost of imprisonment by offence type. The average net operating cost per place in each of the last three years is:

  1994–95: £23,900;

  1995–96: £24,200; and

  1996–97: £24,800.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce the proposed new fire safety legislation following the publication of the 1996 fire statistics; and if he will specify a timetable for its introduction. [40204]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The 1996 fire statistics reveal a worrying continuation of the upward trend in fires, deaths and casualties in the home. Most of these fires are accidental and should be prevented. That is why the Government and the fire service recognise the urgent need to refocus on fire prevention. We announced our new strategy to reverse the upward trend in domestic fires, deaths and injuries in reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), on 7 April 1998,Official Report, column 177. We accepted, with the strong endorsement of the fire service, the recommendation of the Community Fire Safety Task Force that community fire safety should be made a statutory duty of the fire service. We are currently considering the precise terms and nature of such a duty.

  In reply to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), on 8 April 1998, Official Report, column 254, we also announced that we have decided to proceed with a thorough overhaul of fire safety legislation, although some difficult areas, such as houses in multiple occupation and licensed premises, require more detailed discussion. We will now work up the detail of the proposals in close co-operation with interested parties. Subject to clear evidence of the cost effectiveness of the proposals, we aim to legislate as soon as practicable.

  Paul Magee
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what conditions about early release have been agreed with the Irish Government in respect of the proposed transfer of Paul Magee, convicted in 1993 of the murder of Special Constable Glenn Goodman; [40332]
  365
  (2) if he intends to recommend to the Irish Government that Paul Magee, convicted in 1993 of the murder of a police officer, should serve a minimum term of imprisonment following his proposed transfer to a prison in Ireland. [40333]

  Ms Quin
  Agreement was given to Paul Magee's application for repatriation to the Republic of Ireland on the basis of undertakings from the Irish authorities that his sentence would continue to be enforced and that he could therefore normally expect to serve a period similar to that which he could expect to serve if he remained here. These undertakings are subject to the Northern Ireland political agreement reached on 10 April under which both the British and Irish Governments have undertaken to put in place mechanisms for the early release of qualifying prisoners.

  Rural Policing
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors are taken into account when determining the level of Government support grant for constabularies in remoter rural areas. [40598]

  Mr. Michael
  Under the police funding formula, 0.5 per cent. of available resources are allocated on the basis of population sparsity. I have recently commissioned external research into the additional costs, if any, of policing sparsely populated rural areas. The results of this research will be available to inform the police settlement in 2000/2001.

  Police per 1,000 of population

  Police Force

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Avon and Somerset

  2.1

  2.06

  2.04

  2.04

  2.03

  Bedfordshire

  2.13

  2.07

  2.07

  1.99

  1.97

  Cambridgeshire

  1.85

  1.84

  1.78

  1.85

  1.84

  Cheshire

  1.96

  1.98

  2.04

  2.09

  2.07

  Cleveland

  2.55

  2.57

  2.54

  2.61

  2.65

  City of London

  227.6

  169.5

  167.3

  165.8

  161.4

  Cumbria

  2.40

  2.38

  2.27

  2.33

  2.37

  Derbyshire

  1.91

  1.88

  1.84

  1.86

  1.83

  Devon & Cornwall

  1.91

  1.88

  1.88

  1.86

  1.89

  Dorset

  1.94

  1.91

  1.86

  1.88

  1.88

  Durham

  2.28

  2.23

  2.31

  2.4

  2.43

  Dyfed-Powys

  2.05

  2.06

  2.09

  2.11

  2.11

  Essex

  1.97

  1.95

  1.92

  1.96

  1.94

  Gloucestershire

  2.13

  2.12

  2.05

  2.04

  1.99

  Greater Manchester

  2.7

  2.73

  2.69

  2.69

  2.68

  Gwent

  2.21

  2.20

  2.31

  2.23

  2.21

  Hampshire

  1.9

  1.88

  1.92

  1.97

  1.99

  Hertfordshire

  1.98

  2.0

  1.99

  2.04

  2.01

  Humberside

  2.31

  2.28

  2.3

  2.31

  2.29

  Kent

  2.04

  2.02

  2.01

  2.09

  2.13

  Lancashire

  2.23

  2.26

  2.22

  2.28

  2.3

  Leicestershire

  2.0

  2.01

  2.07

  2.1

  2.11

  Lincolnshire

  2.0

  1.98

  1.87

  1.94

  1.93

  Merseyside

  3.26

  3.25

  3.09

  2.98

  2.97

  Metropolitan Police

  3.73

  3.69

  3.65

  3.53

  3.49

  Norfolk

  1.89

  1.82

  1.81

  1.84

  1.85

  North Wales

  2.06

  2.08

  2.09

  2.09

  2.09

  North Yorkshire

  1.83

  1.79

  1.81

  1.82

  1.88

  Northamptonshire

  1.98

  1.94

  1.92

  1.95

  1.95

  Northumbria

  2.49

  2.5

  2.55

  2.56

  2.57

  Nottinghamshire

  2.26

  2.25

  2.25

  2.25

  2.25

  South Wales

  2.36

  2.27

  2.27

  2.41

  2.43

  South Yorkshire

  2.31

  2.33

  2.36

  2.42

  2.42

  Staffordshire

  2.1

  2.12

  2.09

  2.09

  2.11

  Suffolk

  1.87

  1.83

  1.73

  1.78

  1.81

  Prostitution
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the maximum sentence for causing or encouraging the prostitution of girls under the age of 16 years; and if he will make a statement. [39978]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 29 April 1998]The maximum penalty for causing or encouraging the prostitution of girls under 16 is two years imprisonment. The Government are sympathetic to the case for increasing the maximum penalty for those who cause child prostitution, which needs to be considered in the context of the whole range of offences and penalties which deal with prostitution and related offences rather than in isolation.

  Police
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers per 1,000 population there were for each police force in each of the past five years. [40592]

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

  The population figures are those provided by the Office for National Statistics. For 1997–98, the population figures used are the same as for 1996–97 (mid 1996) as mid 1997 population figures will not be available until later this year.
  367

  Police per 1,000 of population

  Police Force

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Surrey

  2.17

  2.17

  2.12

  2.09

  2.07

  Sussex

  2.09

  2.02

  2.1

  2.1

  2.07

  Thames Valley

  1.95

  1.91

  1.79

  1.79

  1.79

  Warwickshire

  2.12

  2.04

  1.96

  1.85

  1.83

  West Mercia

  1.86

  1.83

  1.81

  1.82

  1.82

  West Midlands

  2.66

  2.67

  2.71

  2.69

  2.68

  West Yorkshire

  2.4

  2.4

  2.44

  2.47

  2.49

  Wiltshire

  2.17

  2.15

  2.06

  1.95

  1.97

  Average

  2.45

  2.43

  2.41

  2.4

  2.4

  Note:

  1. Police numbers used for 1997–98 are those for September 1997, the latest available.

  Small Claims
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the Prison Service to make a report to him on the use by prisoners of small claims court procedures; and if he will make a statement. [40118]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 20 April 1998,Official Report, columns 515–16. I have asked Prison Service officials to give further consideration to the current arrangements for prisoners to use small claims court procedures and to advise on the need for any changes.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what resources have been made available to the Probation Service in each of the last five years. [39499]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  Current and capital probation grant and credit approvals to local authorities

  Capital expenditure probation and bail hostels

  Current expenditure probation and bail hostels

  1993–94

  308.1

  3.1

  26.2

  1994–95

  324.7

  4.1

  23.7

  1995–96

  338.4

  3.0

  26.0

  1996–97

  349.5

  2.4

  23.9

  1997–98

  346.5

  3.1

  24.8

  Police IT Security Strategy
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the police forces in England and Wales have an IT security strategy; and what action his Department is taking to encourage the development of such strategies. [40360]

  Mr. Michael
  It is the responsibility of individual chief officers to ensure that their forces maintain appropriate Information Technology (IT) security measures.
  368
  Information is not held centrally to show whether all police forces in England and Wales have an IT security strategy. However, all forces have been issued with the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Code of Practice for Data Protection and the ACPO Data Protection Audit Manual. These establish procedures and safeguards to promote the maintenance of good practice and compliance with data protection legislation. A copy of the Code of Practice is already in the Library; I am also placing there a copy of the Audit Manual.

  The Police Information Technology Organisation (a Home Office Non-Departmental Public Body since 1 April of this year) has separately issued to forces the Police National Computer (PNC) System Security Policy, Code of Connection. Police Information Technology Organisation is also working with the ACPO IT Committee to develop an overarching security policy to reflect the increasing need to exchange data between the police and other criminal justice agencies.

  Finally, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary reviews data protection management in forces as part of its regular inspections.

  Norwich Prison
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the budget allocation per prisoner in Norwich prison in each of the years 1992 to 1998. [40250]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]The information requested is given in the table.

  Norwich prison 1992–93—1998–99

  Year

  Total budget

  Average population

  Allocation Per prisoner

  1992–93

  9,701,346

  464

  20,908

  1993–94

  11,372,099

  416

  27,337

  1994–95

  12,034,122

  391

  30,778

  1995–96

  11,516,483

  348

  33,093

  1996–97

  12,061,866

  490

  24,616

  1997–98

  11,930,600

  715

  16,686

  1998–99

  11,939,030

  707

  16,887

  Prisoners (Halal Meat)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons provide halal meat for Muslim inmates. [40439]
  369
  Ms Quin
  Halal meat is available via a central call off contract for all penal establishments to use as and when necessary. Of the 74 prisons currently purchasing from the call off contract, 43 are purchasing some halal meat.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of halal meat provided in prisons was derived from animals which had been stunned before slaughter in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [40437]

  Ms Quin
  The information requested is not available.

  Human Rights Protocol
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the United Kingdom has not ratified the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights enabling individual petition to the Human Rights Committee. [40364]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]The Government announced on 3 July 1997 that they intended to review the United Kingdom's position under various international human rights instruments, including whether to accept the right of individuals to submit complaints to the United Nations Human Rights Committee under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The review is in progress and the outcome will be announced when conclusions have been reached.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the United Kingdom has not ratified Protocol 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. [40368]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]Protocol 9 has been superseded by Protocol 11, which establishes the new permanent Court of Human Rights. The United Kingdom has ratified Protocol 11 and it will come into force on 1 November 1998.

  UN Torture Convention
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the United

  British nationals subject to deportation action, 1990–19971

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19942

  19952

  1996

  1997

  British Overseas citizens

  Notice of intention to deport issued and court recommendations for deportation made

  —

  —

  5

  5

  5

  5

  3—

  5

  Deportation orders made

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Deportation orders enforced

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3—

  3—

  —

  Other British nationals4

  Notice of intention to deport issued and court recommendations for deportation made

  70

  70

  105

  70

  70

  65

  50

  35

  Deportation orders made

  10

  10

  15

  5

  20

  25

  15

  3—

  Deportation orders enforced

  5

  5

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  5

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Revised figures.

  3 Denotes 1 or 2.

  4 British Dependent Territories citizens, British Nationals (Overseas), British subjects and British Protected Persons.

  370
  Kingdom has not made a Declaration under Article 22 of the UN Convention against Torture enabling individual petition to the Committee under the terms of the Convention. [40367]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]The Government announced on 3 July 1997 that we intend to review the United Kingdom's position under various international human rights instruments. This includes the right of individuals to submit complaints to the United Nations Committee Against Torture. The review is in progress and the outcome will be announced when conclusions have been reached.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason the United Kingdom has not made a Declaration under Article 21 of the UN Convention against Torture recognising the competence of the Committee to consider a complaint under the Convention against the United Kingdom from another state. [40366]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 30 April 1998]The United Kingdom made a Declaration under Article 21 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture upon ratification of the Convention on 8 December 1988.

  Deportations
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) decisions have been made to deport, (b) deportation orders have been signed and (c) deportation orders have been enforced against (i) British overseas citizens and (ii) other British nationals who are not British citizens in each year since 1990; to which countries it has been proposed to deport these people; and how many such people against whom deportation orders were made left the country voluntarily. [40395]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table. I regret that comprehensive information regarding the proposed removal destination for those persons under the deportation process is not available. No British Overseas citizens or other British nationals made a voluntarily or supervised departure during 1994–1997 following the making of deportation orders against them; the equivalent information relating to 1990–1993 is available only at disproportionate cost.
  371

  Immigration
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom outside the immigration rules due to compelling compassionate circumstances in each of the past five years; and when, and according to what criteria, they are expected to be granted indefinite leave to remain. [40404]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that information on this particular reason for granting leave to remain is not collected separately. Any further applications from persons who have been exceptionally granted leave to remain on compassionate grounds are considered in the light of the particular circumstances at that time and of any concessionary policy under which the original leave may have been given.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) British overseas citizens and (b) other British nationals who are subject to United Kingdom immigration controls have been refused leave to enter the United Kingdom by the Immigration Service at the port of entry in each year since 1995; how many of these people (i) were granted temporary admission and (ii) are still in the United Kingdom on temporary admission; and to which countries his Department proposes to send them. [40405]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information is given in the table. I regret that information on the nationality of persons granted temporary admission is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Persons refused leave to enter the United Kingdom are removed to the country whence they embarked, or of which they are a national or citizen, or in which they have obtained a passport or other document of identity, or a country or territory to which there is reason to believe they will be admitted.

  Passengers refused leave to enter and removed, 1995–97

  Year

  British Overseas Citizens1

  Other British nationals2

  1995

  123

  39

  1996

  139

  50

  1997

  121

  40

  1 Comprises British Overseas citizens, British Dependent Territories citizens (BDTCs) where the territory is not recorded, British Protected Persons and British Subjects. Other BDTCs (excluding those from Hong Kong, see footnote 2) are not separately identifiable.

  2 Comprises British Dependent Territories citizens from Hong Kong and British Nationals (Overseas).

  Note:

  1997 data are provisional.

  Montserrat
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Montserratians have been admitted to the United Kingdom since the emergency to date; under what circumstances they will be asked to return to Montserrat; and, for those permitted to remain, when his Department will make them a grant of settlement. [40406]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  3,543 Monserratians had been admitted to the United Kingdom as evacuees by the end of March. We have made clear that we would not expect 372
  evacuees to return in the current circumstances. We hope to make an announcement about their future immigration status shortly.

  Sentencing Policy
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had since 1 May 1997 with the Association of Chief Officers of Probation on alternatives to custody; and if he will make a statement. [40820]

  Ms Quin
  Home Office Ministers have had a number of meetings with the Association of Chief Officers of Probation over the past year, in which we have discussed ways of improving the effectiveness and credibility of the current range of community sentences, the new sentences for which the Crime and Disorder Bill provides and the Association's suggestions for adding further sentencing options.

  British Horseracing Board
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of his latest meeting with the British Horseracing Board. [40539]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 7 April 1998,Official Report, column 176. We will meet the British Horseracing Board at a mutually convenient time.

  Full Sutton Prison
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the causes of and (b) the methods of dealing with the disturbances at Full Sutton Prison during the week of 25 April. [40541]

  Ms Quin
  At 6.20 pm on 26 April, 32 prisoners on D Wing of Full Sutton prison refused to return to their cells and instead barricaded themselves into the communal association room. Control and restraint trained staff from five other prisons were called to assist Full Sutton, and the police and other emergency services notified as a matter of routine. Despite the efforts of staff to open a dialogue, the prisoners refused to co-operate. At 11.27 pm, in the absence of any sign of the disturbance ending, and with evidence of damage being caused to the room, prison staff commenced an operation to regain control of the area. This was achieved successfully shortly thereafter.

  Five staff sustained minor injuries during the incident; seven prisoners also received slight injury. All the prisoners involved have been transferred to other prisons. The police are conducting a criminal investigation into the matter, and charges under prison discipline rules have also been laid against all the prisoners concerned.

  The Director General has appointed a senior governor from Prison Service headquarters to undertake an inquiry into the incident. Until this inquiry is complete, I am unable to comment on the possible causes of the disturbance. However, I will write to the hon. Member once I have considered the inquiry report.

  Fines
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total sum raised by(a) court-imposed fines and (b) police-imposed fines, in each of the last five years for which figures are available; what was the total value of defaulted fines in each of the last five years; and what percentage of fine defaulters were imprisoned in each of the last five years. [40075]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  Details of the sums raised by court imposed fines and road traffic fixed penalties, in each of the last five years, are shown in the table. The total value of fines written off as irrecoverable is also shown, as is the level of arrears. Information on fine defaulters imprisoned is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Table 2 shows the number of fine defaulters imprisoned in each of the last five calender years.

  Table 1: Fines

  £ million

  Year

  Fines1

  Fixed Penalties

  Fines Written-off2

  Fine Arrears3

  1992–93

  186.2

  34.0

  23.6

  186.2

  1993–94

  142.6

  79.7

  32.6

  212.9

  1994–95

  147.6

  65.8

  33.4

  223.2

  1995–96

  150.4

  60.8

  29.6

  240.1

  1996–97

  144.3

  72.9

  51.7

  248.1

  1997–98

  4114.8

  552.4

  647.1

  7269.4

  1 Includes road traffic fixed penalties enforced as fines.

  2 See note 1.

  3 See note 1. Include sums payable by instalment where the payment is not yet due as well as sums subject to enforcement.

  4 To 31 December 1997.

  5 See note 4.

  6 Provisional full year figure.

  7 See note 4.

  Table 2: Imprisoned fine defaulters1

  Year

  Males

  Females

  Total

  1993

  21,097

  1,306

  22,403

  1994

  21,015

  1,454

  22,469

  1995

  18,787

  1,370

  20,157

  1996

  8,094

  461

  8,555

  1997

  5,964

  372

  6,336

  1 Aged 18 and over.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support (MIRAS Reduction)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when homebuyers receiving income support will receive an increase in their assistance with mortgage interest to reflect the reduction in MIRAS implemented in April. [40226]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of Income Support is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  374
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 30 April 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking when homebuyers receiving Income Support (IS) will receive an increase in their assistance with mortgage interest to reflect the cut in Mortgage Interest Relief At Source (MIRAS) implemented in April.
  MIRAS was reduced from 15% to 10% with effect from 6 April 1998. IS customers who receive assistance with their mortgages and are eligible for MIRAS automatically received an increase in their benefit from 6 April 1998, in line with the routine uprating of social security benefits.
  I hope that this clarifies the situation.

  Poverty (Children)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many children are living in households whose income is below half the national average; and how many of these are aged(a) 0 to 4, (b) 5 to 10, (c) 11 to 16 and (d) 17 years or above in respect of (i) one and (ii) two parent families; [40486]

  (2) how many benefit units containing dependent children are living in households whose income is below half the national average; and in what proportion of these is the youngest child aged (a) 0 to 4, (b) 5 to 10, (c) 11 to 16 and (d) 17 years or above in respect of (i) one and (ii) two parent families. [40487]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is set out in the tables.

  Distribution of children in Great Britain in households whose income is below half the national average by age and family type

  Thousand

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Age of child

  One parent family

  Two parent family

  One parent family

  Two parent family

  0 to 4

  190

  500

  460

  710

  5 to 10

  370

  720

  640

  900

  11 to 16

  290

  620

  460

  740

  17 or over

  30

  70

  40

  90

  All children

  870

  1,920

  1,590

  2,430

  There are an estimated 2.8 million and 4.0 million children in Great Britain living in households, including those headed by a self-employed person, whose income is below half the national average before and after housing costs respectively.

  Proportion of benefit units containing children in Great Britain living in households whose income is below half the national average by age of youngest child and family type

  Percentage

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Age of youngest child

  One parent family

  Two parent family

  One parent family

  Two parent family

  0 to 4

  37

  42

  45

  46

  5 to 10

  41

  34

  37

  32

  11 to 16

  20

  22

  17

  19

  17 or over

  2

  2

  1

  2

  All benefit units (numbers)

  420,000

  850,000

  840,000

  1,110,000

  There are an estimated 1.3 and 1.9 million benefit units containing children in Great Britain living in households, including those headed by a self-employed person, whose income is below half the national average before and after housing costs respectively.
  375

  Distribution of children in Great Britain living in households whose income is below half the national average by age and family type

  Thousand

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Age of child

  One parent family

  Two parent family

  One parent family

  Two parent family

  0 to 4

  140

  360

  420

  540

  5 to 10

  310

  520

  610

  680

  11 to 16

  240

  460

  430

  540

  17 or over

  30

  50

  30

  50

  All children

  720

  1,390

  1,500

  1,820

  There are an estimated 2.1 and 3.3 million children in Great Britain living in households, excluding those headed by a self-employed person, whose income is below half the national average before and after housing costs respectively.

  Proportion of benefit units containing children in Great Britain living in households whose income is below half the national average by age of youngest child and family type

  Percentage

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Age of youngest child

  One parent family

  Two parent family

  One parent family

  Two parent family

  0 to 4

  35

  44

  45

  49

  5 to 10

  43

  34

  37

  32

  11 to 16

  20

  20

  17

  17

  17 or over

  3

  2

  1

  2

  All benefit units (numbers)

  340,000

  590,000

  790,000

  810,000

  There are an estimated 0.9 and 1.6 million benefit units containing children in Great Britain living in households, excluding those headed by a self-employed person, whose income is below half the national average before and after housing costs respectively.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for 1995–96.

  2. The data come from the Department's Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series, based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and covering Great Britain. All results are subject to sampling error, and numbers may not sum due to rounding.

  3. Income definition is that used in the published series from FRS based Households Below Average Income (HBAI) data.

  4. The reasons for using FRS based data are that time series information is not required and the FRS has a large enough sample to provide robust information.

  5. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised income. The figures are given both before and after housing costs in line with usual HBAI practice.

  6. The income measures for the self-employed are inherently uncertain, particularly at the bottom of the income distribution. For this reason, results are presented both including and excluding the full-time self-employed. The latter excludes children in benefit units which contain one or more adults who normally work self-employed for 30 or more hours a week.

  7. A child is defined as an individual aged under 16 or an unmarried 16 to 18 year old on a course up to and including 'A' level standard.

  8. Numbers are given to the nearest 10,000 but because the figures come from a sample survey they are not accurate to this degree.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the income limits for invalid care allowances were last revised; and what these limits would be if they had been revised in line with the rise in(a) earnings and (b) prices. [39444]

  Mr. Denham
  The current earnings limit of £50.00 for Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) was introduced on 12 April 1993. If this was revised it would be £59.85 if it had been uprated in line with the rise in earnings and £57.20 if uprated in line with the rise in prices.
  376
  The original earnings limit of £6.00 for ICA was introduced on 12 April 1976. This limit would be £37.25 if uprated by earnings and £26.40 if uprated by prices.

  Notes:

  1. The Retail Prices Index (All Items) and the Average Earnings Index (Whole Economy) as produced by the Office for National Statistics was used in these calculations.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating.

  3. The rules on expenses which can be deducted from earnings changed in November 1996.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if the full membership of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board had access to the final amended report on the future of disability living allowance and attendance allowance before its publication on 12 March; [40760]

  (2) on how many occasions and on what dates the full membership of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board discussed the report on the future of disability living allowance and attendance allowance before its publication on 12 March. [40759]

  Mr. Denham
  The Chairman of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board informs me that the full membership of the Board were sent a near final copy of the discussion paper "The Future of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance" on 23 September 1997. The final version of the paper was sent to members at the end of November 1997 and was discussed at one full board meeting held on 9 December 1997.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons her Department could not provide members of the Disability Benefits Consortium with copies of the reports(a) A Study of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance Awards, (b) First Findings from the 1996–97 Disability Follow-up to the Family Resources Survey and (c) the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board discussion paper, the Future of Disability Living Allowance and Attendance Allowance, before her meeting with the Disability Benefits Consortium on 12 March. [39615]

  Mr. Denham
  The reports were published on 12 March and, following normal conventions, they were not distributed to outside bodies until Parliament had been informed. The Disability Benefits Consortium were meeting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during the afternoon of 12 March to discuss the Benefit Integrity Project. As a courtesy, they were given copies of the reports at the meeting and were advised that a seminar would be arranged to discuss them. The seminar took place on 27 March and the majority of the Disability Benefits Consortium attended.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if all decisions under the Benefit Integrity Project involving a reduction or lowering of benefit before 9 February will be reviewed; and if she will make a statement. [40485]
  377
  Mr. Denham
  On 9 February 1998,Official Report, column 76, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security introduced changes to the Benefit Integrity Project to ensure that no decision to reduce benefit would be taken without seeking additional evidence. We are concerned about those cases where a decision was taken without the benefit of the new procedure that was introduced on 9 February, and on which the claimant has not already sought a review of the decision.

  We are considering options for reviewing those cases but there are some legal and operational issues that we need to resolve as speedily as possible before deciding exactly how to proceed. I will ensure that the House is properly and fully informed of progress.

  Benefit Data
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals she has to arrange full mutual disclosure of details of housing benefit and income support claims between the Benefits Agency and local authorities; and what consultations she has had with the Data Protection Registrar. [38568]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We have made clear in our Green Paper "A New Contract for Welfare" our intention to build an Active Modern Welfare service. As part of that, our strategy for the delivery of Social Security aims to provide integrated services to meet customers' needs, and to cut out duplication of work between different Departments, and between central and local government.

  We are currently completing trials of an initiative to improve Local Authority access to Departmental benefit data, including Income Support data, through remote access computer terminals. These give Local Authority staff on-line access to Departmental benefit systems so that they can speedily obtain the information they require to administer Housing and Council Tax Benefits. We are now developing plans—in conjunction with local authority associates—to make these terminals available nationally.

  For the longer term, we are exploring whether—and, if so, how—Local Authority Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit computer systems can be linked to the planned new generation of Departmental computer systems. The aim of such links would be to give both Local Authorities and the Department full access to all mutually relevant Social Security data.

  In addition, we are exploring the possibility of using local authority Housing Benefit records to identify pensioners whose circumstances indicate a likely entitlement to Income Support. Once we have identified people, we will approach them to encourage a claim.

  We are also investigating new ways of working with local authorities to improve service delivery to clients, and to reduce duplication of effort, between the Benefits Agency and local authorities, and unnecessary administration.

  The Department has full regard to the requirements of data protection legislation in developing these initiatives, and consults the Registrar as appropriate.
  378

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many housing benefit claimants under the age of 25 have(a) applied for and (b) received hardship payments at the discretion of local authorities under the Housing Benefit Regulations, since the single room rent restrictions on housing benefit came into force; [39415]

  (2) how many claims for exceptional hardship payments were made by housing benefit claimants; how many were paid by local authorities; and what was the average payment in the last year for which figures are available. [39413]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Further information on the number of discretionary payments and the average payment will become available in June.

  Housing benefit recipients in Great Britain assessed under the local reference rent (January 1996) scheme with an additional discretionary payment made

  Recipients

  May 1996

  920

  August 1996

  1,890

  November 1996

  2,840

  February 1997

  3,970

  Notes:

  1. Recipients may be a single person or a couple.

  2. Number rounded to the nearest ten.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, caseload counts taken on the last working day in each quarter shown.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many housing benefit claimants renting from private landlords had their claims restricted and what was the average amount of those restrictions under regulations in force in(a) 1995–96 and (b) 1996–97. [39414]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Number of rent determinations made by rent officers, in England and Wales, in which a restriction on the rent was made for housing benefit purposes, and the average weekly amount of the restriction

  Number of restrictions to rent made by rent officers

  Average weekly amount of restriction(£)

  1995/96

  431,000

  16.15

  1996/97

  524,000

  16.45

  Notes:

  1. Numbers of restrictions are rounded to the nearest 1,000 amounts to the nearest 5 pence.

  2. Figures cover England and Wales only. Comparable information for Scotland is not currently available.

  Sources:

  1. Figures for 1995 taken from "Rent Officer Statistics" second, third and fourth quarters 1995.

  2. Figures for 1996 and 1997 calculated from determinations supplied by the Rent Officer Service to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  379
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of for State for Socal Security when she expects to announce the outcome of her review of the effects of the single room rent restriction on housing benefit claimants under the age of 25. [39411]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  We are still gathering information from a variety of sources to gauge the impact of the single room rent restriction. In addition, we have commissioned, jointly with the Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions, a study on Housing Benefit and the private rented sector. We will decide the way forward once we have the findings from the study, which are expected in the summer, and sufficient information on the national impact of the changes.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much housing benefit was paid to claimants who were tenants of private landlords in (i) 1989–90 and (ii) 1996–97 in(a) England and (b) Greater London. [39412]

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

  Estimated housing benefit (rent allowance) expenditure

  £ million

  England

  Greater London

  1989–90

  1,162

  311

  1996–97

  5,290

  1,568

  Source:

  Departmental Reports and local authority returns to DSS

  Delayed Payments
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment she has made of delays in social security payments due to poor performance of the computer system; and what steps she is taking to address the problem. [39482]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The Department continually monitors the performance of its computer systems to ensure any problems which may cause a delay in the issuing of Social Security payment are identified and remedied immediately.

  The total number of payments made annually is in excess of 200 million. Once payments have been calculated, the small number of instances of late issue (less than 0.1 per cent.) can be attributed to human error rather than poor performance of the computer system. There is a continuous programme in place between the Department's Information Technology Services Agency and its Service Providers to increase the level of automation in payment production, thus eliminating the need for manual intervention.

  Pensioners' Incomes
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will supply information on pensioner incomes based on the Households Below Average Incomes 1961–91 dataset, in response to questions from hon. Members for years for which the Pensioners Income series has not been constructed. [39576]

  Mr. Denham
  This Department does hold a copy of the Households Below Average Income 1961–91 dataset but, to date, it has not been used to analyse pensioners' incomes.

  The dataset was created by researchers at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It is usual Government Statistical Service practice only to use datasets created within Government departments or under the direction of Government analysts for answering questions which require fresh analyses.

  Household Insurance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Government will introduce legislation to assist low-income families in buying household insurance. [39764]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  There are no plans to do so. No separate amounts for specific items such as household insurance are included in Income Support rates. However, local authorities and housing associations can, with insurance companies, set up low-cost home contents insurance schemes for their tenants, and a number have done so.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost to the Social Fund of replacing possessions stolen from, or damaged in, low-income households with no household insurance, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [39765]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, the total amount paid from the Social Fund in 1997–98 by way of crisis loans to meet urgent need for the replacement of essential household items as a result of fire or flood damage was just under £236,000.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will reply to the letters to her dated 6 January, 12 February and 18 March from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. and Mrs. F. Fowler, 13 Meldreth Drive. [40875]

  Mr. Field
  A reply to these three letters was sent to the right hon. Member on 5 May.

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

"Powerhouse::uk" Exhibition
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnesasked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the costs for the erection and dismantling of the Powerhouse::uk exhibition; and how frequently the erection and dismantling of the exhibition will take place during the next 12 months.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the total cost for the erection and dismantling was £150,000. Discussion on the future use of the building and the exhibition is currently taking place.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Does he not agree that, to put the matter very kindly indeed, these edifices are at the very least hideous, impractical and expensive? Does he not further agree that, if they are supposed to be some representation of Cool Britannia, it is time to turn up the heat under the person whose idea it was?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the visitors did not find it objectionable at all. A survey was conducted and the reaction of 87 per cent. of the visitors was that it was rather a good exhibition and certainly promoted British products.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that recently it was agreed that the cars of all officials would be removed from Horse Guards Parade in order to preserve the beautiful vista over the Inigo Jones building? If we are to have these great balloons every few months, is that not going to be spoilt?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, we are not to have these balloons every few months. As my noble friend said, prior to the exhibition Horse Guards Parade was used as a car park. This Government believe that it is time to use it in a more inclusive manner. Certainly, car parks exclude, but exhibitions invite people to come.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that I tabled a Question five weeks ago when the drums were being inflated on Horse Guards Parade? The noble Lord himself suggested that I move that Question because the Prime Minister was about to make a statement on the subject that or the following day.
472
Is the Minister aware that no such statement appears to have been made? Can the noble Lord throw any light on the case of the "phantom" statement? Clearly, the noble Lord acts in good faith and cannot be held responsible. Nonetheless, this looks like a muddle from which Parliament has been missed out.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to write to me about this and I responded by saying that there was a paragraph in the Prime Minister's speech about this matter, but for some reason he did not say it. I have never been able to discover why. However, officials are burrowing away and as soon as I have any further information I shall write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as regards the first Answer which the Minister gave to my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, can he say, first, how many people attended this Cool Britannia exhibition so that we can work out the cost and, secondly, can he enlighten us about the cost of the survey that was carried out among those who attended and who said that they liked it?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, there were about 23,000 paying visitors and about 2,000 non-paying visitors. I must emphasise that the purpose was to provide an exhibition of British ingenuity and products for the ASEM conference in London. In addition, the CBI, the Design Council and one or two other organisations used it as a venue for hosting various exhibitions and meetings of their own.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, what was the cost of the survey?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I do not have the detail of that, but I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there must be something that can be said for an exhibition which acquired that amount of attention?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I quite agree. It was a very successful exhibition and showed off British ingenuity and industry very well indeed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government's noble aspirations in the purposes of the exhibition could have been housed in a more dignified way? Will the Minister be interested to know that a Scot who recently came to London asked me, "What are those bouncy castles they have put up where they usually Troop the Colour?"
Lord Haskel: My Lords, part of the purpose of the exhibition was in fact to show off the buildings, which are easily erected and taken down. The department is in an advanced state of negotiation with a number of organisations which wish to use the buildings for exhibitions and meetings of their own.

Executive Pay
2.42 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easingtonasked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to have the recommendations of the Greenbury and Hampel reports on executive pay implemented.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the President of the Board of Trade indicated in her speech on 4th March, responding to the Hampel report, that the Government preferred corporate governance issues, such as those relating to directors' remuneration, to be implemented either as best practice or by the listing rules of the London Stock Exchange rather than by legislation.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I appreciate that Answer, but does my noble friend accept that many of the payments made recently to chairmen and directors have reached a degree of obscenity never seen before, particularly when some of the companies concerned have been losing money? Does he further accept that if a Labour Government stand for anything at all, they stand for fairness but that that will be eroded if the present situation continues? Lastly, have the Government considered what might happen if and when the trade unions and others quite understandably take the view that some of those payments are suitable for some people but not for the rest of us?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are certainly concerned about this. Obscene pay awards not only bring the whole system into disrepute but they also fail to have regard to the wider issues of morale and effectiveness in business. That is why the Government support the Greenbury and Hampel recommendation that reports of remuneration committees be voted on each year by shareholders. The Government consider that to be part of best practice. If there is no evidence that companies are adopting best practice, the Government have not ruled out legislative action. The Government's views on fairness will be published shortly in our paper on fairness at work.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, ought not the workers, as well as the shareholders, have some say about the remuneration of the bosses? Could not the vote be widened to include them?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, in many companies consultation involves everybody. I am sure that there is an element of worker participation in the good practice favoured by the Government.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is not the best way of controlling such matters for the institutional shareholders in particular, when they conclude that a company is not providing the returns which they expect for their investment, to withdraw their support from that company, not for the Government to try to monitor all the wages and incomes in this country?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is right in theory but, unfortunately, many institutional shareholders do not vote at annual general meetings so the companies do not know their views. On the point about institutional shareholders withdrawing their support by selling their shares, many institutional shareholders take the view that they should be changing the management of the company rather than selling their investment in the business.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the fundamental problems is that there is a significant dichotomy between the answer that the Minister has just given and, indeed, the answers which the President of the Board of Trade gave when asked about these issues in other places and the position which the Labour Party took in its manifesto? There is clearly a distinction between whether—dare I say it—the more liberal approach of Greenbury and Hampel should be followed by the Government, as the Minister appears to be suggesting, or whether a far more interventionist approach, as heralded in the Labour Party's manifesto, should be taken. Confusion is arising because the Government cannot make up their minds which of the two approaches to take.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are waiting to see whether companies adopt the approach that I have just stated. If they do not adopt that approach, the Government will take a more interventionist approach, as laid down in the paper on competitiveness and company law which was recently published by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, is it not the case that the critical recommendation in all of these reports—Cadbury, Greenbury and Hampel—is the setting up of a remuneration committee? It is clear from paragraph 4(4) of the Hampel report that it is recommended that remuneration committees should include non-executive directors rather than executive directors. What we do not know—what the latest Hampel report will not tell us and what it says that it cannot tell us—is to what extent there are remuneration committees; to what extent they consist of non-executive rather than executive directors; and how far they have moved away from crude comparisons. Surely it is time that the Government undertook an independent survey to ascertain to what extent those excellent recommendations are being implemented.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are undertaking some surveys. Indeed, a survey has revealed that only three companies have set up independent remuneration committees and that shareholders vote on their reports at the annual general meeting. I agree with my noble friend that it is important that research is carried out into this. Indeed, some organisations which monitor investments on the London Stock Exchange are beginning to carry out such research.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, some answers back the Minister said that unless companies publish in their

475
annual reports the reports of their remuneration committees the Government will want to take action. May I assure the Minister that the institutions are pushing the people involved in remuneration committees to publish those reports? Is it not better that that the investing institutions have that role rather than the Government?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, if the institutions will carry out that work, it will not be necessary for the Government to use legislation.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in the light of work done by the Law Commission and other bodies on the state of our company law, and as corporate governance relates not only to matters of pay but also to the whole structure of directors, shareholders and others, when the Government are considering legislation on this matter they should take a cool and calm look at the state of our company law?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend, and the paper published in March by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade incorporates that.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister indicate the attitude of the Government to the views of the Hampel committee on the role of chairmen and non-executive directors of companies, which appear to be much more relaxed and to go back on what was originally proposed in the Cadbury report?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government are broadly in favour of the recommendations of the Hampel committee as regards chairmen and non-executive directors and their independence.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before the Government introduce what would be a wages policy for top salaried people, will the noble Lord invite his noble friends to look at the history of wages policies undertaken by previous governments to see what a marked failure they have been before they proceed with a narrow wages policy designed to catch top earners?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, this is not a wages policy but a corporate governance policy.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, my noble friend said at one point that the Government would wait and see how companies reacted to the two reports named in my Question. Can my noble friend give an indication how long the Government will wait? Are they considering a period of six months, 12 months or something of that order?
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the Government will wait for as long as is required for consultation to take place on this matter. In addition, other events are taking place. The paper on fairness at work is to be published next month and there is to be a government paper on
476
company law and competitiveness. All of these matters are subject to consultation at the moment. When those consultations have taken place the Government will be able to take a view.

EMU: Italy and the Convergence Criteria
2.51 p.m.
Lord Cheshamasked Her Majesty's Government:
As President of the European Union, what factors led them to agree that Italy met the convergence criteria for the single currency.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Italy passes the economic criteria for inflation, interest rates and exchange rates as well as the requirements for legal convergence. The key issue for Italy is the sustainability of the fiscal position. The deficit was 2.7 per cent. in 1997 and is forecast to fall further. In the latest draft outline budget debt is forecast to fall by at least 3 per cent. a year. Italy ran a substantial primary surplus of 6.8 per cent. of GDP in 1997. The draft outline budget has broad political support with approval from the budget committees of both Houses of the Italian Parliament last Thursday. The stability and growth pact locks in fiscal discipline for the future in EMU. The new declaration by ECOFIN on Friday re-emphasised the importance of fiscal discipline in EMU and brought forward implementation of certain aspects of the stability and growth pact to ensure its effectiveness in the important early years of EMU. Taking these factors into account, the Government endorsed the recommendation that Italy should join the single currency on 1st January 1999.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I understand that there was a requirement under the Maastricht criteria that debt should be no greater than 60 per cent. of the GDP of the country. Currently, Italy's debt is running at 122 per cent. of GDP. That figure has been brought down by a one-off tax this year to reduce borrowing. When will Italy meet the Maastricht criteria? When will that figure be sustainable at less than 60 per cent. of GDP? I should like to have a date.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the important matter, as recognised by ECOFIN, the European Parliament and the meeting last weekend, is not compliance with the convergence criteria but the trend. All of the trends in Italy are in the right direction. It is not appropriate for me to give a date.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, was it not always sensible to view the convergence criteria in perspective and essentially as guidelines to the important question of whether or not member states could sustain a lower rate of inflation? As the debt criterion is the least important, rather than adopt an attitude of carping superiority towards Italy, as so many Opposition statements have done, would it not be more appropriate to congratulate

477
the Government of Italy on their extremely successful and strenuous effort to impose financial discipline, which has resulted in their economy coming in well below the really important 3 per cent. deficit criterion?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is worth recording that the Italian Finance Minister was congratulated by his fellow Finance Ministers at the meeting in Brussels last weekend on exactly those achievements.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if Italy had been excluded on the ground that its debt to GDP ratio was too high and was falling too slowly, the almost inevitable result would have been an immediate rise in interest rates in Italy? If that is so, would it not have meant that a perfectly laudable debt reduction scheme would have been virtually ruined by the enormously increased cost of servicing the debt? Does my noble friend agree that that would be a case of Europe shooting one of its own in the foot?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend rightly draws attention to the interaction and interdependence of the convergence criteria. He is right to say that if we pick on one at the expense of all the others we will be in danger of doing greater damage to the economy of Italy.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, when the noble Lord refers to "financial discipline", does he mean simply the convergence criteria or something else? What happens when that financial discipline breaks down and shatters?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I thought I made it clear in my initial answer that the Government were looking wider than the requirements for legal convergence. In particular, in the case of Italy we were looking for sustainability of the fiscal position. I have no intention whatever of answering hypothetical questions about what might happen if this broke down.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Italian Government were able to push through their special tax only by promising that they would repay the tax in due time? Can my noble friend tell the House the timescale of that? Secondly, as my noble friend has said that in his view the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is absolutely right about the Treaty of Maastricht, does he agree that if the provisions of that treaty can be ignored as far as this matter is concerned therefore all other matters under the treaty can also be ignored?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Good try! My Lords, of course one does not take a single year when considering the deficit. The facts of the matter are that Italy's deficit has fallen from a peak of 11.1 per cent. in 1990 to 2.7 per cent. in 1997. It is forecast to fall further to 2.5 per cent. in 1998 and to 2 per cent. in 1999. Therefore, the so-called euro tax is simply one point in
478
that process. No implications should be drawn from the sensible interpretation of the convergence criteria for any other aspects of the Treaty of Maastricht.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that while it is one thing to take a sensible view of the convergence criteria surely it is quite a different matter to view 118 per cent. of GDP as anything vaguely in the same ball park as 60 per cent. of GDP, which is what the Maastricht convergence criteria say about debt as a percentage of GDP? Is it not a long way from 60 per cent? Further, is it not odd that when the Government were being so kind to the Government of Italy, Prime Minister Prodi said of the Prime Minister of Britain after the weekend that he thought he was singularly ill-prepared for the weekend's council?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government were not being kind but agreeing with ECOFIN that, taking all of the convergence criteria into account, Italy was moving in the right direction and should therefore be admitted to the single currency on 1st January 1999. I have no comment to make on the alleged statement of Prime Minister Prodi. I would not dream of commenting on alleged statements of the heads of state of other member states.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, under the terms of the treaty, Her Majesty's Government have no responsibility in these matters? The conditions of convergence are finally determined by the Commission on whose authority they rely in terms of advice on reaching decisions, as set out in the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Government have no responsibility whatever. Is the Minister further aware that the final terms of convergence in conformity with the sanctity of the treaty are determined by the Commission, which is responsible for the production of all the figures? Her Majesty's Government are entirely innocent and have no responsibility whatever. Indeed, they have never had any power in the matter!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope the House will agree that in view of the Prime Minister's Statement today, which is to be repeated in this House, it would be inappropriate for me to answer questions about anything other than Italy, which was the subject of the original Question.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, would it not be easier for us to move forward on these issues if we accepted that the draftsmen of the Maastricht Treaty were people of great precision, but that the interpretation has been handed over to Humpty-Dumpty?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my answer to the previous question applies.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I wonder whether—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, we are in the 24th minute. I think that we should move on.

Paedophiles: Release from Prison
3.2 p.m.
Lord Rowallanasked Her Majesty's Government:
How they intend to deal with paedophiles and other disordered people who are released from prison but who represent a danger to the public; and whether they are satisfied with the arrangement of keeping Sidney Cooke in a police station to protect him from vigilantes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the main consideration is and must be to protect the public. New measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill, in particular the sex offender order and the extended supervision of sex offenders, will help to provide that protection. Sidney Cooke has agreed to be under 24-hour supervision and to be tagged.
We have been considering whether new machinery is necessary to assist in the handling of cases such as that of Sidney Cooke. The Home Secretary has instructed officials to convene a group including representatives of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and the Association of Chief Police Officers together with sex offender treatment specialists to take forward this work. The group, which we expect to start work soon, will be charged to identify high profile, difficult-to-place sex offenders in prison and assess their release plans, oversee their handling and consider any funding necessary to meet likely additional accommodation costs.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. I am extremely concerned that such people, having served the sentence for their crime, still pose a danger, as they admit. Will the Minister advise the House whether they should be released or spend the rest of their lives in gaol? Should the press be allowed to whip up vigilantes against them? Furthermore, is it right that taxpayers are spending almost £5,000 a week to keep Sidney Cooke in a police cell away from the vigilantes?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, those are important questions. The release of a particular offender is entirely dependent on the sentence originally passed. It is a well known constitutional convention that matters of sentence are for trial judges and not for politicians, and I believe that that is proper.
I take the noble Lord's point about the press. The Government's view is that it is much better for people such as Sidney Cooke to be managed carefully without whipping up undue public fears, in particular when those fears are based on inaccurate information. I am sure everyone would deprecate attacks on police officers, for instance, who are doing their public duty in attempting to safeguard public order, security and safety.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister congratulate Paddy Ashdown on the way he handled a difficult meeting in Yeovil? Will he confirm that the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset is satisfied with the control of Sidney Cooke while under his supervision? Although I welcome the setting up of the group to
480
examine the policy for dealing with paedophiles, does the Minister agree that the public needs immediate government plans about the post-release supervision of paedophiles and an undertaking that funds will be forthcoming from central government to meet expenses incurred by police forces in accommodating such people?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that Paddy Ashdown behaved properly, courageously and rightly. The arrangements that have been made with Sidney Cooke are the best that can be made in all the circumstances. The noble Lord asked for an immediate response about funding and treatment. The group has been set up and we ought to await its recommendations before blundering into short-term solutions which may not be of long-term use.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister recall that during the passage of the Crime (Sentences) Bill frequent reference was made to the report in 1975 of the Butler Committee on mentally disordered offenders? The suggestion was that a new indeterminate sentence should be created called a "reviewable" sentence so that those who were still a danger were not released from prison until the review declared that it was appropriate, and that the review should take place every two years. Does the Minister agree that if those recommendations had been in place none of the present anxieties would have occurred? Will he now take urgent action to see whether there should be legislation to put into force either Lord Butler's recommendation or similar measures for a new indeterminate sentence?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I recall the debates we had on the occasion to which the noble and learned Lord refers. If a reviewable sentence had been available and had been passed on Sidney Cooke, some of the present difficulties might have been avoided. Serious and urgent consideration is taking place in the Home Office for further legislation in the light of policy development along the general lines to which the noble and learned Lord referred.
My Lords, I have about half a second. No one has welcomed back the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on economic and monetary union. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on Statements should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification.

School Standards and Framework Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise to take advice from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in that I wish to make a comment before we discuss the amendments to the Bill. I do not know whether to do so now or to wait until the Motion has been put.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will do so now.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his advice. I rise to express concern about the negative response to my letter requesting supporting information on four issues in the Bill. They are the creation of action zones; the power of the organisation committees and of the adjudicator; and the future of grammar schools. I shall deal with the detail in a moment.
No doubt the Minister will argue that a great deal of information was made available as the Bill proceeded through the other place and since. At the outset, I acknowledge that that is the case and I thank the Minister and her colleagues for making that information available. However, the information leaves very important questions unanswered.
It is important to repeat yet again that in this House we are engaged in making legislation. Therefore, it is extremely important to have an interest in the detail, especially as in the case of this Bill the impact on parents and children will be considerable.
The contempt with which this Government are treating Parliament is palpable. I take the first issue; namely, action zones. They are addressed by just four clauses in the Bill. The bidding documents in relation to becoming an action zone have been distributed widely. Indeed, they were distributed almost as the Bill received its Second Reading in another place.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is it right to continue with this particular line? I thought that the noble Baroness was raising a question on a point of order. I believe that she is going too far.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am happy to be advised by the House but I understood that I could make this statement before the Bill proceeds to Committee. However, as I said, I am happy to be advised by the House.
Action zones are addressed by just four clauses in the Bill and the bidding documents were distributed widely almost as soon as the Bill received its Second Reading in another place. Civil servants have been out and about around the country—I can say—sometimes coercing a
482
positive response to becoming an action zone. Ministers are saying one thing behind closed doors in the department, different from that which is said publicly or which is consistent with the written materials. The closing date to become an action zone was 20th March.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness is going too far. I should like to have a ruling.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it was known on this side of the House that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is not perhaps entirely happy with the way in which the Bill is being presented to the House. The Motion before the House at the moment is that the House should resolve itself into a Committee. The question is whether the noble Baroness is speaking to that Motion or making a statement. She is entitled to speak to the Motion but if she wishes to make a statement, I believe that the House should pass the Motion following which the noble Baroness can say what she wishes on the first substantive issue that arises. I am fortified in that by those who are unmentionable in this House. Perhaps the better way to deal with the issue is for the House to agree to the Motion and then for the noble Baroness to make her statement at the appropriate stage.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point I am making relates to our going into Committee on the Bill. In order for that to happen, there is information which we need, as Members of this House, in order to give proper consideration to matters contained in the Bill. Again, I shall be advised by the House. I cannot make this statement once the House is in Committee because we shall deal immediately with individual amendments to the Bill.
We had an unedifying experience on the Teaching and Higher Education Bill but at that time the Bill was already under way. I wrote to the noble Baroness and said that I wished to avoid a repeat of that on this occasion. However, the noble Baroness has responded negatively to my request. I know that there are many noble Lords in the House who are extremely concerned—as is the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee—and I wish to make this comment at the outset of our consideration of the Bill in order to elicit from the Minister the sort of information which we require in order to give it proper consideration.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have not concluded what I was saying and I should like to continue my statement. I am looking for advice as to whether I am able to complete what I wish to say. It relates to going into Committee on the Bill.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, my anxiety is the possible exceptions which the House may take in future if we adopt this procedure. Like all members of the Opposition, past and present, the noble Baroness is obviously alarmed and concerned about information which is available on approaching the Committee stage.

483
The purpose of the Committee stage is to elicit the information which the noble Baroness seeks from the Minister. However, I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that if this procedure were to be adopted in relation to every Bill which came before the House, we should have such a debate, taking half an hour or an hour, on every Bill.
The noble Baroness will well know that no Opposition—certainly none of which I have been a member for many years—have ever been satisfied with the material available to them in Committee. I believe that the noble Baroness should deal with these issues in Committee, pursuing them urgently and strongly. She can then decide whether she has received a satisfactory answer and what further steps she should take. I do not believe that the noble Baroness will receive a satisfactory answer in this way. I urge the noble Baroness and the House to adopt the recommendation of the Leader of the House.
At the end of the day, this matter affects us all and it is for each one of us to decide. The House is always willing to grant discretion but I believe we are going a little too far in this particular circumstance.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it seems to me that the proper way to proceed is for the House to move into Committee. If the noble Baroness then feels aggrieved or does not have sufficient information on a particular amendment, she can say what she wishes to say on that amendment. I do not believe that the Opposition are in any way prejudiced if we move into Committee. Indeed, I thought that that was broadly what the House would have wished at this stage.
I do not know of any circumstance or any rule of order of this House which would entitle someone merely to make a statement at the beginning of business without the business being before the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have been a Minister on the Benches opposite and I faced noble Lords when they were on these Benches. I dealt with this particular circumstance on a number of occasions. I recall the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who is not in his place, making a statement either at the beginning of a Committee stage or Report stage and his insistence on seeing a code of practice before we embarked on further discussions. The noble Lord the Leader of the House will well remember that on one occasion the House adjourned because we were pressed to bring forward a code of practice. We had to repair to the room of the Leader of the House in order to sort out that matter. I believe that we are ill equipped to discuss this Bill. If what has been said is the advice to me of the Leader of the House, then so be it. However, if that is the position, the noble Lord will forgive me if I leave the Chamber.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am not inclined to change the nature of my advice to the House. It is considered advice and I express it to the House consciously and deliberately and with a deal of consideration. This is a Committee stage of a Bill. I know of no precedent for this sort of behaviour at the
484
beginning of a Committee stage. I have known it to arise later during our deliberations on a Bill. I put my advice to the House.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I did see the Government Chief Whip before we came into the Chamber and he knew that I would be making this Statement. He proffered no advice to me on the matter. If he had felt unhappy about it, he could at least have had the courtesy to tell me that it was out of order or that it would not be acceptable to the Leader of the House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I should make it clear that when I saw the noble Baroness, I wished to get clear what action she was going to take. I thought that she was going to refer to the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. She said that she had some concerns about lack of information and I said that I would pass that on to my noble friend. I certainly did not expect or agree to a statement, as she said.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Pilkington of Oxenfordmoved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
("CHAPTFR AI
KEY STAGE 1: ANNUAI. PERFORMANCE TABLES
KEY STAGE 1: PUBLICATION OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE TABLES
.—(1) The Secretary of State shall publish annual performance tables for the results of National Curriculum assessments at the end of key stage 1 for all relevant schools.
(2) The performance tables defined in subsection (1) shall Include the average class size.").
The noble Lord said: The problem relating to this Bill is, in many ways, a lack of detail and the generalities which are presented in it. The object behind the proposed new clause is to enable us to relate class sizes to particular facts. As Members of the Committee know, there are disputes as to whether or not class sizes will be a total panacea leading to the success that it is hoped will be achieved. But these are actually discoverable facts.
Although key stage 1 tables are at present available to parents and to other people, they are not available at a national level. Therefore, one would like to see the results of key stage 1—that is, the results of the performance of children at the age of seven—known nationally, so that the country as a whole can make decisions regarding the worth or non-worth of the very extensive regulation and expense of reducing class sizes. I hasten to add that, in an ideal world, we would all believe in smaller classes. Therefore, the proposed amendment suggests that the actual performance of schools should be available to the nation at key stage 1, together with the size of the classes which produce those results. I commend that to the Committee because, basically, we are all aiming in the same direction; namely, to improve our educational performance.

485
As the Minister knows, we on this side of the Committee are worried about the excessive bureaucracy involved in the Bill and the lack of facts which is sometimes behind it. Therefore, I suggest to the Committee that the amendment before us is a practical proposal. I am sure that the Minister will see it as such; indeed, she may even see value in it. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: Perhaps the noble Lord could clarify his amendment a little further. If I remember correctly, when the noble Lord's party was in power something like the amendment proposed was not his party's policy. Therefore, this is a new development. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us about it. Further, did I understand the noble Lord to say that the point of his amendment was to assess the value of reducing class sizes for this age group? I thought that he said so, but I may have misheard him. If that is the case, does the noble Lord agree that what he needs to relate to class sizes is not performance per se but something which is nowadays called, "value added"; namely, what is achieved as an improvement by lowering class sizes, comparing like with like. Is that what the noble Lord has in mind? If that is so, the noble Lord will, again, have to explain to Members of the Committee why that suggestion was opposed by him and his colleagues only a few years ago when my noble friend the Minister, myself and other noble Lords on this side of the Chamber were pressing for precisely that aim. What has changed other than the Government to cause the noble Lord to put forward such a view at this time?
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: As the noble Lord knows, I have had greatness thrust upon me. Indeed, I cannot be accused of being concerned with the decisions of the previous government as I did not occupy office at the time. However, perhaps I may speak as a practical educationalist. As regards class sizes, I believe that, on the whole, a smaller class allows for better teaching. However, there are many other factors involved. The noble Lord knows, as well as I do, that the nature of the argument going on in education at present is whether or not whole class teaching is better than part class teaching. I am not prepared to comment at present on those particular arguments.
My amendment is designed to place on the national record facts which might help us when making decisions as and when particular issues arise. What I am asking is really very little. I am asking for the results of key stage 1 to be known nationally and not just to the parents of the children in the particular school. I am also asking that we should know the average class size of the various schools performing. The intellectual queries of the noble Lord and mine will be met if those facts are published. We are not deciding policy; we are deciding the little parts of the Meccano set which will make up policy. Indeed, I believe that much of the Bill reflects policy without having the Meccano kit. That is the essence of the amendment.
Lord Peston: I trust that the noble Lord will forgive me for returning to the theme, but it is one of great importance. If we published such results and related them to class sizes and there was no correlation between the two—or indeed if there was a rather perverse correlation that the smaller the class size, the worse the apparent performance—the noble Lord must know as well as I do that that would tell us nothing, unless we actually allowed, as he rightly pointed out, for all the other factors at work. I have in mind, in particular, the fact that if we reduce class sizes (a point I remember making some 20 years ago) in the worst performing schools, it will look as if there is a correlation between small class sizes and bad performance. However, all we are revealing is a sensible government policy; namely, that where schools are not performing well we ought to reduce class sizes in order to help them perform better. It is a common-place remark, although people did not fully understand when I first made it. But I make it again now. In those circumstances, the noble Lord's crude amendment will be unhelpful, not helpful. That is why I asked him to clarify the matter.
I know the noble Lord personally very well. Indeed, I know that he actually wishes to be helpful in the matter. Therefore, my own judgment is that such an amendment will not do what he wants; namely, to assess what we are achieving at this key stage. Either the noble Lord needs an amendment on the lines of "value added"—in other words, comparing like with like—or the suggested amendment will not do.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I rise to express my support for the amendment. I am fascinated by the argument produced by the noble Lord, Lord Peston. If he believes in what he just said, it seems to me that he should help my noble friend by devising a suitable amendment which would bring in the factor of added value as well as the simple matter of class size. Surely it must be better to take decisions in the light of some information than, apparently, in the light of none, which is the alternative if the amendment is rejected? Indeed, we should be moving forward.
I have one further point to make in relation to what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said when he first rose to speak. The noble Lord said that he could not understand why this proposal was being put forward now as it was not the policy of the previous government. I believe my noble friend has dealt with that on his own behalf, but I hope that the noble Lord was not suggesting that, because something was not a particular party's policy in the past, it should not be so at the present time. If that was the noble Lord's suggestion—and it was certainly implicit in his remarks—I believe that all Members of the Committee sitting opposite, and those in government, will find themselves in a very peculiar situation.
Baroness Blackstone: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his support in principle. I am sorry, I do apologise to the noble Lord; I should have said the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. Clearly that is a confusion that I should not have made. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, for his

487
support in principle for a policy of smaller class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds. I think that the noble Lord is aware, as other Members of the Committee will he, that there is now good evidence to show that children perform better at that age in smaller classes. I believe passionately that it was right for the Labour Party, prior to the election, to make a manifesto commitment to ensure that there are smaller class sizes for this group of children to enable us to achieve our goals of raising school standards.
In Section 537 of the Education Act 1996 we already have the statutory provisions necessary to enable the Secretary of State to require information from schools on pupil performance and to require the publication of that information in performance tables. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, was not on the Front Bench of the previous government, but he is probably pleased to hear that the government he supported enacted a power to enable the Secretary of State to require such performance tables. Like the previous government, this Government are committed to the publication of comparative data 9n school performance in support of our pledge to raise standards and to provide parents with information on the performance of their local schools. I believe that information is helpful and valuable to parents. It is often, of course, an important benchmark for teachers to gauge how their schools are performing.
We aim to provide as full a picture as possible of pupils' achievements. We have already introduced changes to the secondary tables, to enable parents to see at a glance how each school's performance has improved over time and to reflect better the achievements of pupils across the ability range. We have also delegated the responsibility for publishing primary school performance tables of key stage 2 results to local level, allowing LEAs to provide additional information on the performance of their primary schools beyond the core requirements and to set the results in a local context. I hope that Members of the Committee opposite will be able to support that initiative.
We are committed to the publication of measures of value added by schools—that point was raised by my noble friend Lord Peston—as the necessary data on pupils' prior attainment become available in a suitable form. Of course that takes a little while as we need to measure progress over time. The next step towards this—the publication of information on progress in secondary schools between key stage 3 in 1996 and GCSE results in 1998—will feature in this year's secondary tables. These are significant developments. They need to be planned carefully and introduced step by step, to ensure that we do not place unreasonable demands on schools or increase the burdens on teachers—something we are trying to reduce—or overload parents with too much information which is difficult to digest. I share the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, to see more data on school performance becoming publicly available but I wonder whether the time is yet right for national performance tables at key stage 1, so early in children's education.
488
I refer to what my noble friend Lord Peston said with regard to some of the technical issues. I very much agree with his remarks on that. I say to the noble Lord opposite that I am not sure whether it is my noble friend's job to design new amendments for the Opposition Front Bench to resolve technical problems contained in their amendments.
I shall try to explain briefly why we do not intend to publish information on average class size in individual schools. Such figures were not published under the previous government for exactly the same reasons. Each January every school completes a form—known as the Form 7—one section of which records information on classes as taught. They must record the details of all classes being taught at a given period on the census day. For each class they record the number of pupils, teachers, support staff, the year group, the key stage, and whether it is an "ordinary lesson" or one such as sport, music or drama that may involve non-typical groupings of either larger or smaller numbers of pupils.
The information collected is thus a snapshot of a given moment. Like any such snapshot, there may be occasional anomalies at the detailed level. The figures are robust at national level and at LEA level, as "swings and roundabouts" will level out such anomalies. However, when reporting on individual schools, the figures may be misleading. For example, a school may hire two part-time teachers for one afternoon only and regroup pupils in small groups. To record their average class size at that time would not be a true picture of the whole week.
The schools census should, however, enable us to spot any classes that do not comply with limits. As our limits will cover all ordinary lessons for infant classes, there should be no single-teacher classes over 30 unless they have been brought together for music, sport or similar activities. If we make any limited exceptions to class size limits, of the kind set out in the draft regulations issued for consultation last week, we shall have to record those in the census. I thought it would be helpful to the Committee if I made that clear. The department's statisticians would discuss the practical details with their colleagues in LEAs. In those circumstances and in the light of what I have said about the Government's commitment to good performance indicators and the various steps that we are taking, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: I welcome some of the comments that the Minister has made in replying to the amendment. I very much welcome her comments on the importance of comparative figures at different levels as between schools. It ill behoves the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to chide us for modifying our views as regards seven year-olds when the views expressed by his party have not changed marginally since 1987—when I introduced the 1987 Bill—but 180 per cent. The party opposite voted against examinations and tests at the ages of seven, 11 and 14 and the publication of league tables. I welcome the fact that the present Government now accept all of this. I do not gloat over that at all. I believe it is a sensible change of policy on

489
the part of the Labour Party. It recognises the reality that parents want to know how their children are performing at different levels. That is now fully accepted in respect of key stages 2 and 3.
It is interesting to note that the Minister reminded the House that in 1996 the previous Conservative government gave themselves the power to allow the wider national publication of league tables for seven year-olds. I drew some comfort from the Minister's words as she did not say that she would not use the power but that she would consider so doing in the future. I suspect that that will happen. When the tables are published it will be possible to measure some degree of value added. With the wider extension of nursery education one will be able to measure the performance of a child at various stages. That is, after all, what parents want to know when they decide which schools their children should attend. I welcome this provision. My noble friend who moved the amendment has done us a service by prompting a clear exposition from the Government of their support for this policy. I hope that we shall go a little further and that this provision will be applied to seven year-olds during the lifetime of this Government.
Baroness Young: I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Baker has just said. When he was Secretary of State league tables, testing and assessment were introduced. Those of us who sat on the government Benches in those days remember the hard battles that were fought on all these matters. We are extremely pleased to see the Government's conversion to league tables, testing and assessment.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Baker, I, too, welcome the indication given by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that local education authorities have been given the power to publish this information if necessary. This is one of the most important stages in the education of children. If they do not make progress at the beginning of their school lives they are more than likely to continue to fall behind. Everyone welcomes value added but it can so easily be used as an excuse for bad performance. At the end of the day what really matters is not the value added, or even the school, but rather whether the child has acquired the skills that it should have acquired at key stage I. Any information which will contribute positively to that is to be welcomed. It is not an argument about whether one should have larger or smaller class sizes or more teachers. What matters is whether at this important stage the children acquire the fundamental skills of reading, writing and numeracy.
Only the other day I read published evidence that children who drop out of school and quite frequently turn to crime are those who never learned to read. Once again we learn that. The sooner one identifies those children who are in trouble, the better. If one can identify them at the age of seven or eight, so much the better. Parents also require that information. Quite properly, parents are becoming increasingly demanding on the subject.
490
If the Minister does not feel able to accept the amendment as it stands, I hope that she will accept the spirit in which it is put down. I believe that we are all interested in the same aim. If necessary, perhaps the noble Baroness will bring forward an amendment which will meet some of the technical difficulties that she has identified. They are difficulties to which we shall return as we proceed through the first part of the Bill on class sizes.
Lord Dearing: I welcome the amendment and thank the Minister for her response. I agree that the performance of children at seven is probably the most important indicator of what their educational experience will be. It is right that we should be deeply concerned that parents and governing bodies have the information.
Perhaps I may add to what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said. Rather than looking forward to an undertaking that the information will become available during the life of this Parliament, I hope that with value added it will become available in the next two years or so.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I was extremely interested to hear the noble Baroness's very kindly rebuke and advice offered to her noble friend Lord Peston. I understood her to say that it is not her noble friend's job to find new or better amendments—
Baroness Blackstone: I think that there is a misunderstanding. I in no way rebuked my noble friend. The noble Lord opposite suggested that my noble friend should redraft the amendment put down by the Opposition Front Bench. I was suggesting that it was not my noble friend's job to do that. No rebuke was meant in any way to anyone.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I apologise to the Minister if I have misconstrued her. Perhaps I may put it this way. The friendly advice that she offered her noble friend was most interesting. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, took it in the most gentlemanly fashion.
However, the reason for being on my feet now is to express the earnest hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will not in any way be discouraged from offering improvements to the amendments of the Opposition Front Bench. Let me make it clear that I have unqualified admiration for my noble friend Lord Pilkington. Knowing him and admiring him as I do, I have absolutely no doubt that he will be very grateful, as the debate continues, to have advice from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, on how his amendment should be improved.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may respond. I did not feel that I was being rebuked by my noble friend. Indeed, I know that she would wish me to help the Opposition in their present plight.
However, I am little puzzled on one point. When the noble Lord, Lord Baker, introduced his Bill (as it then was) in 1987, I do not remember that he used the expression "league tables". I think that that vulgarity

491
emerged elsewhere. I agree with much of what noble Lords opposite said. However, while the analogy with league tables may be appropriate for congratulating the Arsenal football team—I know that my noble friend Lady Blackstone will agree with me on that—I do not believe that looking at schools in league table form is helpful to schools, children or education in general.
The whole point of the concept that we put forward then—I remember working with my noble friend and others—was that we did not want a league table approach but something a good deal more sensitive. Our views on value added were strongly rejected at that point. I stick to my view. I deplore the concept of league tables for assessing schools. One might say that that is just a matter of taste. But I believe that it is more than that. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, the importance is what a school achieves for the individual child. A school can do a great deal for an individual child without appearing in a powerful position in any league printed in the press. That is and remains my concern with the amendment of the noble Lord. It, too, would lead to reinforcement of the league table approach which I hope I am not alone in finding not very helpful when considering education.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may intervene again; I had not expected to do so. The weakness of publishing any information is that someone else will turn it into league tables. However, that should not be a concern of this Committee. What other people do with information is their concern. If good information is published, parents will make good use of it. It must be better to publish information, acknowledging that there may be abuse by some in other places, with other disciplines and other interests. We have to learn to live with that.
When I suggested that there might be some co-operation on amendments to the Bill, I was well aware that the approach was not likely to be looked on favourably. However, that allows me to regret that in all too many of our discussions on legislation our concern is not always to produce the best legislation but to follow the conventions of party divisions, party discussions and party antagonisms. I think that that is a little unfortunate.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not think that there is any party antagonism on this complex issue. I believe that performance tables rather than league tables is the more appropriate term, although it is always nice to have people sitting behind one who support the right football team. In that case there is a genuine league—and Arsenal won and is at the top!
However, perhaps I may pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said. We shall want to look at the impact of the wider extension of nursery education. This is important new policy. It is necessary that in future we monitor it, and see what impact it has had. At the same time, we might regret rushing straight into performance tables for schools teaching these very young people. We have to remember that many children at present in this age group will be at school for only two years before the measures come into force. Some of those children
492
will have a lot of catching up to do because of their social circumstances. Some will have arrived at school with poor language development, few social skills and a great deal to learn in that respect. In many of our cities, quite a few will arrive speaking little English. So it would be wrong at this stage to make a commitment to performance tables.
I wish also to support the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Peston. I do not believe that we should introduce performance tables until we have the value added methodology properly worked out and applied to the later key stages, in particular in secondary school. We are still in the process of doing that. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will agree with me that while we must identify and support those children who are in trouble—I could not agree more with her in that respect—performance tables for schools do not identify individual children. Nor should they. It is up to teachers, in the assessment they carry out, to identify children who need extra remedial help. The Government are very much encouraging that.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord—
Baroness Young: Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive my intervening. She is on to a terribly important point, and one with which we are both in agreement. If I have understood her aright, she is saying that a performance table will not necessarily indicate how well an individual child is doing. That may well be so. However, it will give a clear indication as to how well the school as a whole is doing. I hope that she will consider this point further. The difficulty is that at this early stage a school can hide behind all these problems—language difficulties, bad homes, poor environment. We have heard them for years. I heard them 20 years ago when I was an education Minister. What is required is an answer to those difficulties. Performance tables are a real, public indication as to how well the teaching in a school is going.
Baroness Blackstone: It is certainly the case that this Government will refute any excuses that are made in relation to bad performance. The social factors listed by the noble Baroness are not reasons for schools to shelter behind poor teaching, inadequate use of resources and failure to intervene when early remedial help is needed. Those matters are absolutely vital. The noble Baroness is quite right. A child who does not learn to read at this stage is a child who will fall behind at all the later stages, and will often be one of those who later become disaffected with their schooling, become truants, drop out and then become involved in crime. Therefore the attention that we are giving to the early years is very important. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her support.
At the same time, it would be wrong to castigate those schools in difficult social environments which have large numbers of pupils needing a great deal of help and which receive lower scores than those schools in leafy suburbs, many of whose children are already well prepared to start school and in some cases have already been taught to read at home. They have certainly received a lot of support and attention and may have

493
had two or more full-time years in a very good nursery school. So I do not want schools in any way to make excuses. But value-added tables are a much better way of ensuring that all schools are doing a good job. Without them, we cannot tell whether some of the schools that are in a privileged position in terms of entry are doing as good a job as they should be. They should get very high scores, and we shall not know that unless we are able to measure the performance of children when they arrive.
This is a difficult technical area. Measuring the performance of five year-olds when they first enter a primary school, particularly if they have not had any nursery school experience is difficult and tricky. I do not think that I can make any commitment to going down this road at this stage; but I do not want to rule out making progress in this sort of direction in the longer term.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: This is a probing amendment, though we may return to it on Report. To approach it from a broader sphere, the background to the amendment is this. Perhaps I may first take one historical example.
Towards the end of the last century and the beginning of this, the United States of America took people from everywhere in the world, many of whom did not speak English, and through the early school system transformed them into English-speaking Americans who took a great part in the development of their country. That is my first historical point.
The second is this. The noble Baroness touched on this matter and I must say that I welcome the approach that she has taken. Like my noble friend Lord Baker, I welcome the movement of the party opposite towards views of education that I have held for a long time. There is no joy in heaven so great as that for a sinner who converts. As the noble Baroness knows, it is a fact that in the same deprived area—I know the school where my daughter teaches—one school adjacent to another does amazingly better. Similarly, in privileged areas one school will do badly and another will do very well. My amendment may be crude, to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Peston; but it would go a little way towards helping.
Key stage 1 assesses very important areas—areas that will decide a child's future in later life, as the noble Baroness pointed out. I agree with every word that she said. Similarly, class sizes would be another piece of additional information. I accept, as the noble Baroness said, that these facts are available, though mainly to parents. Similarly, the facts about class sizes are available in local authority documents; they can be gained if one is prepared to approach the authority.
I have no disagreement in relation to the idea of value added—though I share the views of my noble friend Lady Young that it can, if not used properly, become a mask that excludes failure. I have seen that happen in schools. To return to my original statement, there are cases where one school in a deprived area, with people
494
from a different ethnic background, does so much better at teaching language and numeracy than does the next one. My amendment would serve to reveal those facts.
I welcome the noble Lord's idea. I am quite happy if the Government wish to add to my amendment a provision in relation to value added. Having been in education, I am afraid that arguments about value added are like those as to how many angels are dancing on a pin. It may mean that this idea is never realised. We have to face the point made by my noble friend Lord Baker: one of the engines fuelling the advance in education has been the performance that has actually occurred in schools. That is what the Government have realised. It is the legacy they have inherited from their predecessors and on which they are building. That said, I shall not force the amendment now. However, we may return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): If the next amendment, Amendment No. 2, is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 3 because of pre-emption.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
("(1) The maximum number of pupils that an infant class at a maintained school may contain while an ordinary teaching session is conducted by a single qualified teacher is 30.
(2) The Secretary of State shall by regulations fix the date by which the limit set out in subsection (1) is to be met by such schools.
(3) Regulations under this section may—

(a) impose different limits (subject to subsection (1)), and fix different dates, according to the age groups into which the pupils in infant classes fall;

(b) provide that, in any circumstances specified in the regulations, the limit set out in subsection (1) and any limit imposed by the regulations either is not to apply or is to operate in such manner as is so specified.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment will give the Government their first opportunity to respond positively to the report of the delegated powers scrutiny committee. Perhaps I may at the outset read from paragraph 6 of that report. It states:
"The committee accepts the need for flexibility in implementing this highly significant change in schools policy, and thus the need for regulations. But regulation-making powers should be used in this area only insofar as they are essential to achieve the necessary flexibility. In the view of the Committee, the most important parameters, including the all-important target of the maximum number of pupils in an infant class, should appear on the face of the Bill. The House may therefore wish to consider whether the Bill should be amended to include the target maximum number of pupils on the face of the Bill. It may also think the use of negative procedure inappropriate for such an important power, and may thus wish to consider amending the Bill to allow for the affirmative resolution procedure".
The Committee will see that the amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List will address both of those recommendations—first, in that the figure 30 should appear on the face of the Bill. After all, in this instance the Government have produced draft regulations whereby they commit themselves to the figure 30. Therefore it should not present a difficulty for them to lay that figure on the face of the Bill. If they

495
intend this policy to be in place by 2001, then it is unlikely that they will go for a figure lower than 30 within the period of this Parliament. Indeed, it is likely, if the Government wish to pursue smaller classes in schools, that they will wish to address classes for seven, eight and nine year-olds before going even lower for the infant classes. In either case, the Government would still have to return to this House with primary legislation. Therefore they should accept this amendment.
I wish to refer to a disquiet that I have about this pledge, laudable and desirable though it may be, which, if my newspapers are to be believed, is a disquiet shared by members of the Government. It is that the practical difficulties of implementing this policy are legion. I have always held the view that, if local education authorities and schools themselves had more money, it would be for them to determine their priorities. I suspect that it would be almost inevitable that primary schools and/or infant schools would tend to give priority to younger-aged children. I would trust the local education authorities and the schools themselves to use the money in this way if it were made available. But the Government have hooked themselves on taking control of this policy at national level.
We all know that, where a guarantee is as inflexible as it is in this Bill, the 31st, 32nd or even 33rd child will happen randomly across the country. A school that has 31 children in a class today may have 28 next year. In small schools in the heart of rural England, not only is class size an issue; so too is the age range within a class. In my own village in the county of Cambridgeshire, the school has five, six and seven year-olds in one class, seven, eight and nine year-olds in the second class and nine, 10 and 11 year-olds in the third class. There is a world of difference between a class of 30 five, six and seven year-olds and a class of 30 five year-olds, a class of 30 six year-olds and a class of 30 seven year-olds. In no way does this policy recognise the sensitivity of that very real distinction. If one is measuring the burden on a teacher in the classroom, which is what I believe we should be doing, the burden on the teacher dealing with an age range of three years is vastly different from, and more onerous than, the burden on the teacher dealing with 30 children of a single age group.
I posed the question at Second Reading as to what happens to the 31st child where the school is a long distance from another school or where another school of the denominational preference is not nearby. We know the answer to that now: the answer is that the child will be given a teacher and that the local authority will provide that teacher.
There are huge problems with that. Are the Government saying unequivocally that where there is a 31st child which impedes parental preference, which does not enhance parental preference, which means that a child will travel an unreasonable distance, which means that denominational choice is not nearby, the school will be provided with an extra teacher for one or two children, when numbers in a school can fluctuate downwards or upwards from term to term and from year to year?
496
If local education authorities are expected to have that kind of money pre-empted from their budgets on a term-by-term basis, it will be hugely expensive across the country. Pupil/teacher ratios will be vastly changed. This money will come from the education budget. A later amendment from the Liberal Democrats urges that this money should go into the revenue support grant. Once it goes into the revenue support grant, it is clear that every time a teacher is produced for as few as one or two children, that resource is denied to the other age groups, the seven year-olds and upwards.
The practical difficulties with this policy, however laudable and desirable it is, are legion. It is no surprise to me that the Treasury has concerns about it. It is certainly no surprise to me that, as time goes on, the practical difficulties presented by the policy increase. Because of the way in which the Government have chosen to implement this policy at national level rather than allowing local education authorities to operate at their own level, the minutiae of information which will have to go into the plans to be presented to the Government for their approval or disapproval, as the case may be, and the inevitable paper-chase that will be involved as the plans are handed back down to the local education authorities and then back up again, will mean that much needed resources will be dissipated. I believe that it will cause enormous problems.
The report from the delegated powers scrutiny committee is the strongest that has ever been made of a Bill in Parliament. I hope that that message will be well received by the Department for Education and Employment. My own memory of being a Minister in that department is that a Minister, particularly one in this House, has to work very hard with officials to persuade them that this point is important. They have an in-built aversion to affirmative resolution procedures. When we come to the later amendment, I shall argue for that procedure. In the meantime I believe that, if the Government are serious about this policy, it is only right that we should follow the recommendations of the scrutiny committee and put it on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: Before I came into the Chamber this afternoon, I was asked by a reporter what the interesting points would be today. One of my comments was that, having followed education over a number of years, I was a little bemused and I thought he would see Members of the Government Bench and the Opposition Bench saying different things and interpreting things differently from the way in which they interpreted them when they sat on the other side of the Chamber. My second comment was that one never knows what will take anyone's fancy in a Committee debate and what will cause excitement. When I made that comment, I had not anticipated that the excitement would happen so early in the day.
In the past there have been fierce arguments about who believes that children do better in small classes. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, on at least sticking to the policy that was accepted in another place that it is important but is one of a number of

497
measures that need to be in place to improve standards. I made an impassioned speech about this matter at Second Reading. Having been a practising teacher, I have no doubt that children can receive more attention in a small class. I have yet to see a parent pay to send a child to a school that has large classes. Indeed, I know that one of the reasons why parents pay to send their children to certain schools is that they know there will be small numbers in the classes. At least we have more or less agreed here today that this is a very important point.
We support the amendment. It has been recommended by the Select Committee that looks into the way in which we deal with regulations and make laws in this place. I believe we should heed what the committee says. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, laid that matter out clearly, and I will not repeat what was said in the report.
The noble Baroness also pointed out that there are knock-on effects from insisting that there should be 30 children in a class. We support that policy, which was contained in the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the last election. We shall discuss the knock-on effects of that policy when we discuss other clauses this afternoon. It is important for us to recognise that not only are there difficulties about where one puts the 31st child; there are considerable difficulties about how one accommodates extra classes in schools. Those will be matters that we shall look at later on this afternoon.
Lord Peston: It seems to me, as someone who has never taught in an infants' school, that a class size of 30 is enormously large. I have lectured to hundreds of people but have never had to keep discipline or do anything of that kind. I assume that, in setting this as a target, the Government regard this as only the beginning of what we would aim at when we can afford it.
Again, if we are to make progress, we must come up with a number which says that the maximum must be such and such. Whatever number the Government come up with, someone will ask why, and what is to happen to the marginal child. I do not see how that can be a criticism of the Government. If they are going to move at all, they must start with a number and 30 is better than nothing.
Let me say, en passant, that it gives me enormous pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, back on the Front Bench. I was a bit taken aback when she said that she was not staying and thought she meant that she was never coming back. However, I gather her demonstration was simply for one amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, had greatness thrust upon him for only that one amendment, though some of us hold him in high esteem anyway.
It seems to me to be reasonable that the Government should come up with a number. It also seems to me—I hope I am in order in mildly criticising the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee—that if the Government come up with an objective of 30 but many believe that in due course the number should be progressively lowered, and if we consider the question of flexibility to be important, regulation is the correct way of achieving that. Putting a precise number on the face of
498
the Bill does not make any sense. Why would we put a number on the face of the Bill if in due course our intention is to make it lower still?
For once our respected committee may be slightly mistaken. But I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that it is not mistaken in suggesting that we use the affirmative resolution procedure. It is part of the game that the Opposition always say that they would like to use the affirmative resolution procedure. But in this case I hope that the Minister can be supportive or will at least think about the position. It is quite separate from the question of a maximum, where I would not like to see a number on the face of the Bill. That would somehow imply that we regard 30 as being particularly attractive rather than that it is the best we can do for the moment but that we have ambitions to do more without changing primary legislation.
To summarise, therefore, flexibility means that we should do this by regulation. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee is right that, in a matter as important as this, my noble friend ought at least to think about the idea of using the affirmative procedure.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Perhaps I can contribute briefly to this Committee debate. I am the father of a seven year-old and have nothing but admiration for anyone who can control any seven year-old, bearing in mind the way my seven year-old behaves.
I wanted to draw the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to the document published in April of this year entitled Reducing infant class sizes: guidance. In paragraphs 15 and 17 it addresses the points raised by the noble Baroness. Paragraph 15 specifically talks about rural schools and what happens if there should be more than 30 pupils. It goes on in paragraph 17 to talk of contingency funding and how the LEA may be able to apply for small amounts to address that point. I agree also with the point made by my noble friend Lord Peston.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Does he agree with me that it will be expensive to provide a qualified teacher? We are not talking about a teaching assistant; many infant teachers would welcome a teaching assistant for the 31st or 32nd child, which would be an extremely economic way of meeting a difficult challenge. However, we are bound by the legislation to provide a qualified teacher.
Does the noble Lord agree therefore that the cost of providing a qualified teacher, which may be anything from £20,000 to £35,000, to a school for one or two children is disproportionately uneconomic when the knock-on effect of that in a rural county will be substantial? It is pre-emptive moneys and nothing on the face of the Bill guarantees that pound for pound will be given to local authorities. They are simply invited to bid for small contingency sums, and therefore the money

499
will come from a local education authority's budget, even if it is not the local education authority's priority or the school's priority.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: Perhaps that is the reason it is not on the face of the Bill but is in regulation, so that that kind of consideration can be taken into account. From my point of view, I would be happier if there was a fully qualified teacher to take up the provision of education for a few extra pupils. The noble Baroness is gesticulating that it would be for only one child; I should like a fully qualified teacher to be involved in teaching my child.
My point concerned what my noble friend Lord Peston said. I agree with him that regulation is the proper place to put these considerations. The figure of 30 should be a maximum and I hope that the Government will seek to work towards reducing class numbers for five, six and seven year-olds to way below that figure.
Baroness Young: The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Blatch is extremely important. It follows from a recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. The committee makes a firm and clear recommendation in paragraph 6 of its report, which says,
"In the view of the Committee, the most important parameters, including the all-important target of the maximum number of pupils in an infant class, should appear on the face of the Bill".
That is what the amendment seeks to do in subsection (1).
The answer to the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, as to whether we want to see this as a maximum or a minimum, is that all of us, as a general principle, would think it desirable that class sizes should reduce in number. I do not believe that there will be a great deal of argument on that point.
It is a huge change in policy to legislate on this matter. It raised many questions, as my noble friend Lady Blatch indicated, which we now understand. I hope that we shall have even greater clarification on the matter of, where there are one or two extra children in a classroom, whether another teacher should be forthcoming. I hope I understood the position correctly. It seems to me that it will create immense expense, apart from anything else, far greater than anything that was anticipated.
When we turn to the sums, I believe that it was all going to be paid for by the winding-up of the assisted places scheme. I wonder whether that money will cover the provision of the right number of teachers. I can think of a school which I know well where at the moment a class is oversubscribed by four pupils. That creates immense difficulties for the school and for the poor teacher who usually has to confront the irate parents who cannot get their children in. There are therefore many subsidiary problems and it is important to have them cleared up.
I hope that the Government will consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that this is contrary to what the Delegated Powers Scrutiny
500
Committee suggested, that this is not going to be put on the face of the Bill, and that the regulations should be introduced by affirmative resolution procedure. The issue is clearly important.
Baroness Blackstone: It may be helpful for me to speak now. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, these amendments reflect the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, which reported on this Bill only last week. We had sight of the report on Thursday afternoon. That is not a criticism of the committee. I know that the Easter Recess intervened and it is a large and complex Bill.
The Government noted the committee's report and we are now in discussion with our legal advisers in regard to the necessary amendments. We are only too well aware of the importance of the committee's recommendations on a wide range of issues, not just class size, and it is our intention to respond as positively as we can.
On the question of infant class sizes, I am pleased to confirm that the Government will give effect to the committee's central recommendation that the limit of 30 should be on the face of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that she was aware of the various knock-on effects and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, also raised the issue of money, as did my noble friend Lord Peston. There are, however, a whole range of later amendments down, including amendments on costs and on issues such as extra teachers versus assistants and so on, so I wonder if the Committee would agree that it would make more sense if I responded to those issues when we come to those amendments.
Meanwhile, I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Peston that, of course, 30 is not a magic number, but there has to be a firm limit. I am sure he would agree with that. We think that 30 is the right limit and the right limit to place on the face of the Bill.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her proposed amendment. My preliminary view is that wording such as that proposed for subsection (1) may be close to what is needed. However, we shall want to look carefully at the wording to ensure that there are no unlooked for effects. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand that we need to discuss these further with our legal advisers to make sure that the precise wording of the clauses reflects the intentions. Therefore, we shall introduce government amendments on this matter at the Report stage of the Bill. Given that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw these two amendments.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I wonder if I may ask a question. The National Commission on Education, which I had the privilege to chair, after doing a great deal of research, recommended the maximum class size in nursery and primary schools as being 30, so I am glad to hear that that recommendation is now being accepted by the Government.
Taking on board the point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, if it turns out that in a particular school at any one time there are 31 or 32 children in a

501
class, is it a requirement under the law that the extra one or two must be taught by a qualified teacher, or is it possible that for a temporary period they might be taught by a teaching assistant?
Baroness Blackstone: No. We shall come to this matter a little later. It is the Government's intention to ensure, as is absolutely right and proper, that all children of this age should be taught by a qualified teacher. That is what we will ensure happens.
Baroness Seccombe: We are talking about legislation and the rigidity of having 30 children in one class. If at a rural school which was miles from anywhere the parents of most of the children thought that it was right that a 31st child should be added, but one parent felt as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, feels, and insisted that another teacher was enlisted, what would be the situation as regards enforcement of the law? What would the sanctions be and who would be offending in that situation?
As a magistrate I always think of how one enforces the legislation. It would be interesting to know the thinking of the noble Baroness on that point.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: The noble Baroness said, and I am sure she pleased the Committee, that it was the intention of the Government to look positively at the thinking behind the amendment. I wonder if the noble Baroness would make it clear whether that positive look applies to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, of using the affirmative procedure. If, by chance, it does not, I should like to make the point, which I made very often when we were in government, at a time when I was doing my utmost to support Ministers, that I still recall some arguments which I had with my noble friend Lady Blatch, who is now in a different situation, on this very subject of affirmative procedures.
I understand very well that it would be extremely unfair to throw all the odium for this bad habit at the noble Baroness. It seems to me to have been for quite a long time an ingrained habit of the department she now represents to indulge in these thoroughly bad practices. I found, to my great distress, that complaints levelled from the other side of your Lordships' House had little effect.
I am extremely hopeful now, supporting as I do the point made with great cogency by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, that his argument will commend itself to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness first. Of course, I do not believe that any school would want to fail to respond to what the law requires it to do in circumstances of this kind. It will be provided with the resources, and it cannot be in any school's interests to do other than commit itself to what the law requires. The Secretary of State could issue a direction to the school or the local education authority under Section 497 of the Education Act 1996 and get a court order to enforce it.
502
I now turn to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. We have been able to respond positively on the issue of affirmative procedures in relation to the Teaching and Higher Education Bill. We will, of course, look and think carefully about it in relation to this part of this Bill. However, I should say to the noble Lord, and I am sure my noble friend will agree with this, that given that we are conceding that the limit of 30 should be on the face of the Bill, that will obviously have some effect on what the thinking might be about the affirmative resolution. Of course, we will take this away, think about it and consult our legal advisers.
Lord Peston: Before my noble friend sits down and before the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, speaks, perhaps I may ask her doubly to reassure me. She said that she would take legal advice on the question of what goes on to the face of the Bill. I am always delighted when a Minister responds positively to someone in Opposition. Equally, I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, and I suffering from the same besetting sin; namely, that we try to be consistent no matter where we are sitting, which I do not think will meet with approval from everybody. Nonetheless, on this matter we do.
I am a little worried that in following the recommendation of your Lordships' Committee the Government might be getting themselves into legal hot water, not far removed from what the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, implied might arise. Can my noble friend reassure us, in trying to respond sympathetically, that we will not end up with a worse state of affairs, including a legal minefield, than we had to start with? In other words, I do not wish to deflect her remotely from being supportive of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but I do not want her to give us a Bill that will become an Act of Parliament which, rather like one or two aspects, if I may say, of the Act introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, when he was Secretary of State, will be unenforceable. That would worry me a great deal. I refer, of course, to religious courses.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question before she proceeds further with the Bill? I very much welcomed hearing the noble Baroness say that although the report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on delegated powers had only been seen by her Department last Thursday, nonetheless heads had been put together. I think the noble Baroness's words were that there would be consideration of necessary amendments. I hope I am not sounding as though I am niggling when I say that I think it would help the Committee if we knew how the noble Baroness intended to proceed. Can she give a very quick assessment of the report of the Select Committee, a Select Committee which, incidentally, exists in order to examine whether there are inappropriate delegated powers in Bills and which expresses considerable concern so far as this Bill is concerned. Eight or 10 of its recommendations would fall within the ambit of the undertaking given by the noble Baroness.
The next recommendation made by the Select Committee relates to Clause 21 which we shall not reach today. However, I am raising the issue to ask the

503
Minister whether she will be revealing to the Committee, point by point as we reach the relevant clauses, the Government's thinking on the regulation-making powers in those clauses or whether she is considering making a statement to the Committee—possibly when we sit next or the time after that—about the way in which the Government will tackle the Select Committee's recommendations.
I apologise if I sound as though I am niggling. I do not think that I am; I think that it would help the Committee to know the way in which the Minister intends to give effect to the undertaking that she has given, which I welcome.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may raise one point. I preface my remarks by saying that I am no breaker of laws, but I hope that the Minister will not get into too much detail about breaking the law with regard to the example that we are currently considering of the 31st or 32nd pupil. The first point to consider is where the money will come from for an extra teacher. I believe that it has been suggested that it might cost between £25,000 and £35,000.
I put it to my noble friend and to the Committee that we are breaking the law every day with regard to education. The law has been broken many times today simply because religious services—school gatherings for religious purposes—tend not to be held, although that is the law. There is supposed to be a daily religious service in our schools, but such services do not take place—and for a number of good reasons. First, in secondary schools in particular, there is not sufficient room for all the pupils. Secondly, in some cases teachers are unwilling to undertake such duties. I believe that the number of such teachers is increasing.
I hope that my noble friend will realise that certain practical difficulties have to be borne in mind. However, I am not saying that we should not have this as an aim. I tend to agree with some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Peston, particularly on numbers. At some point, I am sure that we shall say, "This cannot be done at present". At the moment, for example, there is a shortage of teachers and until we can move towards finding a solution to such difficulties, some of the problems being raised now simply cannot be met.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may begin by responding to my noble friends Lord Peston and Lord Dormand. Of course, we do not want to enter a legal minefield, but perhaps I should remind my noble friends that we have a clear manifesto commitment that five, six and seven year-old children should be educated in classes of no more than 30 children. That is a commitment, a pledge, that we intend to meet. I believe that schools will want to meet that pledge and that it will be in their interests to do so. The resources will be made available to enable them to do so. Therefore, there should be no legal minefields and no resort to the courts. I believe that schools and local education authorities will respond extremely positively.
504
I turn now to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. We shall, of course, let the Committee know, as we go on, how we intend to respond to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. As I have already made absolutely clear, we intend to be extremely positive. Perhaps I may help the noble Lord by saying a little more about that now. The report makes a number of recommendations about appropriate resolution procedures. As I have said, we shall respond as constructively as we can to the recommendations in respect of the provisions covering, for example, the responsibility and functions of governing bodies; local management of schools; the LEA code of practice on LEA school relations and in respect of appeals procedures, relating to both appeals for admission to a particular school and exclusion appeals.
The report suggests tightening some of the provisions of the Bill. In particular, the Select Committee was keen to see clarification of the regulations governing foundation bodies and that the definition of "school lunch" should appear on the face of the Bill. It wanted the power in Clause 84(8) to determine or vary admission arrangements to be drawn more precisely. Again, the Government will respond positively to all those recommendations and, where possible, we shall bring forward amendments in Committee rather than delaying them until Report. However, there may be a few cases where, because of the legal complexities involved, it will be necessary to table amendments on Report. I hope that that helpfully answers the noble Lord's question.
Lord Baker of Dorking: The noble Baroness was very frank at the beginning of her last intervention when she said that the clause was a Labour Party manifesto commitment and that it should therefore be implemented. In fact, if one considers carefully the Labour Party's policy before the election, one sees that this is its one specific declaration. The rest of the Labour Party's education policy amounted to the clever use of adjectives—but I believe that we have a government of adjectives. This is a specific commitment and it is therefore appropriate that it should be part of Clause 1 of the Bill. To the extent that it is a commitment, it should be on the face of the Bill.
However, I hope that the Minister realises the complexities and difficulties of implementing such a policy, which were mentioned by a noble Lord opposite. A class of 29 can swell to a class of 32 because of the influx of gypsy or travelling children or simply because new families have moved into the district. The school will then get an extra teacher. However, the situation could be reversed and the class may decrease to 28. It will then have to go back to having one teacher.
This is a random way of spending £120 million. I only hope that, as the debates proceed and the regulations become more specific, the Minister will indicate exactly how the provisions will work in practice. I suspect that such things are best left to local management of schools. It may well be that when a class temporarily increases to more than 30 children, the money could be better spent in another way rather than on an extra teacher. Only the school will know. A school

505
may be situated in a rural area or in a difficult inner-city area. Even if we are talking about a manifesto commitment, it will be very difficult in practice for schools to operate within such a strait-jacket.
Baroness Blatch: I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Baker. I tabled the amendment because, given that the Labour Party had made such a specific promise, I thought that such a provision should appear unequivocally on the face of the Bill. I believe that local schools would like to be able to decide their own priorities. I agree with the Minister that, by and large, schools will welcome the thrust towards smaller classes in this age group. However, I want the Minister to know that delivering this policy will result in real pain. The 31st or 32nd child in a class will be bussed out of the village in which he or she lives and away from the school attended by brothers and sisters. Is the Minister saying that siblings will be protected, along with denominational preference and parental preference, and that no child will have to go to a school that is poorer in terms of performance standards than that in his or her locality?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dormand; I took down his words precisely. He said, "Some of the problems being raised now simply cannot be met". That is right. The Minister will find that this is a blank cheque because capital moneys have been promised as well as moneys for teachers. Those of us who have been in local government know that, down the line, that means pre-empted local government moneys, irrespective of their priorities as local education authorities or the priorities of the schools themselves.
Perhaps I may clear up a slight misunderstanding with the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. If a school thought that it made more economic sense to have a teacher-assistant for the 31st or 32nd child rather than a costly, fully qualified teacher, I would not want anybody to think that I was suggesting that the teacher-assistant should be the teacher of the 31st or 32nd child. I was simply saying that that person might assist in the classroom with the management of the 31 or 32 children. Where the parents want it, the governors are happy to accept it and the school is also happy to accept it, that makes economic and educational sense. In those circumstances there should be flexibility to accede to local preference. That is not allowed for in the legislation. When one is considering the interests of rural England, I believe that to be a great pity. It is disproportionately uneconomic to tie up one qualified teacher for possibly one or two children.
Lord Peston: I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. I realise that we want to get on to other business. We do not want to delay the Lord Privy Seal or the Leader of the Opposition. But for my sake can she just clarify this matter? Does she want "30" on the face of the Bill or not? I am sure that it would help my noble friend if she answered that she wants that number on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: I am looking for honesty and integrity as regards this policy. We would not put
506
"30" on the face of the Bill. We would be doing what we can to free up as much money as possible and as taxation will allow in order to provide the local education authorities and the schools themselves with the money to determine local priorities. I have said to the Minister that I believe most primary and infant schools wish to re-emphasise the importance of spending that money on the lower age groups. Therefore, I put my trust in the schools and governors themselves, supported by the parents, in proposing that that is the best way to deal with the matter.
The Government display a rigidity which will be difficult to deliver in practice. As I said, we have heard early mutterings of concern from the Treasury because this is a kind of blank cheque. We shall come later as to how much of the policy can be met by savings from the assisted places scheme.
My noble friend Lady Seccombe raised a very important point. If the Government mean what they say and intend to put this provision on the face of the Bill, and if action were to be taken under the 1996 Act, then who would be the guilty partner? Would it be the school, the governors or the local education authority? If the school, the governors and the parents agreed to take the 31st child but one parent said—and the law says so—that she wanted her child educated in a class of 30, and if, as the noble Baroness suggested, action were to be taken under the 1996 Act, who is the guilty partner?
The noble Baroness said that she was discussing ways of giving effect to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I very much welcome that. I hope that I shall be able to welcome the next recommendation of that committee that the regulations which ensue will be through the affirmative resolution procedure. Perhaps I may ask one last question for clarification. Is the noble Baroness saying that in principle the ministerial decision is that "30" will be on the face of the Bill and that the discussions taking place are as to how that can be done and what the form of words will be, or is it the case that the Government are discussing with counsel whether it is appropriate to put that figure on the face of the Bill or keep it, as proposed at the moment, in regulations?
Baroness Blackstone: I shall answer the two questions that the noble Baroness has raised. I hope that she will then be able to withdraw her amendment and wait until we come forward with proposals. It is the Government's decision to accept the specific recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee on "30". As regards the specific question of what would happen if a school failed to obey the law in that respect, local education authorities will be responsible except in the case of voluntary-aided schools where the governors would be responsible. I hope that that answers the two questions asked by the noble Baroness. The only other point

507
I wish to make is that I hope she does not believe what she reads in the newspapers about the views of the Treasury. That is pure speculation.
Baroness Blatch: On the basis that harmony has broken out in the Treasury and the Cabinet, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume and that the Committee stage be adjourned until after the Statement.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Economic and Monetary Union
4.44 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the meeting of the European Union Heads of State and Government on economic and monetary union which he chaired in Brussels on 2nd May. My right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary and my honourable friend the Economic Secretary were also present. The Statement is as follows:
"The aim of the meeting, and separate meetings of the Finance Ministers during the weekend, was to take decisions on which countries would participate in the single currency from 1st January 1999; on the nominations for the president, vice-president and members of the executive board of the European central bank; on the bilateral conversion rates that will apply between participating currencies from 1st January; and on fiscal discipline and economic reform. I have placed a copy of the resulting documents in the Library.
"The Heads of Government had before them a unanimous recommendation from the Finance Ministers on which countries should be in the first wave of economic and monetary union, and a supporting opinion from the European Parliament, which had met that morning to consider the Finance Ministers' recommendations. Heads of Government agreed unanimously that the following 11 countries should join the single currency from next January: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain.
"We also agreed without difficulty on the following nominations for the executive board of the ECB: as vice-president, to serve for four years, M. Noyer; and the following four ordinary board members: Herr Issing, to serve for eight years; Signor Padio-Schioppa, to serve for seven years; Señor Domingo, to serve for six years; and Mrs. Hamalainen, to serve for five years.
508
"Heads of Government also agreed on Saturday night a statement that, in future appointments to the executive board, appropriate weight and consideration will be given, according to a balanced system of rotation, to recommendations for nationals of member states not on the initial slate.
"The declaration on fiscal discipline and economic reform, which was adopted by Finance Ministers on Friday evening, is a significant document, building on a UK presidency initiative at the York informal ECOFIN in March. It emphasises the importance of fiscal consolidation in high debt countries and economic reform—both essential to help create jobs and to ensure that EMU is successful.
"All these issues were decided with relative ease. However, as is well known, there were very difficult negotiations over the presidency of the European central bank and it is important to set them out in detail. There was ready agreement on the following. First, that Wim Duisenberg, the current president of the European Monetary Institute, and a highly respected former Dutch finance minister and governor of the Dutch Central Bank, was the best choice as the first president of the ECB. As president of the European Monetary Institute he has already been in charge of the practical preparations of the euro. As president of the ECB he will be well placed to continue this role. Secondly, that we expected his successor to be French. President Chirac made clear his nomination would be Jean-Claude Trichet, again an experienced and respected governor of the Banque de France. Thirdly, that both nominations should be for the full eight-year term. Where there was disagreement was not on the substance of any of this but on the length and form of Mr. Duisenberg's tenure as president.
"Because of the controversy, not least in the European Parliament, it is important to he clear what the precise issue at stake was. Much of the subsequent press reporting has rested on this simple factual inaccuracy: that Mr. Duisenberg intended and wished to serve for a full eight years, as opposed to being nominated for that time, which is the time stipulated under the treaty.
"In fact this was not, and has never been, the case. Eighteen months ago, before any French candidate had been suggested, Mr. Duisenberg very properly made it clear that he would not want to serve a full eight years, in view of his age. Indeed, he did so publicly. At that time he was saying he would not guarantee staying more than two years. Later he talked of between three and five years, but he did insist on being nominated for eight.
"The issues for us were therefore these. If he wouldn't serve the full term was it nonetheless right to appoint him? What was the minimum term we should ask of him? Should there also be a maximum term, given the circumstances?
"The answer to the first question was yes, in our view, because as president of EMI and a highly respected central banker, Wim Duisenberg was plainly the right person to launch the euro. The

509
answer to the second question was again clear for us: he should at least stay until the euro was launched and all transitional arrangements, particularly the introduction of the notes and coins, were in place. This accorded with Mr. Duisenberg's own wishes that he oversee this process and step down shortly after. It was over the answer to the third question that there was disagreement. Some preferred a fixed date for Mr. Duisenberg to retire, while others argued that this would not be consistent with the treaty. The protracted discussions were essentially over how to resolve this. Mr. Duisenberg's view, backed by ourselves as presidency, was that, though his intention was clear, there could be no question of there being any formal, obligatory end to his term.
"In the end Mr. Duisenberg's view prevailed. At my suggestion, he stated his position personally, in his own words, to the Council. He explained that, because he would be 67 in 2002, he did not wish to serve the full term, but that it was his intention to see through the transitional arrangements for the introduction of euro notes and coins, including the withdrawal of national notes and coins. He made clear that the decision was his and his alone. At the end of the negotiation, the Heads of State and Government accepted this.
"I have no doubt at all that, though the process was very difficult, the decision was right. What is more, since Mr. Duisenberg is under no obligation whatever to retire early, it is entirely consistent with the treaty. Moreover, if the nomination of Jean-Claude Trichet is eventually confirmed, as I expect, this will mean that two highly respected and experienced central bankers known for their independent views will be in charge of the European central bank for a total of 12 years. This is an outcome which ensures long-term stability.
"We were told financial markets would react badly and the pound would go through the roof. In fact, the deutschmark has risen against both the pound and the dollar since Friday. Stock markets in France and Germany are higher than at the close of business last week. British 10-year gilts have not moved since Friday. The markets across Europe and the rest of the world are calm. What they know, as we know, is that the fundamentals are right, a good board is in place and the euro will be strong, not weak. Many people had said the euro could not be launched on time or with a wide membership and that the argument about the presidency could not be resolved satisfactorily. In the end, all these issues were resolved satisfactorily and the single currency will become a reality on 1st January 1999.
"The United Kingdom's own position on joining EMU was made clear by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to Parliament on 27th October. It has not changed. But, in or out, it is in Britain's interests that the single currency is successful and strong. The decisions this weekend, despite the frustrating nature of the process, were in the end the right ones—right for Europe and right for Britain.
510
"The House will nevertheless agree with me that the biggest challenge to Europe lies ahead. To ensure that the single currency is successful, member states must continue to implement reforms of product, capital and labour markets and to promote employability and job creating entrepreneurship. That is the way to a genuinely prosperous future for Europe. It is what we will be pursuing at the European Council in Cardiff.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement of my right honourable friend.
4.53 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place with his usual verve and conviction, although I believe that it must have strained even his powers of stage management to imbue that quality of conviction into his delivery of the Statement. But I agree with him on one point. This is a matter of some importance to this House, to the future economic management of this country and to the future economic prosperity of western Europe which matters so much to all of us.
Perhaps the noble Lord will recognise the following quotation:
"The criteria for monetary union should not be fiddled, fudged or botched in any way. If they are, the answer is not to delay—the answer is not to proceed".
I am sure that the noble Lord will recognise the typical orotundity of the Prime Minister, in this case the ringing endorsement that he delivered on 4th June last year. Does the Leader of the House believe that the deal that he has announced to the House this afternoon conforms with the provisions of the Treaty of Maastricht and is not a fudge of the criteria set out in that document?
I give two examples where I believe it may be helpful for the noble Lord to explain to the House why he believes that it conforms to the provisions of the treaty. First, how does such an assertion square with the overall indebtedness of Belgium and Italy? Earlier this afternoon we covered this particular matter at Question Time. I believe that in this case conformism is the essence of virtue. I have heard it said that the Labour Party is occasionally more Methodism than Marx but, surely, this takes non-conformism too far.
The second example is the appointment of Mr. Duisenberg. The Statement indulged in casuistry of an extraordinary kind of which the Order of Jesus would itself be proud. Does the noble Lord agree with the member of the Bundesbank Council who is quoted as saying that the deal under which Mr. Duisenberg is to stay for only four years is a clear breach of the Treaty of Maastricht? Further, does he agree with Pauline Green, Leader of the Labour Group in the European Parliament, that the deal was accompanied by "unacceptable shenanigans"? The Treaty of Maastricht stipulates that the president of the bank should serve for eight years, yet the Prime Minister was still reported as saying—he said it in the Statement repeated this afternoon by the Lord Privy Seal—that he was "maintaining entirely

511
the sanctity of the treaty". I find it difficult to understand—perhaps that is more my fault than that of the noble Lord—how that contention can be sustained when it is clear that Mr. Duisenberg has absolutely no intention of staying for more than four years in the first place. How does that conform with the treaty, in spite of the rather elaborate explanations that the House has been privileged to hear this afternoon?
I believe that this is yet another example of Bellman politics. If the Government say it three times it must be true. Is it not much more convincing to take the evidence of one's own eyes and ears and conclude that the euro has been floated on a liquid sea of fudge? How is it possible, in the light of this latest addition to that liquid sea, to suggest that we are witnessing the launch of a solid, stable currency? After all, many believe that the Maastricht criteria are in themselves insufficient to ensure long-term convergence, particularly in view of the one-off measures that a number of aspirant members of EMU have had to adopt to get as far as they have.
Further, has the Lord Privy Seal noted the remarkable comments on the Prime Minister's chairmanship of the summit, particularly those made by the Prime Minister of Luxembourg and the Austrian Chancellor, who I believe was quoted as saying that he had never seen anything like it in his experience? I assume that that was a compliment. Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that? Can he also tell the House whether, in view of the nature of the public comments of the Prime Minister's friends in Europe, he has received any private comments about his chairmanship in addition to those which the press picked up and whether they have been any more helpful?
I hope, too, that in view of the fudge, the noble Lord will share my gratitude to my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister, Mr. Major. He was skilful enough to negotiate an opt-out from EMU so that we could have the privilege of not having to take part in the fudge and at the least to see how events develop before the British people at a later date decide whether to join.
In that context, can the noble Lord explain to the House whether he regards EMU as purely an economic project or whether he agrees with Herr Waigel who said that he regarded EMU as a stimulus for European political union? If he disagrees, can he explain to the House how such a fundamental disagreement about the objectives of the policy can be resolved and European unity of purpose still be maintained?
On a more technical matter, can the Lord Privy Seal guarantee to the House that so long as we remain out of EMU we will keep our ability to set our own rules on clearing bank cash reserve ratios? I am sure that the noble Lord will have noticed that the Select Committee of another place addressed that matter and that some people who gave evidence believed it to be a technical
512
matter which could have considerable effect on the ability of this country, in particular the City of London, to sustain its present competitive position.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wish to make sure that I heard and understood the question. It was about the freedom of clearing banks—
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, it was about cash reserve ratios. I am sure that the Minister is aware that all clearing banks in this country must keep a proportion of their cash reserves with the Bank of England and that those reserves are a smaller proportion than is common with continental banks. A smaller proportion of the total number of banks in this country have to keep those reserves than is the case on the Continent, which gives considerable competitive advantage to the British banking system.
In the light of that, will the noble Lord accept that what we saw in Brussels last weekend was not only a blow to the Prime Minister's reputation and therefore to the reputation of this country, but confirmation that as regards the euro sound money has been sacrificed to short-term political expediency for a purely political project? Will the noble Lord explain how that will help his aspirations, which we all share, for a strong currency, aspirations which the markets clearly discounted in view of their reaction in the past 24 hours?
5.3 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I join the noble Viscount in thanking the Lord Privy Seal for repeating in this House a Statement made in the other place by the Prime Minister. I share his view, although I would not use his words, that the appointment of the first president of the European central bank was uncomfortable, undignified and clumsy. Indeed, it was a somewhat messy deal and it is not unreasonable to examine why that happened.
If it was badly handled and if it can be ridiculed there is a point at which to stop. By next weekend it will be a minor part of the development of the European Union. I regret that the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, commented too much about matters which are insignificant compared with the large issues relating to the development of the Community. I also believe that we should not be too holier than thou in our approach. We are all aware of the need to "politically fix" from time to time—it is not as though it never happens here—and we know that the circumstances of the European Union often need compromises of a kind which we might not otherwise like.
However, I say with regret that the view murmured by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich that the remarks of the noble Viscount were trivial seem to be near the mark. The fact is that the bank is launched; the fact is that it was launched on time; the fact is that it has a highly experienced board; and the fact is that the markets have been little disturbed by the course of events, which greatly disappointed some people.
Of course there is confusion about the wishes of Mr. Duisenberg and his intentions. I am surprised that the noble Viscount did not draw attention to his remarks

513
to a Select Committee of Your Lordships' House in February when it appeared that it was a matter of eight years or none at all. There have been apparent inconsistencies in his views, but I do not believe that your Lordships should lose too much sleep over that. Events will soon lose their salience and whatever may have happened at the weekend it is far better that your Lordships' House contents itself with wishing the bank well under its first president and executive board. The aim of the meeting, as set out in the Prime Minister's Statement, was to make four decisions. Those decisions were all made. It was a historic occasion, whether we like it or not, and the caravan moves on.
My main concern is different from that expressed by the noble Viscount. It is with the United Kingdom's position and the Chancellor's Statement on 27th October. From the foundation of the Coal and Steel Community, through the conference at Messina, through the signing of the Treaty of Rome and at every major development in European union, United Kingdom Governments have said, "It will not happen". When it did happen, they said, "It will not work"—but it did. My anxiety is that once again we have missed the opportunity. We have been far too cautious. We have had many opportunities to lead in Europe, but we have turned them all down. The EMU will work and I greatly regret that Britain is not taking a lead but again is on the sidelines watching sceptically, perhaps on this occasion hoping for success but not prepared to take the necessary step and to show the necessary courage to play its full part.
I am prepared to concede that this Government are marginally better and more positive than most over the past half century. However, it must be said—it is a wider comment on Britain's position in the world—that this Prime Minister and his Ministers are happier in Washington than in Paris, Bonn or Brussels because they find it easier to do business there. The time must come when Prime Ministers and their governments believe that paying attention to and bothering with the detail of their partners in Europe is at least as important, even though it is harder work, than lunching with President Clinton and his successors in the White House.
I have a single question for the Lord Privy Seal. It is simple to ask but perhaps more difficult to answer. It is at the heart of Britain's position. While remaining on the outside, how do the Government propose to help the European Union to make the most of the decisions reached this weekend? How will they help to make EMU a success?
5.10 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I listened with great interest, as I always do, to the noble Viscount's response to what I have to say. He thanked me for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place. I reciprocate by thanking him for repeating the comments made by Mr. Hague in another place with regard to my right honourable friend's Statement.
514
As the Prime Minister referred to them and categorised them in the House of Commons, they were somewhat facile debating points. I shall try to answer some of them. The noble Viscount referred to a technical matter. He asked whether we should be able to retain our freedom on clearing bank cash reserve ratios. I am informed that no decision has yet been taken by the European central bank on the level of reserve ratios applying in participating member states. But it is quite clear that such requirements will not apply to banks located in the United Kingdom unless and until we join the single currency. I hope that that clarifies the position for the noble Viscount.
He asked me a number of questions about Mr. Duisenberg. Perhaps I may read an extract from an interview with Mr. Duisenberg in November 1996, long before Mr. Trichet ever appeared on the scene. Mr. Duisenberg said:
"I will still be just under 63 at that time",
that is, when he will first become president of the European central bank,
"and I will be appointed for a period of eight years".
So he has. He went on to say that,
"but I will not give anybody the guarantee that I will stay on for that full period. I do promise, however, that I will not stop after three months nor after two years, but my guarantee does not go beyond that. One has to be realistic and not forget about one's age".
As my right honourable friend said in his Statement, which I repeated to the House, Mr. Duisenberg met the Council in Brussels when this was being considered so that the Council would have the benefit of his own words in regard to his position. He said:
"I want to thank you for the honour of nominating me for the function of the President of the European Central Bank on this historic occasion. I explained to the President of the European Council that I will, in view of my age, not wish to serve the full term. On the other hand, it is my intention to stay at least to see through the transitional arrangements for the introduction of the euro notes and coin and the withdrawal of the national notes and coin in accordance with the arrangements as agreed at Madrid. I wish to emphasise that this is my decision and my decision alone. It is entirely of my own free will and mine alone and not under pressure from anyone that I have decided not to serve the full term. Also, in the future the decision to resign will be my decision alone. This must be clearly understood".
As the noble Viscount was criticising the Government on the position of Mr. Duisenberg, I asked myself whether the Opposition would have vetoed the appointment of Mr. Duisenberg because I cannot imagine anything that would have been more destructive to the creation of the euro which the noble Viscount is so insistent should be launched strongly. Would the party opposite have prevented the appointment of Mr. Duisenberg, the man who at present is the president of the EMI and is obviously the best person to do the job? Of course they would not have vetoed him nor should we have been prepared to do so, which is what I presume the Opposition are now urging that the Government should have done.
I ask a similar question in relation to Belgium and Italy. Would the Opposition have vetoed the membership of Belgium and Italy in the single currency? What is their position on that? That was

515
approved by the EMI and recommended by the Commission. Both Belgium and Italy were recommended for inclusion in the first wave.
What is the Italian position? Italy passes four of the five criteria with no problem. They are: inflation, interest rates, exchange rates, the requirement for legal convergence. The only issue where there is any question mark is the sustainability of the fiscal position. In 1997, the deficit was 2.7 per cent. and forecast to fall further to 2 per cent. in 1999. In the latest draft outline budget, debt is forecast to fall by at least 3 per cent. per year. Italy is running a substantial primary surplus of 6.8 per cent. of GDP in 1997. That draft outline budget has broad political support inside Italy with approval of the budget committees of both houses of the Italian Parliament last Thursday.
In addition, it is also extremely important—and the noble Viscount did not mention this—that the new declaration by ECOFIN on Friday re-emphasises the importance of fiscal discipline within EMU and it brought forward implementation of certain aspects of the stability and growth pacts to ensure its effectiveness in the important early years of EMU. Taking those factors into account, the Government endorsed the recommendation that Italy should join the single currency on 1st January 1999.
The noble Viscount referred to this as being a weak currency and a bad launch. The markets do not seem to think so. On Friday and Saturday Conservative spokesmen were going round the country saying that the pound was going to go through the roof. It has not. On the contrary, the markets seem to have recognised the fact that the euro is launched, is launched properly and with a suitable person at its head. Therefore, the noble Viscount will forgive me if I do not take particularly seriously a great deal of the criticism which he has thrown at us this afternoon.
I was very pleased with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, said. He concluded by asking me a single question which he said is easy to ask and difficult to answer. It is difficult to answer. He wants to know how, while remaining outside, the Government will help the euro to function properly. On many occasions we have said that we wish the euro to succeed. On the occasions when we have an opportunity to put that into practice, as last weekend, that will be the principle that we shall adopt. In other words, we want it to succeed and we shall do whatever we can, as a Government, to make sure that it does.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that he really does believe that this is not a terribly serious issue? Is he really telling the House that this all arose and was public knowledge suddenly over the weekend? That is disputed in many quarters, the suggestion being that Duisenberg changed his mind after the original decision and that, in fact, there was 18 months' notice of that problem. Is he aware that Mr. Leon Brittan was saying on the radio yesterday that he thought it was a great pity that it turned out like this? He had 18 months to get used to it and convince people.
516
These arrangements, and specifically the term of office, were designed with one objective and one objective alone: to protect the central bank from political interference by national governments. As I understand the noble Lord's argument, it is that it was not really a question of pressure from national governments, it was just that this chap Duisenberg would not do it that way. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is really saying that this extraordinary arrangement, this crisis over the weekend, was not due in any way to totally, clearly improper political pressure by the French Government but instead was due simply to the insistence of Mr. Willem Duisenberg who, for the past 18 months, has said that all the national governments must surrender to his personal convenience? Will he tell us that?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord expresses himself in his customary rather florid way. If he is asking me a serious question, I shall try to answer it seriously. But there is no question about Mr. Duisenberg wishing to serve the eight years, as I understand it. He would have been appointed for eight years, as indeed he was appointed for eight years. But there is no compulsion on him to retire during that eight year period.
There is one other quotation I would like to give the House. Mr. Wim Kok, the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, a man whom one would have expected to be the most bruised if improper political pressure had been applied, said:
"We must respect that Duisenberg has said that he will not serve the full eight-year term in view of his age".
The Prime Minister is pleased that Duisenberg will stay on at least until 2002 when the introduction of the euro notes and coin has taken place. Duisenberg himself will decide the timing of his departure. That is in line with the independent position of the bank president. Mr. Wim Kok said that the Netherlands had won a double victory:
"We have the right man, in the right place and the European Treaty has been respected."
If that is the view of the Prime Minister of the Netherlands—and Mr. Duisenberg is, after all, Dutch—it should at least encourage a degree of hesitation on the part of some Members of this House on the extent to which the euro was damaged.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal—
Lord Barnett: My Lords—
Lord Richard: My Lords, I find it very difficult to referee. However, I think that it is the Government's side first, followed by the Cross-Benches, then perhaps the Opposition and then the noble Lord, Lord Boardman.
Noble Lords: Lord Boardman!
Noble Lords: The Opposition!
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal aware that on 27th February this year

517
Sub-Committee A of the Select Committee took evidence from Mr. Duisenberg in Frankfurt and that that evidence, although recorded, has not yet been published? In that evidence, Mr. Duisenberg was asked specifically about the eight-year term of the proposed presidency. His answer was very clear and in complete contrast to the answer reported in the Statement repeated by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal. It is inconceivable that that Statement could have come wholeheartedly from the man who gave evidence to the Select Committee of this House earlier this year. It casts considerable doubt on the credibility of EMU.
Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, what it casts doubt upon is the credibility of the statement of Mr. Duisenberg that I put to the House. I can actually give your Lordships chapter and verse for it. Indeed, it came from an interview to a Dutch magazine called Opzij—and I hope that I have not done too much harm to it by my pronunciation. The interview appeared in an issue dated November 1996 and the following is a direct quote from the article written by Mr. Duisenberg:
"I do promise, however, that I will not stop after three months nor after two years, but my guarantee does not go beyond that … I will not give anybody the guarantee that I will stay on for that full period".
I can only go by the evidence in front of me, in just the same way as the noble Lord can only speak according to the evidence available to him. I should say that Mr. Duisenberg repeated that when he came into the Council during the course of deliberations on Saturday. Indeed, I have already told the House what he said on that occasion.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I should tell my noble friend that I very much regret the events which took place over the weekend. Perhaps my noble friend can explain to me why some governments never seem to be willing to say that a compromise has been reached, especially in the case of Europe. As far as concerns the noble Viscount, I am not clear as to whether he was arguing in favour of qualified majority voting on a greater scale. I see that the noble Viscount indicates that he was not. Therefore, he would either have done a compromise deal or would have done no deal at all. I see that the noble Viscount is nodding his head in agreement. However, I believe that that would have been a disaster.
The real problem is not that what was done will destroy the economic independence of the European central bank; indeed, that is not at issue. What has always been a problem with this whole issue is the independence of the European central bank, balanced by some form of accountability. That is the real issue: whether there will be any accountability. As regards Duisenberg and Trichet, I do not wish to divulge the unpublished minutes of my committee. I have the honour to chair that committee and the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, is a very distinguished member of it. He disagrees with me fundamentally on most issues, but the plain fact is—and I am sure that the noble Lord will not disagree with me on this—that Duisenberg and
518
Trichet are both very impressive central bankers. When you have central bankers of that kind then, whatever is done in appointing them, there will be independence in the European central bank. Indeed, we should make no mistake about that fact. The power given to those two by the treaty will be used to the fullest extent.
However, the truth is that an independent central European bank—and I put this to my noble friend—is the last thing that its critics want. They will not admit it, but that is so. They include the noble Viscount, his right honourable friend in the other place and, if he was speaking for them, his honourable and right honourable friends. I cannot say whether he was speaking for all of them; indeed, I doubt whether he can. Nevertheless, they really want the European central bank to fail. That is what it is all about. They will not admit it, any more than my noble friend will admit that a compromise deal was done over the weekend, as often happens in the European Union. Why do we not admit it? Why do we not say so? It is better than doing nothing and it happened. If they wanted a qualified majority voting system they could have had it, but they do not. They have objected to some of the QMV that has gone on so far. Therefore, perhaps my noble friend can tell us whether or not it is a fact that the Opposition and the critics want the ECB to fail.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have no doubt about that at all. I am intrigued by the sudden zeal for the purity of the treaties which is now coming from the very people who protested most, strongest, longest and loudest about their imposition. My noble friend is quite right.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, the noble Lord deserves the congratulations of the whole House on the remarkable feat of having repeated the Statement and given his answers with a straight face. Is not the most regrettable aspect of the proceedings in Brussels the fact that one important nation pursued its own national interest as it thought—and it may have been wrong—to the detriment of the interests of the Community as a whole? Does that encourage the Government if they still intend to join the single currency in due course?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not share that view and my face is perfectly straight. The reason that my face is straight is that, when the Government arrived in Brussels on Friday and Saturday, they were faced with a real difficulty; namely, that Mr. Duisenberg was letting it be known—and indeed, had let it be known—that he was not going to serve for the full eight years. I trust that noble Lords will accept that for the sake of argument. They may not agree with it, but I ask them to accept it at this stage.
If that was the position—and, so far as I can tell, it clearly was the position in the minds of almost everyone who was present in Brussels—clearly some way out of it had to be found. Indeed, two or three ways could have been found; for example, the treaty could have been torn up and people could have said, "Right, Duisenberg will have four years and Trichet will take over from him at the end of that time". However, that would have been

519
in contravention of the treaty and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister was well aware of that fact. Therefore, he negotiated to try to preserve the obligation in the treaty that the appointment had to be for eight years. How could one do that? The only way in which it could be done was to create a situation whereby Duisenberg would be appointed for eight years, while recognising that at some stage during that period he will go. The precise timing of his departure is very much a matter for Mr. Duisenberg.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was asked at a press conference immediately after the Council meeting: "What if he changes his mind?". That is an interesting thought. If Mr. Duisenberg were to change his mind, that is a matter for him as my right honourable friend said. If he were to change his mind, who knows when M. Trichet would become the governor of the European Central Bank?
However, the fact of the matter is that the terms of the treaty were preserved and Mr. Duisenberg's position was protected to his satisfaction. Every other country that was present seemed to be reasonably satisfied with the outcome. The Dutch have expressed their satisfaction with the end result. The result of the weekend is that the euro is launched with a membership of 11 countries. Some people, like the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, think it is a great shame that we are not the 12th country. That is a view which I know is held strongly in some quarters. As I said, the euro is now launched. All the dismal Johnnies who said that it would not happen or that it would not work or that the markets would not react to it are wrong.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that this is a good news Statement in the sense that we now have 11 participating countries in the single currency and we have also chosen the president of the bank? I wish to explain why I believe this is the case and why some of the arguments that have been put forward are wrong. Is my noble friend aware that we have now chosen two people to be president of the bank? Is he also aware that the treaty makes this central bank the strongest central bank in the world? Is he also aware that M. Trichet and Mr. Duisenberg are honourable men who I believe will fulfil their functions properly? Does he agree with me that the combination of the treaty and the right people will result in a successful bank?
Lord Richard: My Lords, it is interesting to note that in this entire exchange no one has questioned the independence, integrity or competence of M. Trichet. No one has alleged that M. Trichet is a French stooge because he clearly is not. No one has alleged that he will not be a good, competent and independent central banker because he clearly is such a person. As regards the people who will run the central bank for approximately the next 12 years, both of them are highly experienced, independent central bankers. That is thoroughly to be welcomed.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal explain one passage in the Statement
520
that I find a little troubling? I believe he said that it was agreed that the next president would be French. However, it was not said that the next president would be M. Trichet. That seems to me to be a mistake. If it is to be M. Trichet, that is all well and good—assuming that M. Trichet is around at that time—but it should not be assumed that any French candidate should follow Mr. Duisenberg.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I shall repeat what I said. My right honourable friend said,
"There was ready agreement on the following … we expected his successor to be French. President Chirac made clear that his nomination would be Jean-Claude Trichet, again an experienced and respected governor of the Banque de France".
It was M. Trichet—not just a Frenchman—who was nominated.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Statement makes much of the fact that the financial markets remained steady in the wake of the events of last weekend. I put it to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that those markets react unsteadily only when they are surprised. They were certainly not in the least bit surprised by the laughable events of the weekend.
But what is much more important, I am sure most noble Lords will agree with the final paragraph of the Statement which starts with the following sentence:
"The House will nevertheless agree with me that the biggest challenge to Europe lies ahead".
I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a question about EMU, which I have tried to put without success to some of his colleagues and which encapsulates what is perhaps the greatest challenge to be faced by EMU; namely, given the lack of labour mobility in Europe, what effect do the Government think the single interest rate required by EMU will have in Italy, for example, if the Italian economy is in decline but a majority of the other euro economies are doing well? Will the interest rate be fixed to suit the Italians, or will it be fixed to suit the others, and at what cost in terms of unemployment and interstate transfers?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the rate will, of course, be fixed by the central bank according to the criteria which it considers appropriate. It would be foolish indeed for any spokesman in your Lordships' House this afternoon to attempt to say what those criteria would be and how they would be applied in the hypothetical case that the noble Lord has indicated.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I draw the noble Lord's attention to Protocol 18 to the Maastricht Treaty which sets out the statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank itself at Chapter III, Article 11.2. If the noble Lord reads that article, he will find that the protocol of this section states nothing about nomination at all. All it states is the following,
"Their term of office shall be eight years and shall not be renewable".

521
I cannot recall any amendment being moved to that protocol. We had negotiations on the Treaty of Amsterdam where no point on this was raised. The correct point at which to raise an amendment to this article was at Amsterdam. It was not important then in spite of the prior knowledge which was apparently held that in 1996 the nominated president had some doubts about the matter. I find this a difficult issue. Why was no amendment moved to make the whole thing completely open and above board? Does the noble Lord expect us to stomach the story that this difference between the French and the Germans is somehow dreamt up by the press? It either exists or it does not. If there was a conflict, why was that? I am afraid that the explanations sound a little thin.
Lord Richard: My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised to hear that Chapter III, Article 11.2 of Protocol 18 of the Maastricht Treaty is not exactly my bedside reading, nor indeed is it either on my lips or at my fingertips. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the whole of the Community, the Commission, EMU, and the Council of Ministers, together with their respective civil servants, are moving in one direction, but somehow or other they have all missed an obvious legal point which my noble friend has been adroit enough to appreciate. I shall consider Chapter III, Article 11.2 of Protocol 18 of the Maastricht Treaty. I do not know what opinion I shall arrive at, but I suspect that my opinion will probably be on the side of the Council, the Commission and the legal departments of the Commission and the Council and the lawyers in the Foreign Office. I may be wrong and I may experience a Damascene conversion to the legal expertise and perception of my noble friend, but we shall see.
In some ways this 40 minute discussion on the Statement has been rather sad. I believe that noble Lords have concentrated on the trivial and have missed the important point. The important point is that the euro is launched. The markets are treating it as a strong currency and we in this Government will do our best to make sure that it is a success.

School Standards and Framework Bill
5.39 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("() In respect of any infant class, nursery class or reception class in any maintained school which includes one or more children under compulsory school age, the limits imposed by the Secretary of State under this section shall not exceed the limits from time to time established by regulations for the size of similar classes provided by the independent or voluntary sector.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 3 is a probing amendment. It is intended to clarify the Government's position on four year-olds in reception classes. It is widely held that the current policy for four year-olds in
522
reception classes places many vulnerable children at risk. I hope that the Government's intention in setting down Part I of the Bill includes the intention to use their delegated powers in such a way as to protect those children. However, on the face of the Bill there is no indication of that, and the noble Baroness at Second Reading did not give any indication of what policy is likely to be.
To give some idea of the scale of the problem, in 1997 there were 343,824 four year-olds in reception classes, representing 51 per cent. of all four year-olds. There are probably more than that today. It is quite an important group, yet there are no regulations whatever governing class size or teacher-pupil ratio for four year-olds. They seem to fall somewhere between the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment.
Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee of the regulations in relation to other groups of four year-olds. These fall under regulations from the Department of Health depending upon the Children Act. In summary they require, for four year-olds in day care, a staff ratio of 1:8; in nursery schools, a staff ratio of 2:20, and in nursery classes, a staff ratio of 2:26. However, in the case of nursery schools and nursery classes the two adults have to be made up of a trained nursery teacher and a trained and qualified nursery nurse. Why is it that in a reception class we can have 35 four year-olds with one teacher? It is a ridiculous anomaly. It has to be said that the Department of Health in its guidelines, while it does not feel itself able to lay down what should be done in reception classes, does say:
"Local education authorities and schools should determine what staffing levels may be appropriate in particular cases".
It also states:
"Studies by HM Inspectorate have shown that the provision made for those who are younger than 4 years 9 months has not always fitted their needs".
In another section it says:
"For three and four year-olds research suggests an upper limit of 6–8 for peer group size [is best] to optimise peer interaction".
What has been happening in practice? Why is this so important? The answer is that primary schools across the country for some reason, possibly financial, have been "hoovering up" four year-olds into their reception classes and very often numbers are reaching well over 30. This may be good for the schools' finances but it certainly is not good for any of those children who are vulnerable. It will be agreed, I am sure, that a child's success in integrating into school and benefiting from education is dependent upon the child having the necessary confidence, emotional maturity and social skills to cope when he or she arrives at school.
A four year-old from a stable, loving, supportive family who has gained self-confidence in the early years, a child who has learnt to play with other children, may be able to cope with a class of 35 children. By contrast, for a child who is just four, who has had little or no encouragement or socialisation, who lacks self-confidence, and who is often from a family suffering multiple disadvantage, to be plunged into a

523
class of 35 children, most of them older than himself, is a terrifying and traumatising experience. It can cause that child to hate and reject the school. Indeed, that very often is the case. Those children, as the noble Baroness said earlier, may well go on to violence, disruption, truancy and exclusion, and end their schooling functionally illiterate.
I hope that the amendment will enable the noble Baroness to give the Committee an assurance that the regulations which the Secretary of State will issue under this part of the Bill will ensure that four year-olds in reception classes have the benefit of class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios at least as favourable as those which, rightly in my view, are required from the private and voluntary sectors and for maintained nursery schools. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: I rise to support the noble Lord in raising this very important issue. I was somewhat disappointed that the Government did not take the opportunity in the Bill to clarify the whole area of the ratio of teacher or supervisor to young children. I hope that the noble Baroness can give us an inkling of the thinking of the Government on the issue.
Things have changed a lot in recent years. I think of my children; that is partly how I came to be involved in politics. I had to deal with all the bureaucracy of playgroups which I was helping to run. I look at what happened to my own children. They were fortunate enough to go to a playgroup; they were then able to go into their school at rising five—not actually as young as some children now—and have two or three days a week and then half-days for the whole term before going into school so that they could get used to the playground and to being in a big group. I fear that that does not happen so much today. The reason is partly because of what has happened in recent years, particularly the introduction of the nursery voucher scheme. There were difficulties. As the noble Lord said, schools were "hoovering up" four year-olds in some parts of the country because that was how they could get money into their schools. The noble Lord is absolutely right. That may have been in the interests of the schools, but it certainly was not in the interests of young people.
We have an opportunity today to look at proper provision for children from the time they go into nursery classes or into playgroups and to examine realistic, sensible and consistent ratios between those looking after the children and the children themselves. It clearly is a muddle and has become more so in recent years. I hope that the Minister will give us an inkling of how she sees this working out. It does not appear to me from the Bill that it is clear what will happen to these large classes of four year-olds. When someone just reaches the age of four they are very young and very vulnerable in a large school situation.
524
I return to the point. It is not just what happens in the classroom; it is all the other things that happen in school. The four year-old who enters the playground is a very small person in a big playground. I look forward to the response of the Minister.
Baroness David: I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on this amendment. I am glad he said that it is a probing amendment. We want information. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. This all started with the nursery voucher scheme. The primary schools were anxious to get the extra money they badly needed—the £1,100—and therefore they were willing to increase class sizes to get children into the schools.
Many children are very vulnerable at that age. It is important that we know what the Government are thinking as to what is to be done about young children going into reception classes which are already probably too big and will have to be reduced. I look forward very much to hearing what my noble friend has to say.
Baroness Blatch: I had the privilege and, I would argue strongly, the pleasure of being the chairman of my local playgroup, serving approximately seven villages in my county of Cambridgeshire for eight years. Long before the voucher scheme was introduced, in the case of the local school, particularly in a county where there were falling rolls, or parts of a county where there were falling rolls, there was a tendency to take in four year-olds to bolster numbers in order to keep the teachers. For a long time, there has been pressure for four year-olds to go into those classes.
In principle I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. As I suspect the Minister will say, the issue is more complex than that. The noble Baroness will be aware that I asked a number of questions about provision for under five year-olds. I believe that a review is taking place—I do not know whether it has reported yet—among the endless reviews being undertaken. It has always seemed to me deeply unfair that a playgroup was confined to having one adult for every eight children, and Montessori schools and private schools were equally restricted in the number of children they could have, yet the local school could take in children with no limit whatsoever on the maximum class size. For a long time there has been an unlevel playing field.
As we move towards the proposals and policies of the present Government, that problem is thrown into relief. The policy has begun to have an effect on playgroups. The pressures mean that the numbers of children in those playgroups will reduce even more quickly as the Government guarantee education for three year-olds. That was always an aspiration of the previous government. But as that happens, the playgroups are being exhorted to think about caring for children before the parents go to work in the morning and after they return in the evening. I have enormous respect for the playgroups organisation. But if we do not watch the situation carefully, it will be turned into a kind of babyminding service rather than an educational/play organisation. Where playgroups were good, they were very good and did a great deal to pave the way for

525
children moving into mainstream schools. Certainly the playgroup with which I was associated had an incredibly good relationship with the local primary school. Indeed, the headmistress or a member of the staff of the local primary school was always a member of our management committee. Therefore the relationship was a fruitful one.
Letters have gone out from the department to private nursery schools. Those bodies say that they cannot compete with the schools. The teacher/pupil ratio by which they have to abide under the rules is so great and uneconomic at the price the Government are offering in order to bring them into the scheme that they will be priced out of the market. I do not believe that it would be good for the country as a whole if playgroups, private nursery schools and, for example, Montessori schools found it impossible to continue. I understand that "top up" fees will be forbidden and that the Government will not accept those bodies into local government schemes if they levy a fee which is greater than that agreed by the local authority. That is a straitjacket that will seriously disadvantage them.
I come back to the principle of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. Many four year-olds are inappropriately accommodated in reception classes in schools. They are not ready for that. But sometimes it is about numbers. The phenomenon goes back long before the voucher scheme. It has been a feature of rural communities for a long time.
Lord Whitty: The concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others about the appropriateness of the treatment of children below school age are shared by the Government. It is an issue of which we are well aware. We share the concern about whether reception classes are the appropriate basis for four year-olds. While the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may be right that there may be other pressures, it is also undoubtedly true, as my noble friend Lady David and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, indicated, that the nursery voucher scheme had the effect in some areas of encouraging LEAs and their schools to cram as many four year-olds as possible into their reception classes. We are anxious to reverse that trend.
In the Government's consideration of the early years development plans for 1998–99, we would have rejected any plan which proposed to meet our target by providing a free place for all four year-olds simply by increasing reception class intakes. We have also asked all authorities for details of the specific support their schools will provide for the younger four year-olds in reception classes.
The noble Baroness referred to a review. We have recently issued a consultation paper on the regulation of early education and childcare which addresses issues at the nursery stage such as staff ratios. Indeed, it specifically highlights our intention to review adult/child ratios for three to five year-olds in all the different settings in which they are currently taken into the system.
526
As noble Lords have said, it is a hugely complex issue. The current arrangements are diverse. Therefore the consultation is an open consultation. A copy of the consultation document was placed in the Library of the House when the consultation began last month. The consultation period will last until July. That is our present position on nursery classes and the admission of four year-olds to reception classes.
The noble Lord's amendment, by implication, raises the issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, also referred: whether the presence of one child under the compulsory school age in an infant class would mean that the class is subject possibly to two different regulatory limits. I refer either to an infant class size limit as in the proposed legislation, which would state the maximum number of pupils to be taught by one teacher irrespective of the presence of support staff; or the maximum adult/child ratio for classes containing pupils below compulsory school age, which is the situation so far as concerns nursery school guidance.
We shall need to consider how best to address the issue in the light of the responses to the consultation to which I have referred on the regulation of early education and day care and on the draft guidance on class size policy. Since the noble Baroness raised the issue of playgroups, perhaps I may say that part of that consultation will include the role of playgroups and other forms of private provision in the early education plans.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord recognises that this consultation period addresses the issue that he raised and that in the light of that he will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. Referring to cramming four year-olds into reception classes, he said—I took down the words—that it is the Government's plan to reverse that trend. Where do they intend sending those four year-olds?
Lord Whitty: We hope to improve both the quality and range of nursery provision. Some of the children to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred do not fall within this category because they are effectively rising fives. But we hope that the outcome of our consultation on the nursery age provision will lead to more effective provision outside the infant school reception class.
Baroness Young: We all appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has gone into some detail on the matter. I support the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. He raised another important issue about four year-olds in mainstream schools. My understanding is that a rising five is defined as a child who will be five in the first term of his arrival at school. That is very different from the child who has just turned four, who really is very small. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explained that there is consultation on this matter. But it is yet another part of the Bill which is very unclear.

527
I am surprised that the noble Lord needs to consult about the adult/child ratio. Why should not the regulations laid down for private organisations be exactly the same for public organisations? If they are not good enough for private schools they should be improved, and improved now, or we are left with the feeling that the children in maintained schools are unquestionably worse off because the same regulations do not apply. This inequality of treatment in this regard is a serious issue. Almost the most important thing with tiny children is the adult-child ratio. They require considerably more help, even than five year-olds.
Although I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, recognises that there is a problem, I am bound to say to him that it would be helpful to know whether he expects this matter to be resolved in the form of the result of the consultation before the Bill completes its passage through this place.
6 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The consultation period will not necessarily be complete in terms of the Government's assessment of it in time for this Bill. Indeed, it does not relate to the guidance covered by this clause, which relates to infant classes and their size.
The noble Baroness is right. There is differential treatment as between the private and public sectors. One aspect of the consultation will examine what is appropriate for the different forms of provision. But that does not affect the position in relation to this clause. I have said that the presence of the younger four year-olds to whom the noble Baroness refers will not prejudice the attainment of the targets for infant class sizes.
The problem raised by the noble Lord is being dealt with differently through this consultation period, which will, it is to be hoped, lead to some change in the guidance relating to pre-school provision—
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before the noble Lord sits down, do his remarks mean that we could find ourselves in a situation whereby children of statutory school age are in classes of limited numbers—I shall not enter into the argument as to whether the figure 30 should be on the face of the Bill, but I refer to a limitation on the number in the class—whereas younger children, because they are not statutorily a part of the education process, can be in much larger classes?
Lord Whitty: No, that is not the intention; nor is it the reality. At present, private sector pre-school provision is subject to regulation, and the public sector is subject to fairly firm guidance. There is no intention of relaxing that as a result of these regulations.
Baroness Blatch: I can tell the Committee that that is far from the practice in the field. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, as he shares the education portfolio on the Front Bench, ought to get out there and see that there is a vast difference between the restrictions on private playschool provision and what in fact happens in reception classes, where four year-olds frequently reside in schools.
528
Perhaps I may tempt the noble Lord, who hints at being empathetic and sympathetic to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne. There seems to be agreement across the Committee that whatever the outcome of the review—I would not put numbers on it—and whatever the adult-child ratio is for one part of the sector for under-fives, that should pertain throughout, whether public or private. If the noble Lord can give acceptance to that idea, perhaps we can bring forward an amendment to set it down on the face of the Bill that equal treatment should be meted out to under-fives, whether in public or private provision.
Lord Whitty: No doubt the noble Baroness will consider whether she wishes to bring forward amendments to the Bill. However, this clause is not the appropriate point for such an amendment. I am not in a position to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. The view may well be that differential arrangements are appropriate. I accept the noble Baroness's point that there are differing problems in different parts of pre-school provision. Clearly, that will form part of the consultation in which we are engaged with all groups—public, private, parents, local education authorities, health departments and so on. I do not wish today to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. The noble Baroness is correct in saying that I have some sympathy with the point that lies behind the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the Minister for being helpful. We have not by any means got there yet. I wish to make one point before withdrawing the amendment at this stage; namely, that the definition of "infant class" in the Bill is,
"a class containing pupils the majority of whom will attain the age of five, six or seven during the course of the school year".
It therefore excludes all younger children.
If we are to have any kind of coherent, seamless policy, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment will have to get their heads together. I hope that they are both participating in the consultation. I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage so that I can look at the consultation and discuss it with colleagues. I may or may not wish to bring the amendment back in another form. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert—
("(c) provide that schools are separately reimbursed for any capital costs of complying with provision made under this section.").
The noble Baroness said: I notified the noble Baroness the Minister that I shall move the amendments on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas, who apologises for not being able to be present today. Most are probing amendments. His Amendment No. 4 refers particularly to the capital costs of complying with provision for schools under this section.

529
The noble Lord wished to ask the Minister whether she is able to confirm that this amendment is unnecessary because schools will be fully funded for any improvements that they need to make and will not be expected to dip into their existing budget.
Earlier in the debate today she said with regard to this point that the cost would be met. However, at that stage we were not discussing capital costs. This amendment refers in particular to the capital costs—in other words, extra classrooms, extra buildings. Will the Minister tell the Committee who will be responsible for that extra cost? Will it be fully met by the Government, or will LEAs also be involved in the capital cost? I hope that that is indeed the suggestion that the noble Lord would have put to the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Maddock: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 21 in this group. I shall also refer to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
Amendment No. 21 is also a probing amendment. Its purpose is to encourage the Minister to make a commitment that the money made available from the abolition of the assisted places scheme will be transferred to the revenue support grant by September 2001. That is the date by which the Government have said their pledge on class sizes will be honoured.
In another place the Minister explained that the funding for the reduction in infant class sizes would eventually be distributed through normal grant mechanisms. However, there was no undertaking as to when that would happen. We seek to press the Government to commit themselves to a timetable for the policies that they have pledged themselves to introduce. That should not present a difficulty for them, unless in their hearts they fear that the Treasury may not be able to stump up the money that is required at a later date. We support the Government in this matter. I hope that they will realise that we are trying to be helpful to them in ensuring that the Treasury enables them to take forward their commitments.
I now turn to Amendment No. 4. Behind this amendment is another important issue; namely, space standards. The amendment relates to capital costs. However, in carrying out the reduction in class sizes, those classes will require somewhere to go. I know that the Government, like ourselves, were against the reduction in space standards under the previous government. I have experience of being a governor in a first school and I know how important space is if a large number of special needs children enter mainstream schools. Furthermore, modern teaching methods have seen the introduction of a lot more equipment for information technology. The ability to take small groups aside and help those who are failing, particularly in reading, requires space. Yet under the previous government we saw a reduction in space standards. I had hoped that this was one of the areas that this Government would reverse. Government Ministers, when in Opposition, heavily attacked the previous administration on the reduction in space standards. I therefore hope that today the Minister will give us
530
some hope that the Government recognise the problem and can assure us that capital will be available to ensure that children have not only enough teachers, but enough space in which the teaching can be done.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have not previously joined in the discussion on the Bill. I was unavoidably prevented from speaking on Second Reading and I could not be here to discuss class sizes, which I very much hoped to do because there is a good deal of experience on that subject in Scotland.
On this point, I emphasise that we are not talking about sweeties; very large sums of money are likely to be incurred if extra classes have to be put in. I notice from a brief which the Local Government Association kindly sent me that it is anxious about how the Government intend the finance to be fed to the schools. This matters to it very much. The Government will incur huge expense, the amount of which is unknown, if they meet the whole of their aspirations on the reduction of class sizes to 30. It is a very good aspiration, which no one could possibly oppose, but it is important to know how it will be achieved and how the money will be found. I hope that the Minister has a clear idea of how the capital cost will be met so that the schools may have confidence in the Government being able to back them in what they are trying to do.
Baroness Blatch: This is another practical example of how implementing the policy will cause local education authorities some heartache. It seems to us that the matter needs to be unequivocal, either on the face of the Bill or in Hansard using the Pepper v. Hart reference system. Where a capital cost is incurred which is directly related to the class-size pledge, if the Government do not meet it pound for pound, local authorities' priorities will be pre-empted because they will have to meet the cost. They will have no choice but to do so because it will be the law; the letter of the law will have to be met by local education authorities.
We have already heard that the Government can take action under the Education Act 1996. If that is the case, local education authorities will have no option. Where they are expected to meet a capital cost, if it is not reimbursed, their own moneys will be pre-empted. In many instances LEAs may have very different priorities, concerned with health and safety, for example. Their capital moneys under any government will always be limited. This becomes yet another way of pre-empting what local authorities want to spend and their ability to determine their own priorities. I believe it essential that there should be an unequivocal promise that where capital expenditure is incurred as a result of meeting this clear-cut class-size pledge—it is not an obscure policy; one can see it and measure it—the local authority should be reimbursed and the reimbursement should be at the time the local authority requires the money. Local authorities do not have the ability to put money up front in the hope that, through a bidding system, it may or may not come on-stream at some other time, as the case may be.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I support my noble friend on the Front Bench. It seems to me that the detail of the

531
Bill has not been thought out. My noble friend Lord Baker talked about travellers' children. We all know that at some times, perhaps during the pea-picking season, travellers will come into a village, stay for six to eight weeks and then go. What does that mean in terms of capital costs for extra classrooms? There would not even be time to put in demountable classrooms. I cannot see how this will work. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My understanding was that we were also to debate Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 in this group. So far only Amendments Nos. 4 and 21 have been spoken to. All these amendments are about funding. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would like to say a word about those two amendments before I respond to the whole group.
Baroness Byford: I apologise and thank the noble Lord the Minister for allowing me to come back. With regard to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, my noble friend Lord Lucas would like to ask the Minister what kind of conditions he has in mind. With regard to Amendment No. 20, he would like to know what the Minister intends should be the scope of these powers.
6.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that clear. The four amendments are linked and it is easier for me, if not for the Committee, to deal with them together.
Perhaps I may first respond to Amendment No. 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I hope to persuade the noble Baroness that the amendment is unnecessary. It would give the Secretary of State the power to reimburse capital costs which schools may incur in complying with limits on class sizes, but it would not place a duty on him to do so. Clause 1(3) above the new paragraph (c), which is introduced, says "may" rather than "shall".
I am pleased to be able to confirm to the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State already has such a power. Indeed, as I shall say to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, with regard to Amendment No. 21, he has already announced that we are making available £40 million in this financial year for the cost of the extra classrooms needed to accommodate more, smaller infant classes. This refers to the issue of space. I shall be able to give the noble Baroness an assurance on that point. Local education authorities have to submit applications by the end of this week, and the allocations will be announced in due course.
I can understand that some noble Lords may feel that schools require reassurance that the Government will provide enough capital funding to cover the costs they may incur. Clause 1(4) places a duty upon governing bodies, and also upon LEAs, to exercise their functions with a view to ensuring that limits on class sizes are met. Governors would not wish to be faced with such a duty if they did not have the financial support to exercise their functions as required.
532
I can give this reassurance. We shall provide the legislation and the funding and we shall expect them to exercise their functions so as to comply with class-size limits. Let me be absolutely precise to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. We shall provide the necessary capital resources to enable all LEAs to accommodate infants in classes of 30 or fewer. I hope that Members of the Committee will agree that we could not he more precise than that. We are confident that LEAs will do so, as they know that this policy has the support of parents. Infant classes in all schools will contain no more than 30 pupils from September 2001 at the latest.
Amendment No. 4 would not require the Secretary of State to do any more than he is already able to do. I hope that that reassurance will persuade the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we have no intention of placing duties upon governing bodies and then denying them the resources to fulfil those duties.
I should like to cover Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together as they relate to the same issue. Again, I hope that I can reassure the noble Baroness that we have no intention to place anything other than the relevant conditions upon the payment of grant. Under Clause 3(1), as presently drafted, the Secretary of State would not have the power to impose unreasonable conditions—he could be subject to judicial review if he did so—or conditions which bore no relation to the implementation of class-size limits.
Perhaps I may illustrate this point by reference to the draft regulations, which are in the Library of the House. We propose four conditions. First, the approval of the LEA's statement by the Secretary of State; secondly, the provision of such information as may be requested annually by the Secretary of State; thirdly, the provision of evidence of how funds have been spent in line with the arrangements set out in the statement: and, fourthly, compliance with arrangements set out in the approved statements to limit class sizes.
The Secretary of State also needs a power to impose requirements of an administrative nature such as, for example, requiring the repayment of grant if it is not used for the proper purpose. I am sure that the noble Baroness would not wish to prevent the Secretary of State imposing requirements designed to ensure that grants paid were properly accounted for and were used for the intended purpose.
If Members of the Committee have suggestions about the conditions I have read out, we shall, of course, be happy to consider them; but questions of detail of that kind can perhaps best be dealt with when we consider the regulations that we shall be making under Clause 3.
I turn to Amendment No. 21 which concerns how we will supply funds to local authorities to enable them to reduce infant class sizes. The amendment calls for us to move away from specific grant and to use the revenue support grant mechanism by September 2001 at the latest. I understand the motivation behind the amendment and the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. But there are two reasons why we do not want to do it in that way.

533
The first reason involves ring-fencing and the effective targeting of resources. We want to make sure that the extra funds that we provide to reduce infant class sizes are used for that purpose only. Specific grants make it clear that the Government are using all the savings from phasing out the assisted places scheme for that purpose. That was an undertaking we made last year in the assisted places Act.
The second reason involves a flexibility in funding levels. The needs of each LEA will differ. They start from different points. They have different class sizes at the present time and will need to take into account different factors when reducing their infant class sizes. The formula used in education standard spending assessments—that is what would be used if the amendment were accepted—may not allow us to provide sufficient funding in the transitional years to LEAs with specific difficulties. It is precisely in those authorities where class sizes have risen most that we must make a difference if we are to achieve our pledge.
However, we keep an open mind on the longer-term approach to funding. We will have to continue to use specific grants at least until our target has been met and the three-year group of pupils are in classes of 30 or under. That will be the case in September 2001. After that, it will be a question of maintenance rather than change. It may possibly be more appropriate then to move to the revenue support grant mechanism. We do not need to decide that now and may in fact decide it in the next Parliament.
I hope on that basis that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will feel able to withdraw Amendment No. 4 and that other Members of the Committee will not feel it necessary to move subsequent amendments in the group.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may make one further point. The noble Lord referred to a period of time when we will be dealing with maintenance rather than new build. But that does not happen automatically when one makes a pledge to have class numbers below 30, or any number. It does not work like that.
In some local authority areas demographic changes mean that rolls rise and fall considerably. Families move in and out of the area. In 60 per cent. of the country, the difference can be critical when a family moves in or out of an area. I know that over half a century in my village one or two families moving in or out of the village has made the difference between class numbers being above or below 30.
I do not believe that we will ever reach the stage of pure maintenance, though we may get to the stage of over-provision in some areas and serious under-provision in others. Once that situation is made permanent, the local authority faces a serious problem. It is left with the cost of maintaining a situation in the face of pressures in other parts of the authority area. That is why I say again that it is a decision best taken at local level, where the local authority can make real
534
judgments about where to penny pinch and where it would choose to spend its money, given the ability to choose its priorities for spending capital.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I believe that we have an entirely benign misunderstanding. I did not say maintenance as opposed to new build. I was saying that the extra effort which will be required to bring down all class sizes to 30 will be at an end.
The noble Baroness is right to say that in both local areas and nationally there will be demographic changes which will affect the demand for places in infant schools. As she said, that has always been the case. There are movements of population; there are demographic changes in fertility, childbirth and so forth, all of which mean that local authorities will have to plan for changes after the initial push, so to speak, has been completed.
The noble Baroness is right also to say that local education authorities have the responsibility of planning for change. The difference will be that they will have to plan for it in future on the basis that they cannot allow class sizes to rise above 30. In all the rest of what the noble Baroness says in relation to future changes, she is entirely right.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Did the Minister say that the Government would put in £45 million initially for the "push", for expenditure on classrooms?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said £40 million this year.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Obviously the Government have done some costing, even if it is only speculative costing. Can the Minister say how many new classrooms they expect to get throughout the country for £40 million?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The figure of £40 million is for this financial year only. It is intended to respond to applications from local authorities. As we are talking about a three-year programme of reduction in class sizes, it is not appropriate for me to do other than say that, on the basis of the applications and the way in which the £40 million is spent. we will have a clearer picture in terms of pounds per place or pounds per school. On that basis, capital allocations will be made for future years in order to achieve our objective.
Baroness Young: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his careful explanation of the position in relation to the money. He clearly set out how local authorities, for this financial year, will have to make their bids by the end of this week. That seems to be a rather short period of time, though they have probably been thinking about it for a while.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: They did not start today.
Baroness Young: At any rate, the local authority has to think for the year ahead. I too have been in local

535
government and recall clearly the immensely complicated problems which arose unexpectedly from the building of a new estate and the consequent "bulge". Vast numbers of young families with young children move in and then they move on. A huge demographic change takes place.
I am anxious that in a matter as full of variables as this is (as the Minister admitted) with population growth, changing fertility rates, movements of population, with people moving from north to south and so forth, quite apart from the points made in relation to the movement of people for fruit picking and so on—which results in a local problem when numbers of children suddenly move into a school—if the local authority finds itself suddenly with classes of more than 30 it will be breaking the law. It is therefore an extremely serious issue. It is not a simple debating point. No doubt local government accounting officers and their lawyers will be quick to point out the difficulties should local authorities find themselves in that situation.
I make these points because, when the regulations come to be issued—when we shall see how all this works—a degree of flexibility will be required. I do not see how it can work and how we can guarantee that, from Land's End to John o'Groats, there will not be a single class with more than 30 children among the five, six and seven year-olds, desirable though that may be. Though it is extremely helpful to hear that £40 million will be available for building classrooms and for the extra teachers, the fact that it is difficult to predict movements of population by anybody who has ever tried to do it, means that the regulations will need to include some measure of flexibility as a recognition of the reality of the situation.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the Minister finally concludes on this matter, perhaps he can answer a concern which I am beginning to develop. This is a difficult area for all the reasons that have been outlined. If we give a school or an LEA a responsibility to meet the target of 30 there is the problem of how to arrange the finance. For various reasons schools and LEAs get caught with sudden movements of population. I come from an area where we are used to having to plan for enormous and rapid changes in school population. We can plan the fluctuations up and we can plan them down again and life is very interesting in those circumstances.
Let us suppose that we have a hypothetical school—I know one should not deal with hypothetical situations—and that school finds itself in breach of the law. We are handing parents the right to take that school, or the LEA, or possibly the Secretary of State, to court for being in breach of the law. I am not sure what happens at that point. Is there a penalty? If so, what is it? If there is no penalty, what is the point?
I am absolutely clear that the intention is wholly benign and the intention is to get class sizes down to a particular target. None of us has any difficulty with that.
536
I am dealing with the practical implications of having a school that is temporarily outwith the law. What happens at that point?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not achieve the seniority in local education of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, or the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, but I have been a councillor in a local education authority and I and the Government are well aware of the valid points about the difficulty of making provision when there are variables in numbers and in location of pupils. That has been the case ever since public education first existed. Nothing has changed and nothing will change.
We are adding to the list of legal obligations which have always existed for local education authorities. They have always had duties to provide education. Many of those duties were taken away or reduced by the previous government who did not much like local education authorities. But we like education authorities, and we intend to give them the responsibilities and the resources to deal with those responsibilities.
We are not going to make exceptions. We are saying that it is educationally desirable—all the experts agree—that those aged five, six and seven should be taught in classes of not more than 30. That has been shown to have an effect right the way through the school career and throughout life. We are imposing this as one extra obligation on local education authorities and we shall provide the resources both of revenue and capital to deal with it. I cannot see what the Committee can object to in that.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am not objecting at all. When we get to 2001 the law will say that an LEA shall comply with this provision. I have no problems with that. I have no problems with the ambition. I have one or two worries about the provision of resources. What happens to the LEA or the school which, for a particular reason, finds itself in breach of the law at that point? If the Minister will forgive me, that is a point he did not answer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I know my noble friend Lady Blackstone wishes to come back, but may I respond to that particular point? My noble friend has already answered that point. The Secretary of State could issue a direction to the school or the LEA under Section 497 of the Education Act 1996 and, if necessary, get a court order to enforce it.
Baroness Blatch: I support my noble friend in saying that we are not objecting. We are rather wide-eyed. We welcome the fact that the Government, on this single policy alone, says that it will be imposed. It will be inflexible; it will be met. Any expenditure whatever resulting from the application of the policy will be met pound for pound. The Minister has made that absolutely clear.
It has also been made clear in the guidance that there will be no inhibition of parental preference; no inhibition of denominational choice; and no inhibition of sending a child an unreasonable distance to another school. It shall not have the effect of sending a child to

537
a school which has a poor reputation and it shall not, at any time, inhibit enlarging classes anywhere else in the education system. In other words, the money will not disadvantage any other part of the education system.
That is manna from heaven for local authorities. They will welcome the statement. It is so unequivocal that it is my view that it should be on the face of the Bill. We shall bring forward amendments to that effect. The Government have absolutely nothing to fear because the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has been so clear and so unequivocal. There can be no doubt whatever. Local authorities have had the benefit of hearing what the Government have to say today on the matter.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Committee for participating in this debate on Amendment No. 4, with which we have considered Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. I wish to take up a point raised earlier with regard to the movement of children. My noble friend Lady Platt, who is not in her place at the moment, referred to children in villages whose parents have seasonable occupations. The concern arises also in inner cities where even within a term one can see many children moving in and out of schools because their parents, for whatever reason, are moved. When does the figure of 30 apply? Does it apply at the beginning of the term or during the term? I am concerned about the implications.
My noble friend Lady Blatch said that we are not objecting to the suggestions mooted in this part of the Bill. We are, however, pointing out the practical implications. I am grateful to the Minister for so clearly stating that the money will be there and that it will happen.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although my noble friend Lord Lucas may wish to return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Topemoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert ("shall be obliged, subject to circumstances specified in regulations under this section, to secure that that limit is complied with in relation to that class.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 6 and my noble friend Lady Maddock will speak to Amendment No. 22.
The effect of Amendment No. 5 is to make clear that LEAs and governing bodies are under a statutory duty to comply with class size limits, subject to tightly-defined exceptions set out in regulations. That would make it easier for the Secretary of State to use his powers contained in the Education Act 1996 to direct governing bodies to comply with those limits.
The purpose of the amendment is to probe the wording in the Bill which simply says that LEAs and governing bodies,
"shall exercise their functions with a view to securing that that limit is complied with".
I wish to press the Government on what they mean by "with a view to securing". I am sure that most schools—probably all schools—would wish to comply with the class size but there are 13,000 schools with infant
538
classes. It is a near certainty that some of them, at some stage, are going to feel either that they cannot achieve it, for some of the reasons we have been talking about, or that they have other priorities. Will it be a sufficient defence for them to say, "We have tried to do so; we have acted in accordance with the Act in trying to comply, but we cannot do so"—or even, "but we don't want to do so"?
I am probing what the words "with a view to" mean. Do they mean, "You must do it" or "You must try to do it and you must demonstrate that you have tried?" There is an important difference. Given that 13,000 schools will be in that position, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, one, or probably more, will test that. The effect of the amendment, if passed, would be to make it clear that that is a statutory obligation.
I understood from an earlier answer from the Minister that the body responsible for non-compliance is the local education authority, although I thought I heard just now that the body responsible is to be the local education authority and/or the governing body. I should like to probe that a little more and here I speak as the leader of a local education authority, at least for another two days, and subject then to the will of the people. An LEA has no local leverage to require a governing body to meet the pledge. Having to be responsible for non-compliance is a bit hard if you cannot do anything to bring about the compliance. The amendment would deal with that problem.
I turn now to Amendment No. 6. At Second Reading and on many other occasions, I have made it clear that my party would have wished to extend the reduction in class sizes to all primary classes. I do not intend to return to that point specifically in this Bill except to reiterate that that remains our policy. We accept that if priorities have to be chosen, it is right to start with infant classes. Therefore, we fully support the policy that will be enacted under this Bill.
However, we remain concerned about the possible effect on junior classes and about what may happen if reducing infant class sizes has a deleterious effect on junior classes by increasing their size. When the Bill was being discussed in another place, the Government made it clear that they would not expect schools to accommodate the pledge on class sizes for infants by increasing class sizes at key stage 2. I am sure that they would not expect that—none of us would—but that may well be the effect. We are anxious to discover what the Government will do if that should come about. What will they do when they see education authorities' development plans which appear to have that effect? How serious are they in their intent? Do they still intend to fund plans which could have the effect of disadvantaging seven to 11 year-olds?
I happen to be a governor of a junior school. It is physically separate from its infant school, but I know that this is a matter of concern there. We need to know from the Government how serious they are about

539
these proposals. I leave my noble friend Lady Maddock to speak to Amendment No. 22, and I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Baroness Maddock: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 22, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Tope. This amendment goes a little further than did my noble friend in his other two amendments. It seeks before the next general election to extend the Government's policy on reducing infant class sizes to all children from the age of five to the age of 11. It assumes that by the beginning of the financial year 2000–01. Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, will have reached the end of his commitment to stick to Tory spending plans.
In another place the Minister responsible for school standards, Stephen Byers, said, at col. 79 of Commons Hansard:
"Obviously, as the class size pledge rolls on year by year, it will benefit seven, eight, nine and ten year olds. This will he a clear consequence … We do not intend to deliver it for key stage 2 children by way of regulation. Those who know how schools operate will be conscious of the practical consequences of introducing a class limit of 30 for five, six and seven year olds".
It is for precisely that reason that we have tabled Amendment No. 22.
If one establishes a reception class of below 30, it is naÏve and simplistic to expect that group to stay intact as it moves up the junior part of the school. That is an over-optimistic view. We know that when schools are strapped for cash they will make different arrangements. They will be required by law to limit the size of their infant classes. We heard explicitly this afternoon about how the law will bite. However, if schools make different arrangements because of cash difficulties, other children may suffer, irrespective of the assurances we have been given to the contrary. We believe that such assurances must be backed by cash. We do not think that it is unreasonable to ask that priority should be given to improving education by extending the policy to pupils at key stage 2.
I hope that the Government will agree with us in principle. They may find it difficult, with the footsteps of the Treasury behind them, to commit themselves to it, but I hope that they will agree with the principle. Before the general election, their cry was, "Education, education, education". We, as a party, were also committed to education. Therefore, I hope that the Government will agree with us. Indeed, they seem to be in a fairly good financial position at the moment. The Treasury coffers are doing much better than anticipated, so I can see no reason why the Government cannot make some commitment. I hope that they will look favourably on this proposal. It is a little pie-in-the-sky to think that one can insist on infant classes of fewer than 30 children, but fund only that part and that there will be no effect on the children subsequently.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: I wonder whether the noble Baroness can explain where the extra money will come from. For two years and at the last general election the Liberal Democrats claimed that their party would
540
increase spending on education by the equivalent of one penny extra on income tax although the Government are already spending more. Where will the extra money come from? Clearly, we are going far further than her party promised at the last election.
Baroness Maddock: I am happy to respond to the noble Lord. His intervention reminds me of being in the other place. This is the way in which we used to debate matters there. There is a dispute about the figures. We as a party do not accept the noble Lord's figures. Indeed, in the other place and elsewhere we have vigorously expressed our disappointment about current spending on education. We believe that the Government have misled people. They are not spending as much as we would like on education.
Lord Whitty: We have some understanding of, and sympathy with, the reasons behind this group of amendments, but we do not believe they are necessary. The intention of the Bill is clear. We do not seek to finance the limitation on infant class sizes by a knock-on "deleterious"—I think that that was the word that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, used—effect on junior school classes.
Perhaps I may deal first with Amendment No. 5. At first sight, it seems an obvious amendment, seeking to place a duty on LEAs and governors to secure compliance with limits rather than just to exercise their duties so as to secure such compliance. I am sure that the amendment is intended to be helpful, but I hope that I shall be able to reassure the noble Lord that the present wording of Clause 1(4) already suffices. I should also record the fact that our own legal advice has been that the noble Lord's amendment might in practice weaken the duty on LEAs and governors to secure smaller infant classes. The amended text would constitute a duty on those bodies, but it would be one of many duties, and there would be no indication that that duty takes precedence over any others. I am sure that that was not the noble Lord's intention, so perhaps it is better if I explain why the present wording should suffice.
The Bill is drafted to require LEAs and governing bodies to perform all relevant functions under the Education Act with the objective of ensuring that class size limits are met. In response to the noble Lord's question about where the responsibility lies as between the governing bodies and the local education authorities, I advise him that each of the bodies concerned will have to perform all of their relevant functions so as to secure compliance with the class size limits. If the limits are not met then the responsibility will be with whichever of those two bodies was in breach of those duties. I reassure the noble Lord that each of those bodies will have to perform its relevant functions to secure compliance with those limits. When they both do so those limits will be achieved. Therefore that is an obligation and not a pious aspiration as, I believe, the noble Lord was hinting. In the light of that I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the present drafting makes that obligation clear and that his amendment, if anything, might weaken those obligations.

541
Amendments Nos. 6 and 22 are concerned with the size of junior or key stage 2 classes. The noble Baroness clearly wishes to ensure that the benefits of class limitation apply to key stage 2 pupils as well as to infants whereas the Bill clearly restricts its specification to limits for infant classes. However, the noble Lord's amendment is concerned simply that LEAs and schools may allow key stage 2 class sizes to rise in order to free funds and resources to pay for more infant teachers. I recognise the logic of that concern and in doing so I would not wish to suggest that we believe that there are grounds for LEAs to behave in that way and drawing resources from other areas of funding to meet the infant class size element. The Government are determined that that should not happen, but we believe that the amendment, as drafted, does not represent the best way of ensuring that it does not happen.
The Secretary of State's power to specify the information that will be required from local authorities in their initial statements, together with his power to approve or reject those statements, represents a sufficient safeguard. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has yet had an opportunity to consider the draft regulations and guidance that were issued for consultation on this issue last week. If Members of the Committee have not had such an opportunity, it is perhaps worth my drawing attention to a couple of the points in those documents.
In the information to be provided by LEAs we specify that their initial statements of their strategies to meet these objectives must contain measures that they are taking,
"to ensure that smaller infant classes are not delivered at the expense of key stage 2 classes".
In paragraph 19 of the draft guidance we make the position abundantly clear to LEAs that,
"plans will not he approved that show reductions in infant class sizes being achieved at the cost of increases in key stage 2 class sizes arising from a transfer of funding from junior to infant classes".
These documents are still in draft at this stage and I would obviously welcome any proposals for improving or strengthening the drafting. The difficulty with the amendments to the Bill as such lies in linking cause and effect at school level. It will be necessary to prove that a change in key stage 2 classes which were considered to be a disadvantage had arisen directly and solely from action to cut infant classes. In some cases I suppose that that would be obvious. It might be clear that if four junior classes of 30 were changed to three classes of 40, then it is pretty obvious that a transfer is taking place. But in many cases the link would not be so evident. We believe that the most effective way of ensuring that there is no risk of disadvantage to other age groups in the delivery of the infant class size pledge is through the initial approval of the statements produced by the LEA and then through the effective monitoring of the measures taken on the ground by the LEA and the school. I hope that the noble Lord accepts that that is our intention.
I shall now deal with Amendment No. 22. I wish to make it clear that our principal approach is that the Government are committed to providing higher
542
educational standards for all pupils. We have established a clear priority here in placing limitations on infant class sizes. That is why our pledge to the electorate was focused on this group. The intention of the Bill is to deliver that pledge. There is plenty of evidence that class size at that stage in the education process is the most significant. That is the point at which chances of educational success can so often be determined. Research shows that the benefits of having been taught in small classes early on can still be observed even where the children concerned were later taught in larger classes. Therefore, that seems to us to be the clear priority. The extra funds that we have provided for schools this year will help to maintain teacher numbers at all stages, but we are not convinced of the priority needs or case for imposing statutory limits on older year groups.
I turn to what the noble Baroness said and to the quotation from the Chancellor. While we have no plans to impose class size limits on junior classes, the progression of pupils through primary schools will, in time, mean that in practice most junior classes will contain 30 or fewer pupils. In typical one or two-form entry schools, children are likely to remain in their groups of 30 or fewer as they move through the school. In addition, junior schools and class sizes will benefit in the short term from the £835 million extra funds for schools in England that the Government have provided. In the longer term they will benefit from this automatic progression although I do accept that there will be situations where that does not apply because of particular complications in individual schools.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has just said that as the numbers work through the schools the classes in junior schools will become smaller. If extra teachers are provided for five, six and seven year-olds, but not for eight, nine and 10 year-olds, how is it that that smaller progression goes all the way through the school? The year groups are the same: they do not simply drop off the end. If there are fewer teachers per child in year groups eight, nine and 10, then the smaller classes cannot be replicated lower down the school without the teachers.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I may add a further complication. There are primary schools which have two published admission numbers. There is one for five year-olds and another for eight year-olds. There will be a complication because additional pupils are coming in after key stage 1.
Lord Whitty: As regards that last point, clearly there will be some situations where there is no automaticity of class structures moving from the infant stage through to the junior stage. But in most situations there will be some congruence between the structure of infant classes and junior classes. As regards resources and the number of teachers, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred, we have already provided substantial additional resources which will benefit junior schools as well as infant classes. Given the priority of education I am sure that those priorities will continue without pre-empting

543
anything that my right honourable friend the Chancellor may say in future. Nevertheless, we have already provided substantial resources which will allow for improved teacher numbers and not just in those places where we are prescribing the class size.
Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that the priority must be on prescribing limits on infant class sizes rather than on reflecting it all through the junior school system. It is clearly our intention that all pupils will eventually benefit from that process. I also hope that the noble Lord will accept that the drafting as it stands meets his point rather better than the amendments he has tabled here. Therefore, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw them.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: The noble Lord has dealt with the scenario of a governing body meeting these commitments—that is to say, by possibly shifting resources from the junior to the infants. He has explained why he does not believe that that will happen. Another way in which governing bodies might attempt to meet this commitment is this. In a one-form entry school one would expect three classes in the infants consisting roughly of one class of five year-olds, one of six year-olds and one of seven year-olds. It would be perfectly possible to have a different structure which would consist of three equal forms each having within them, five year-olds, six year-olds and seven year-olds. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, referred to that possibility earlier and also to the possibility that that might impose greater demands on a teacher.
If one followed that system then it would give more flexibility to a governing body. If one simply has classes with one age group, a six year-old arriving would have to be accommodated in that one class. If one had a vertical structure then one would have an option of three classes into which such a child might be placed which would give governing bodies a little more flexibility. Is that not one possible way in which some governing bodies might choose to give themselves just that little bit of leeway that they might need?
7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: In general, the advice about the structuring of classes has been based on age cohorts, but obviously there are some schools, particularly those with a small intake in rural areas, where a different structure has been chosen and agreed by the school and the local education authority. It is conceivable that that situation may lead to a more flexible follow on into junior schools. However, I do not suggest that that is a general trend or something that we recommend beyond those areas where special circumstances apply.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord has raised an interesting point. In Scotland for many years the contractual agreement with the teaching profession is that there should be no more than 33 in any class in any school for pupils of any age. Where there is a mixed age group the limit is 25. The teaching profession regards it as being very much more difficult to teach a mixed age group class. I wonder whether the Minister really believes the brief that the noble Lord has just read
544
out. I am astonished, given my experience of what happens when there is an absolute limit on class sizes. I know that in one city not very far from where I live schools flatly refuse to admit anybody when that would bring the class size over 25 or 33, regardless of brothers or sisters, choice and all the rest of it. That is the only way in which they can make the system work. I do not believe that that is a good idea. What the Government intend to do is much better, but I do not believe that they have the slightest idea of the costs and complications of this.
Lord Whitty: I note the point just made by the noble Baroness. I suggest that because class limitations have applied in Scotland for some time Scottish local authorities and schools have managed to meet those criteria. We are trying to avoid the kind of situation just described by the noble Baroness in which an absolute limit takes no account of differing pressures and choices. That is intrinsic to our whole approach to this matter.
Lord Tope: When I moved this amendment I made clear that it was essentially a probing amendment. I had no intention of pressing the matter at this stage. As to Amendment No. 5, the Minister has received legal advice that it is better as drafted. I must take seriously that advice. I am not sure that I wholly understand it, but I certainly accept it tonight and will look at it further.
As to Amendments Nos. 6 and 22, I accept that it is not the Government's intention that this measure should have a deleterious effect on junior classes. My concern was to press the Government on how they intended to fulfil their intention. The Minister referred to the draft regulations issued last week. I confess that, given the London borough council elections on Thursday, I have not given a high priority to studying those draft regulations in the past week. Perhaps I shall have time to do so next week. I shall certainly look at them carefully. However, I remain concerned about how the Government will fulfil their intention, which I wholly accept is right, that this measure should not have an adverse effect on junior classes.
My noble friend may wish to comment further on Amendment No. 22. In moving this particular amendment we are attempting to help Ministers. We are on the side of the Government in this respect. It is well known that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have an enormous war chest by the turn of the century. We are trying to help Ministers ensure that they can secure a little more of that war chest to follow through this very good intention. We all accept that the priority to reduce infant class sizes is right, but those infants will grow older; they will turn into juniors given the period that we are considering here. I do not suggest that they will necessarily go straight from classes of 30 or fewer to classes of 40, but they will be going into larger classes. The Minister may well be right in saying that in some cases the lower class size will follow through, but the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is undoubtedly right that there will be occasions when that does not happen.

545
We seek to support Ministers in their endeavours rightly to persuade the Treasury that a larger proportion of the war chest should be used for the continued support of children up to and beyond the age of seven. I am sure that the Minister recognises that we are on his side in moving the amendment. If we return to this matter at a later stage, I am sure that he will equally welcome our intentions. However, at this stage, subject to what my noble friend may say, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Maddock: I very much welcome the view of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that something should be done about the older children in junior schools. I regret that he does not have the same commitment today to ensuring that that happens, although I understand very well that the Chancellor's footsteps follow the Minister's.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Youngmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("() Notwithstanding the provisions of any regulations made under subsections (1) and (3) above, the governing bodies of aided and foundation schools with a religious character shall be entitled to exercise discretion in admitting a child to an infant class where so to admit him would exceed any class size limits imposed under this section, provided that there is no school of the same religious character within reasonable distance of the child's home with the capacity so to admit him.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, much regrets that he is unable to attend the Committee today. At the opening of my remarks I make it quite clear that this is a probing amendment. In the course of the Committee stage we have already learned a great deal about the intentions of the Government in relation to maintained schools. I welcome this. I shall look very closely at Hansard. My amendment is concerned particularly with foundation and aided schools. In those cases another consideration comes into play. Parents who choose either a foundation or aided school for their child do so because they particularly want that type of education for their child. I believe that parental wishes in this regard are of the utmost importance.
At Second Reading we discussed what happened with the 31st child in the class. We have heard the Government's response to this matter in relation to maintained schools. But there are many Anglican and Catholic parents who would far rather have their children in somewhat larger classes in denominational schools than in smaller classes in maintained schools. I believe this to be a very important point.
It would be helpful to have from the Minister an answer to a number of points. I deal first with a point made clearly by my noble friend Lady Carnegy about the position in Scotland. There class sizes have been determined by statute. My noble friend has said that in that case authorities simply say that no one else is to be admitted because the class is full. What is the position in aided and foundation schools where the governors are
546
responsible for determining this matter? What is the freedom of choice for parents in those circumstances? What will happen if the governors wish to admit more? Will they be taken to court in these circumstances? Will the local education authority have the right over and above the school to determine how many pupils there should be? Referring to the £40 million that has been set aside for extra classrooms, what will be the contribution that Churches make to the capital cost of building in certain circumstances? Will they be expected to pay once again if it is necessary to provide an extra class, even supposing that the Government pay the full revenue costs of an extra teacher?
I do not pose these questions as debating points. They are very serious matters. I move the amendment because I have had drawn to my attention the considerable anxiety of a number of schools about how the whole policy will work.
It is infinitely easier to determine how the policy will work in maintained schools. However, in the case of aided and foundation schools it is infinitely more difficult and in many cases infinitely more important. It is important to consider the wishes of the parents and cases in which all the children of a family go to the same school. I would be grateful if the Minister would clarify those points so that we might understand more fully how the policy will work in relation to such schools.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for moving the amendment, although I have some hesitations which I shall express in a moment. I understand that as a result of the policy there will be no reduction in the number of denominational places. If a class in an aided school has to be reduced from 35 to 30, the loss will be made up either by the provision of additional teachers or by the expansion of popular schools, many of which are Church schools.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining clearly the point about capital costs contributions. Revenue costs are not met by the Churches, but a 15 per cent. capital cost must be met. If additional buildings were required under the legislation, would the cost have to be met by a 15 per cent. contribution from the Churches?
My hesitation about the amendment relates to the question of where one stops. The amendment gives no indication of whether 30 or 31 is to be the limit. Why should it not be 32? One is into a game of arbitrarily guessing the limit. That will put great pressure on governing bodies which are already powerfully lobbied over admissions. Indeed, I am lobbied by people who want their children to attend Church schools. If the amendment were passed, governors would be subject to immense pressure by parents who want their children to attend Church schools. That desire is not always as a result of denominational allegiance; parents choose Church schools for other reasons.
Perhaps I am reading too much into the amendment, but there is a possibility that it could be used to override the admissions criteria. I am looking at Amendment

547
No. 8 rather than Amendment No. 7. Under Amendment No. 8 three criteria are required. The first is the desire expressed by the parents. Many parents express a desire for Church schools. The second is the willingness of the admissions authority. It does not state that it must comply with the admissions criteria. The third is that no alternative place is available. If one goes down that route there is a possibility of putting immense pressure on governing bodies to override their admissions policies and a possible relaxing of admissions criteria to which governors strictly adhere.
While I sympathise with the concerns of the noble Baroness, I am not convinced that this way of handling them is an answer.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 are in the group and I shall address those when addressing Amendment No. 7. I do not share the right reverend Prelate's cynicism about the amendment—
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I used the word "hesitation" rather than "cynicism".
Baroness Blatch: I detected a note of cynicism that parents will want; that simply, because they want, the pressure will be too great and therefore it should not be acceded to. There is one small addition to that. I am sure the Committee will find that parents do not want their children in classes of 35, 36, 37 and 40. Therefore, the policy will become self-regulating for the school and will strengthen the arm of the governors in setting the limit. After all, the governors are the servants of the parents; they are mediators between the school and parents.
I take the right reverend Prelate's point that many people are desirous of their children attending a Church school. Such schools are enormously popular, and for good reasons. However, if the governors and their parent body take an annual view that the class limit should not exceed 30—I have always thought that it should be the exception rather than the rule—we should trust the governors and the parents to reach that view.
I strongly support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Young and I turn to the amendments standing in my name. I wish to speak up for siblings and parental preference. I have carefully read the draft consultation document on reducing infant class sizes. It makes pleasant reading for parents of children in school. But can the Government really deliver the policy? Paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 present a wonderful contradiction. The Government believe that classes should not exceed 30. For many good reasons, that is a limit they wish to impose by law. However, they make an exception. Can the Committee believe that the exception is for a special needs child? The burden on a teacher will be greater if the 31st child is a disruptive pupil, a child with special educational needs or whatever. The school will be able to exceed the limit and receive a special educational needs child. Therefore, the burden on the teacher will be greater than if the child exceeding the limit were without such special needs.
548
The Government are making a serious contradiction by stating that schools can break the limit in circumstances which will make life even more difficult for the teacher. If ever there was an argument for special assistance for a classroom teacher it would be in the school which in the course of a year was directed to take a special educational needs statemented child into a classroom which already had 30 children, perhaps when other schools in the area did not have such a problem and were treated more generously. I do not know why the Government are prepared to make a single teacher available to the 31st child with no special educational needs but are not prepared to make available a teacher to the 31st or 32nd child who has special educational needs. Where is the logic in that? It simply does not add up. There is a real contradiction.
Paragraph 13 states that, while it is not possible to guarantee all parents that their child will gain a place in the school of their choice, the class size plans of local education authorities must not lead to a reduction in parental preference. Indeed, it goes on to say that they must enhance it. Therefore, it will be difficult to enhance preference in the more popular schools. It says that LEAs should plan on the basis of enhancing the exercise of parental preference wherever possible. That would mean that no children should have to travel unreasonable distances. Surplus places in poor schools should not be filled by keeping children out of schools that offer higher standards and a better quality of education. Before the Bill passes from this House, it is important that we receive from the Minister information as to what the Government consider to be a poor school.
Let us take the example of a parent who chooses a school and the child is rejected because it is the 31st child. The school down the road is not a poor school but it is a poorer school than the chosen school. Is that acceptable or unacceptable under paragraph 13(c)? Paragraph 13(c) states that,
"where extra places are needed, they should be created in popular, over-subscribed schools with high standards".
There should be an open-door policy for all popular schools to be expanded and government will pay. That is based on Ofsted reports and value-added, where available. Paragraph 13(d) states that,
"the proportion of denominational provision for any denomination should not he reduced".
Again, that means that any child who cannot find an alternative denominational school will be allowed to attend that school, irrespective of the numbers, but the teachers will be provided.
In the longer term it states that LEAs,
"should seek to increase the proportion of provision in popular, over-subscribed schools with high standards".
Paragraph 14—and this is in bold type so the Government mean to emphasise the point—states that:
"The Secretary of State will not approve plans that do not demonstrate that the LEA has given due regard to the exercise of parental preference".
As former local government member and member of the local education authority, I would say that that is an equation which simply does not add up. I do not believe that that kind of money is sitting there, waiting to fall

549
from the Treasury as pre-emptive money; that is, money which comes before money to be spent on high standards, teacher training, capital for crumbling schools or whatever it may be. The first priority, by 2001, is class sizes and whatever it costs, that cost will be met. That is what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said earlier. The local authorities will be pleased to hear that. But those local authorities which have additional expenditure in order to meet the costs incurred by crumbling schools, training of teachers and governors, or improving standards in many other ways will find, before they do anything else, that are hamstrung by this concrete and unequivocal pledge which must be met and paid for.
Of course, I have already mentioned—and it will not be the last time I mention it in the course of our deliberations—that the 31st child shall receive a qualified teacher if it falls into any of the categories in paragraphs 13(a) to (e). The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has, probably more clearly than anyone, set out that unequivocal promise. Therefore, there is no problem about these amendments. There is not a problem above protecting denominational preference or sibling preference, because that would be a parental preference. There is no problem in relation to my Amendment No. 10 which provides an exception where the majority of parents agree by a ballot—and I suggest a ballot could be used.
Amendment No. 11 takes me right back to where we started painfully at the beginning of the day; that is, that when these regulations come forward, they really must be dealt with by the affirmative resolution. I am reminded that that amendment has now been degrouped. I shall deal with it when we reach the appropriate point in the Marshalled List.
If we put together the answers from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the answers that we have had so far from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, we understand that other areas of education will not be disadvantaged; no higher class sizes for junior school children; and no denial of denominational or parental, and therefore sibling, preference. If that is all written on to the face of the Bill, parents will then be really reassured.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend Lady Young understood me to say that there is a statutory limitation on class sizes in Scotland. I do not think that I did say that. The limitation is made by the teaching profession through its contract. The limitation is 33 for class sizes right through the school, unless they are mixed groups when the limitation is 25. There is a lower limit in relation to practical subjects at secondary schools. However, those limits apply to denominational schools as with all others and there is inflexibility.
Baroness Blackstone: These amendments cover the question of whether there is a need to disapply limits in certain circumstances. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 apply to foundation and aided schools. They would both allow denominational schools the discretion to have infants in classes of more than 30, if it were necessary to do so to admit a child who could not otherwise find a place in
550
a school of that denomination. The effects of the two amendments would be very similar, so I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Blatch, will be content for me to address these amendments together.
Responding in particular to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, the Government are of course sensitive to the concerns of parents who practise a particular religion and wish their child to be able to attend a school of a suitable religious character. I also understand that the Churches wish to offer places to children of their faith. That is perfectly obvious and totally understandable.
But I firmly believe that infants in an aided school—or any other denominational school—have the same right as other infants to be taught in classes of 30 or fewer. That is a view that the Church authorities have supported in discussions with Ministers and departmental officials and it is a view which the right reverend Prelate expressed. And the strong mandate that this Government have for acting to cut infant class sizes extends as much to denominational schools as to others. The educational benefits are the same in those schools as they are in maintained schools. It would be extremely undesirable to have a situation where denominational schools had large numbers in their infant school classes—much larger than in maintained schools.
Lord Elton: I thought I heard the Minister say that the educational benefits were the same in the two different kinds of schools. In fact, the point of having Church schools is that the educational content is different. The Minister's statement was surely a false statement.
Baroness Blackstone: With respect, that is not quite what I said and I am sorry that I did not make it clearer. The educational benefits of smaller class sizes for five, six and seven year-olds are exactly the same in denominational schools as they are in LEA maintained schools.
Again, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon made clear, once one breaches the policy of a target of no more than 30 children, where does one stop? It would be extremely undesirable to have much larger classes in denominational schools.
We are seeking to achieve a situation where all children are taught in classes of 30 or fewer but where more children than at present are admitted to a school of their parents' preference. That does not apply only to schools of a religious character. We are aware that it is an issue for rural schools more generally. That is the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on several occasions.
In discussions in another place, the Minister for School Standards gave reassurances on rural schools. He said:
"Through the regulations and the code of practice on admissions, the Government will ensure that if a 31st child cannot be accommodated within a reasonable distance of a small rural school, the local education authority will be required to provide additional resources so that both problems can be addressed: the child can attend the school and class sizes can be kept below 30".

551
The regulations and guidance on which we are presently consulting and which the noble Baroness has received—indeed, she just quoted from them—give further information on how that can be effected.
However, perhaps I may return to Church schools. As the right reverend Prelate said, we made it clear in the guidance that the denominational provision should also be safeguarded. We state that in meeting class size limits,
the proportion of denominational provision for any denomination should not be reduced".
Again, that is something that the right reverend Prelate made clear in his intervention.
Both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about capital costs and whether Church schools will have to make the 15 per cent. contribution. Perhaps I may state clearly that the Government have decided that a 100 per cent. grant will be paid and that Church schools will not be required to make the 15 per cent. contribution in this instance.
We also made it clear that LEAs will have to consult Church representatives when preparing their class size implementation plans. LEAs must have regard to the demand for denominational provision and find ways to provide suitable provision within their plans.
The principle that all infants—whatever their school—are entitled to the qualified teaching support offered in a class of 30 or fewer is one that we will defend firmly. I do not need to say again that it was a clear manifesto commitment and one that has the support of both parents and teachers. I know that there are implementation issues on which we greatly value the views of the Church authorities; indeed, we have consulted them very extensively in that respect. Their officials have met those of the Department for Education and Employment on a number of occasions. The Minister for School Standards and I will be meeting Church representatives next week. We will of course listen very carefully to any issues that they may wish to raise. Given those reassurances, I hope that the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Blatch, will agree not to press their amendments.
Amendment No. 9 seeks to ensure that children may attend the same school as their siblings. Again, I believe that few of us would dispute that that is a reasonable aim. However, with my own children, who used to argue so much, I sometimes thought that they might have been better off attending different schools where they would not run into each other in the playground. Nevertheless, the amendment is unnecessary. I say that because admissions authorities can determine the criteria on which places will be allocated to children where a school is oversubscribed. The presence of siblings is a factor which almost all authorities—indeed, almost without exception—already bear in mind, though it is perhaps worth mentioning that, even now, a child who has an elder sibling in a school cannot be absolutely guaranteed a place there. There are occasions where that is not possible.
As well as being unnecessary, the amendment could undermine the implementation of the Government's manifesto pledge to reduce infant class sizes in a way
552
that I do not believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, had in mind. The amendment would allow any admissions authority that wished to disregard limits on class sizes to do so by excluding siblings from normal admissions criteria, knowing that they could still be admitted after the normal admissions round whatever the effect on class sizes. We expect that admissions authorities will continue to use the presence of siblings as one of their admissions criteria. The amendment is, therefore, unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree not to press it.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of special needs as an exception. This would only be allowable where the admission took place outside the normal admissions cycle. I believe that I should make that clear. The aim is to ensure that children with special needs are admitted to the most suitable school. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will agree that that is terribly important. However, that does not mean that extra resources will not be provided. We will ask LEAs to set out what they will do in such cases. We would expect extra resources to be provided in virtually all cases.
Amendment No. 10 illustrates, perhaps more than any other amendment tabled for discussion today, what seems like a fundamental opposition to the principle of the Government being able to set and achieve smaller infant class sizes in every school class in the country. Of course, the noble Baroness is entitled to hold that view, but I should remind the Committee that the commitment to reduce infant class sizes, which must involve some limits being imposed by the Government, is a pledge. The Government received a clear mandate from the electorate a year ago.
The amendment would enable any school to "opt out" from limits that the Government may impose. The circumstances in which ballots could be called are not set out in the amendment. But I cannot accept that such a fundamental and popular aspect of our proposals to raise standards in the early years should be open to school-by-school disapplication in the way suggested. I believe that that would be a betrayal of our pledge. I hope very much that the noble Baroness will, therefore, understand our purpose and will not press her amendment.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: I have a question for the Minister before she sits down. In her response, the noble Baroness implied that it is important, if possible, for siblings to be able to attend the same school, although in her own family's case she might prefer that that did not happen. However, at this stage of the Bill, we are referring to Church schools where the case of siblings is even stronger than it would be at a normal maintained school. Can the Minister comment further on that?
Obviously, if the 31st place in a school arises, there is not, perhaps, another choice of Church school or denominational school for that child to attend. Therefore, if the amendment were not accepted, we could have a situation where it would be necessary to provide, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggested

553
earlier, a whole range of extra expense for one child which might disappear the next year. Can the Minister comment in that respect?
Baroness Blackstone: I thought that I had already clearly explained that it is the Government's intention to meet parental preference, especially one of this sort where there is a double reason why parents might want to send a child to a particular school: first, because it is a denominational school and they are members of the Church concerned; and, secondly, the fact that a sibling is already in attendance. It is our intention to ensure that children aged five, six or seven are in classes containing no more than 30 and that they are able to attend a school of their choice. I have already said—and my noble friends made it clear in the earlier discussion—that we will make the resources available to make that possible.
Baroness Blatch: I have two questions for the Minister. She said that the defence as regards the provision for SENs is referred to in the guidance document. I notice that a good deal of the guidance document does not in fact feature in the draft regulations document. That is a worry for us and one to which we shall certainly return on Report. The noble Baroness said that the reason for it is that SENs very often appear outside the cycle of the normal admission arrangements. However, that is also the case with gypsy families, with many children who have just arrived in a village and with the children of military families who have just returned from a posting in another area. Indeed, children are always arriving and leaving outside of the normal admissions policies.
It seems extraordinary that the policy allows for the payment for the 31st child if it is a child without special educational needs, but if a child arrives with special educational needs he or she is not part of what I will call from now on, "the McIntosh formula". The Minister referred to local education authorities and said that it is not a question of there being no money available because LEAs will be asked to provide. However, do the LEAs which are asked to provide in those circumstances—not the 31st child without special educational needs but the 31st child, or more, with special educational needs who is put into a school thereby breaking the 30-maximum barrier—come under the reimbursement programme? In other words, do they fall under the McIntosh formula? It seems to me that LEAs will be quite anxious if they believe that they will be expected to provide every time a child with special educational needs is assigned to a school where the maximum limit of class size has been broken.
Paragraph 13 refers to parental preference. The noble Baroness said that where possible parental preference must be met. Paragraph 13 does not state that local education authorities should meet parental preference where possible, but places a responsibility on them to enhance parental preference and go beyond that provision at present. There is an inconsistency in the answers given by the noble Baroness. We know that a
554
classroom cannot be built overnight and that therefore if a school is physically full it cannot take another child. But if a school is not full, it seems crazy for a sibling to be turned away, or to turn away, from a Church school a child with a denominational preference simply for the sake of satisfying a policy.
Baroness Blackstone: I have just said that we shall sustain parental preference in those circumstances. As regards a child with special educational needs, I should make clear that any exceptions made for these reasons will apply for the remainder of that academic year only. That is clearly set out in paragraph 8 of the document. As regards the point about resources, any child with special educational needs who is placed in a mainstream school will require additional resources—at least in most cases—but that applies at present. We would expect LEAs to make that provision. There is nothing new about that and it will continue under this legislation.
Baroness Blatch: What is new is the new policy which involves applying a pledge; namely, that no class shall contain more than 30. We have heard of a number of exceptions to the 30 rule, which trigger a new teacher, except in the case of children with special educational needs where that does not apply. The noble Baroness argues that that is because those children have entered a school outside the admissions cycle. However, that is the case with many other children. I have given examples of children of military families and gypsy children who enter schools outside the admissions cycle. If they are accepted, they will trigger a new teacher. Will the 31st special educational needs child trigger the McIntosh formula?
Baroness Blackstone: It is unusual for people in the military to send their children to a new school half-way through a term. These days military personnel can normally place their children in a new school at the beginning of a school term. Gypsy children move around and there has always been a difficult problem as regards adequately accommodating their needs. As regards special educational needs children, they constitute an exception to the pledge. They are not part of the pledge. I have made it clear that an exception is being made for those children who need to have an appropriate school place made available for them in a mainstream school—the most appropriate school for them—within the school year. As I said, that is an exception to the pledge. The local education authority is expected to provide those resources. They are not in any way part of the pledge. I hope I have made that clear.
Baroness Young: We have had a good discussion on these important issues concerning aided and foundation schools. I am sure the Committee is glad of the further information that has been forthcoming, particularly on the point of the 15 per cent. capital costs. I note that the right reverend Prelate nods his head. However, there is always a downside to all these matters because once one gives up one's proportion of the money, one loses many of one's bargaining counters. However, that is a matter for the Church which will determine what it wants to do.

555
None of us knows for certain how all this will work out because we are entering new territory, irrespective of whether it is a manifesto commitment. I admire the confidence of the noble Baroness; I wish I had it myself. She said with complete confidence that the Government undertake that every parent will have their choice of school and at the same time no class will comprise more than 30. Let us hope she is right. It will be interesting to see what emerges as regards the appeals procedure. As regards the aided and foundation schools, what will happen when a child is admitted in error, when perhaps the child's parents are not committed? It will be interesting to see how that develops in future.
I apologise to my noble friend Lady Carnegy if I misinterpret what she said. However, I should have thought that as a general rule in life when introducing a new policy it is a good idea to check whether it is already in operation and to ascertain how it works in practice. The Scottish experience indicates perfectly clearly that parental choice does not operate for many parents. I suspect that that will be the case with the measure we are discussing. Regrettably it can be seen that this Government say everything which they think people want to hear. They think that by saying it often enough they will be able to bring it off. I do not think they will be able to do so. I believe many parents will find that they may obtain 30 in a class but they will not obtain parental choice. This is a matter for the future—
Baroness Blackstone: I should make it absolutely clear that I did not say that every single parent will always obtain their preference. I said that under existing provisions a number of parents cannot obtain their first preference where a school is hugely oversubscribed. Nothing that we are doing under this legislation will alter that. I said that we will do everything we can, working with local education authorities and the Churches, to ensure that we maximise the degree of parental preference. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I made it clear that if there is a double reason why a child should attend a particular school—it may be a denominational school and the child's parents are members of the Church with which the school is associated and there is a sibling at the school—we should try to accommodate that, but I did not say that every single child or every single parent will always obtain their first preference. That has never been the case and it never could be in the case of oversubscribed schools.
Baroness Young: I accept what the noble Baroness has said but I believe she certainly gave the impression that that was what she meant. A year after the coming into office of this Labour Government we have come to understand that this is the case as regards almost every issue. Some people are taken in by their talk, but "old hands" see through it immediately. We have had a good debate. I said this was a probing amendment and that I would not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Fireworks Bill
7.48 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Monkswell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Nicol) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Introduction]:
Lord Kimballmoved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("it") to end of line 11.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 2. The aim of Amendment No. 1 is to prevent confusion over the possible use of other pyrotechnic devices whose primary use is not as fireworks for entertainment. Various safety and warning devices are used in firework displays. Items such as smoke flares, Very lights, exploding warning caps, alarm guns and gas fired bird scarers could all be incorporated with fireworks in a display. If this was the case and they came under this Bill that could cause confusion when they are required for their normal and primary use. As items of safety equipment their primary purpose must override any secondary purpose to which they are put.
I see a battery of learned QCs to my left and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, all of whom are much more skilled in dealing with the really important subject of the second amendment, which is designed to safeguard this important Bill from changes which might be made by a future Secretary of State and which, without being brought before this House, might inadvertently change the primary purpose of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Amendment No. 2 gives power to the Secretary of State by secondary legislation to amend Clause 1(1), which is primary legislation. Under paragraph (a) of Clause 1(1) there is a definition of fireworks. Under paragraph (b) of Clause 1(1) there is a definition of would-be fireworks. My noble friend Lord Kimball has already spoken of the confusion in that context.
The definition is for the purposes of Clause 1(3) and governs the fireworks regulations under Clauses 2 and 3 and Clauses 5 to 10. This power to amend primary legislation by regulations under Clause 1(2) and to make regulations in implementation of virtually the whole of this Bill is in no way restricted by the Title, which is merely to make provision about fireworks and other

557
explosives. The only constraint upon this extraordinary exercise of power is in Clause 16 by statutory instrument subject to annulment by either House. If Clause 2(1) is to stand, then Clause 16 will require substantial amendment, such as is proposed in Amendment No. 13 of my noble friend Lord Kimball as to the laying of a draft before both Houses and an affirmative resolution.
Clause 1(2) should not stand as part of this Bill. The Select Committee at paragraph 7 said,
"The fact that the Bill sets no limits on what might be brought within the definition and so within the scope of the Bill caused the Committee particular concern".
Then the committee said that a ministerial undertaking might be given. In my book that is no good at all. This is a matter which has to be dealt with on the Bill as regards the structure of legislation.
As to the regulations, the Committee said at paragraph 9,
"Again, the Department indicated that the power would in practice be used in limited circumstances".
Then there is a ministerial undertaking. Again, that is wholly inappropriate.
At paragraph 16 of the report the Select Committee draws attention to the most disturbing aspects of the wide-ranging powers conferred. Indeed, it is a most unusual and disturbing feature, as the extensive devolution of power to the Executive as proposed by this Bill is, in my book, wholly unacceptable and, owing to constraints of parliamentary time, scrutiny of regulations when laid is all but perfunctory.
As regards your Lordships' House, as Members of the Committee well know, there is power to amend or to reject secondary legislation, but by custom such power is not exercised. In parentheses, perhaps I may express a personal view that this power and resort to this power may be enshrined when your Lordships' House is reformed and reconstituted. The prophetic warning of my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham as to the dangers of an elective dictatorship has now all but been fulfilled. This Bill affords an unwelcome and distressing example in Clause 1(2), which should not stand part.
It is one of the functions of your Lordships' House to ensure that there is a curb upon misuse or abuse of executive power. The Government are not in favour of a total ban but, as yet, do not know to which devices the Bill is to apply. They do not know what provisions should be made. It is all left to the Secretary of State, a sort of proverbial firework tsar, subject to wholly inadequate parliamentary control. I support Amendment No. 2.
Viscount Astor: I should apologise to Members of the Committee for the fact that I was not able to be present at the Second Reading debate on this Bill. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has very carefully and succinctly described some of the problems with this Bill on the legal front. I would like to take it one stage further and say what those problems mean, in effect, on the executive front or, indeed, the political front.
558
The powers in the Bill are very wide. Quite frankly, I am not disturbed so much by the powers in the Bill; what I am really disturbed about is the fact that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee said that this House might be satisfied by assurances given in the House. That is not good enough.
An assurance is not worth very much. It describes the thinking of the Secretary of State of the day. We all know that reshuffles happen regularly in government, in any government. If a Bill is passed and becomes an Act an incoming Minister is not bound by any assurances; he is bound by the law. It is not a question of Pepper v. Hart; it is a question of what powers there are in this Bill under which a Secretary of State could say, "This is all very well; my predecessors looked at this, but I would like to go a whole lot further". There is nothing anybody could do. He could do that.
I do not know whether that is what the Government have in mind; I am sure it is not. It is certainly not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who has taken on this Bill from another place; but this Bill is very badly and dangerously drafted. It gives any government a power to change the Bill almost totally and do anything they wish with it. I believe that the Members of this Committee should not be satisfied by this. I am disappointed that the committee were not firmer with the Government. It seems to have been pressing for debate. I do not think that it is good enough.
A number of amendments stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Kimball. Perhaps the Minister could say whether the Government will consider the proposal in the final amendment. It would make a difference to how we debate the preceding amendments.
8 p.m.
Lord Rees: I, too, apologise that I was unable to intervene in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. Having said that, I hope that I may not regard myself as disabled from making some perhaps rather stringent comments on the detail of the Bill.
Perhaps we may start on common ground: that there should be some statutory framework within which the sale, enjoyment and construction of fireworks should be confined. However, that should not disable us from a close and rigorous examination of the detail, in particular in the light of the Select Committee report. In my modest career in public life, I do not think that I have ever read a Select Committee's report which makes quite such damning criticisms of the drafting of a Bill. Indeed, in the final recommendation one notes that,
"The Committee draws the attention of the House to the more disturbing aspects of the wide ranging powers conferred by the Bill and invites the House to consider whether to seek Ministerial assurances about these. If Ministerial undertakings on all these points"—
all the points raised by the Select Committee—
"are not forthcoming, the House may wish to consider whether amendment of the Bill is called for".
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who is sponsoring the Bill is fully armed and prepared to deal with criticisms made by the Select Committee and those implicit in the numerous amendments set

559
down to the Bill. So perhaps one reserves one's fire a little until one has heard what the noble Lord has to say. But, in fairness, the noble Lord should be put on notice about our reservations on the Bill which amply justify the amendments put down for debate today. To demonstrate the quality of the amendments, it is interesting to note that every single amendment has been selected for debate.
I look all the time to the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, for elucidation and assistance in order to understand what the Bill is about and how we are presented with such an extraordinarily slapdash Bill for our consideration. When the noble Lord responds, perhaps he will explain Clause 1(1)(b). It seems to suggest that any device which is intended as a form of entertainment can be regarded as a firework for the purposes of the Bill. I can only conclude that my blurred eye has not fully appreciated the significance of that. In his usual charming and clear way, perhaps the noble Lord will be able to enlighten me. Other noble Lords may have got to the bottom of it. Can the provision really mean that any device which is intended as a form of entertainment can be regarded as a firework? I cannot believe that. There must be something implicit in it. If so, I hope that the noble Lord will set my mind at rest.
Subsection (2) states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (1)".
Others of my noble friends more expert in matters of draftsmanship than I am have pointed out the extraordinary width of that provision. Again I hope that the noble Lord will explain it to us. Does the provision really mean that there is no further restriction on the Secretary of State's right: that he proceeds by negative resolution, and beyond that anything that comes into his mind as having some bearing on the framework of the Bill may be dealt with by negative resolution procedure? Taken at face value, subsection (2) will permit the Secretary of State to amend by regulation the very substance of the Bill. These are not just questions of detail or peripheral points. That cannot be right. That is a matter upon which we have touched in many other pieces of legislation. I hope that the noble Lord will apply his talents in explaining whether there are some restrictions which would make such wide-ranging powers acceptable to the Committee.
Lord Renton: I, too, support Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. Indeed, what I have to say applies with, I hope, equal force to Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 16. Perhaps that will save me from speaking to them later.
I am sure that we are all in favour of doing more in our legislation to protect people, animals and property from the damaging effect of fireworks. Over the years too many people have been injured. But I have to say that the Bill is a classic outstanding example of how not to legislate. Indeed, it is an unprecedented leap into the unknown—unprecedented in peacetime. When emergency legislation was needed in wartime at short notice, power used to be given to a Minister. But in peacetime we do not legislate like that.
560
I invite attention in particular to the effect of doing so. Under Clause 11 we find that courts are given power to punish people for offences which are to be defined by regulation. They are not defined in the Bill. Until those regulations have been approved by Parliament, we shall not know for what it is that people will be punished. We do not legislate like that. In effect, we shall be giving power to the courts to punish the unknown.
The speech of my noble friend Lord Rees drew attention to the valuable work undertaken by our Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I expect all noble Lords have read what the committee said. It has sometimes made exception in favour of a Henry VIII power where it is very limited. It has sometimes made exception in favour of giving power to Ministers to make regulations. But this Bill seems to me to be unprecedented, and not only in recent times. I have to confess to Members of the Committee—I am not ashamed to do so—that I have been at the Bar for 65 years and in Parliament for 53 years and I have never before seen a Bill quite like this.
Lord Henley: Like my noble friends Lord Renton and Lord Kimball, I accept that there is need for a degree of control over fireworks. That is why the Bill is before us. That is why we made it clear at Second Reading that we did not intend to oppose such a Bill. As we all know, too many people are injured every year by fireworks. It is right that there should be regulations of one kind or another to ensure their safety. However, like many of my noble friends, I have considerable concerns about aspects of the Bill. Perhaps I may address my remarks in particular to Clause 1(2). It is a clause which—dare I say it?—is the purest Henry VIII clause that I have ever seen. It gives the Secretary of State power, as my noble friends have made clear, to amend primary legislation; namely, in subsection (1) of the Bill.
I daresay that I might myself be guilty of having tried to press Henry VIII clauses on this place in the past. I accept that there are occasions when what we term Henry VIII clauses are necessary in legislation. However, I have considerable doubts, as I expressed at Second Reading, as to whether a Henry VIII power of this kind is right and proper in this Bill.
I viewed with some sadness the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. My noble friend Lord Rees thought that it was one of the most damning reports that he had ever seen. I have to say that I do not think it was in any way damning enough in that, in its recommendations, it in effect suggested to the House that such Henry VIII powers as we see in Clause 1(2) should be permitted. I say this much more in sorrow than in anger: it is sad that the delegated powers scrutiny committee should have so decided, and should have thought that a mere ministerial undertaking, as my noble friend Lord Astor referred to it, would be enough to reassure this place. I am certainly not reassured, and I doubt whether I shall be reassured by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who sponsored the Bill. I shall be interested to hear his response. I shall also be interested to hear the response

561
of the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for the Government. We have to accept that this Bill is, to use a colloquial term, a hand-out Bill from the Department of Trade and Industry. It is therefore important that we hear precisely what it is that the department is able to offer by way of ministerial assurances. I hope that we shall hear a little more from the noble Lord, Lord Haskel.
I accept entirely the point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in relation to Amendment No. 13. I accept that that amendment is not grouped with this one. However, if the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, or—dare I say it?—the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is not prepared to accept these amendments, at the very least they ought to be prepared to accept Amendment No. 13 which we shall discuss later. It might be useful, certainly in view of the time that will be taken on this Bill, if they could address that question when responding to this amendment.
Having said that, I offer my support to this amendment. I am sad that the delegated powers scrutiny committee was not prepared to take a stronger line. In parenthesis may I say that I am grateful that in relation to the education Bill that we discussed earlier the committee has taken a much stronger line. I hope that it will take a strong line on all such uses of powers in the future and will bring them to the attention of this place. On those occasions when the committee does not do so in quite so strong a manner as we believe necessary, it is right that this place should express its concern and should decide accordingly.
Lord Haskel: Before I speak to the detailed amendments, perhaps I may congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, and his colleagues on the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation on their thorough consideration of the provisions in the Bill.
Noble Lords: Hear, Hear.
Lord Haskel: Having set the right tone, let me say that the committee identified several issues to which it thought it right to draw the attention of the House. We agree with the committee. At the end of this debate I will respond to those issues. I hope that the assurances I shall give will be acceptable to the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, may find those assurances unacceptable. However, I think that noble Lords will find that the ministerial undertakings are couched in such a way as to satisfy the Select Committee.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that assurances are given by the Government and do not become void when the Minister changes.
Viscount Astor: What happens when there is a change of government? Surely they become void then.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Haskel: That is a long way away.
The Select Committee specifically looked at whether there should be wide powers. It concluded that, given the special problems posed by fireworks, it is
562
appropriate, subject to explanations as to how the powers were expected to be exercised. I shall give those explanations.
Some noble Lords have suggested that these powers are unprecedented. The fact is that when dealing with these technical issues it has been thought right to use wide secondary powers. The best example is the Consumer Protection Act 1987, introduced by the previous administration.
I now turn in a little more detail to the specific amendments. The amendments on Clause 1 concern the definition of "fireworks". The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot amend that definition. As noble Lords have pointed out, the powers in Clause 1(2) of the Bill for the Secretary of State to amend the definition of "fireworks" are also referred to in paragraph 7 of the Select Committee's report. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, asked for assurances. I am happy to confirm that this is indeed a power that we should expect to exercise only narrowly to make marginal adjustments to reflect the understanding at the time of what a firework is.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he not realise that that is so much—I was about to say waffle. It is meaningless. It has no legal protection or efficacy whatsoever.
Lord Haskel: I think assurances given by the Government carry a lot of protection.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Not at all.
Lord Haskel: As I said, I assure your Lordships that this power would be used only in the most restricted circumstances. Such circumstances would arise if it became clear that the definition of fireworks included in any future British standard was defective for UK legislative purposes, or new types of firework, perhaps with types of composition not catered for in the British standard, became available.
We need to ensure that the Bill can deal with new types of firework which may be developed in the future. Naturally, in exercising any such power we should be constrained by the need to stay within what the ordinary person would regard as a firework.
For the sake of clarity, let me tell the Committee what is the definition of "firework" in Clause 1. The definition, according to the current British standard, is:
"a device containing explosive composition which, upon functioning, will burn and/or explode to produce a visual or aural effect or a combination of such effects, intended as a form of entertainment".
Lord Mancroft: Perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to give way. I note that the Bill quotes the date as 30th November 1988 when this British standard specification came in. I wonder whether, by way of illustration for the Committee, the noble Lord can say how many fireworks have been introduced in the 10-year period from then to now which would not have fitted into that definition. I think that most noble Lords would have a pretty good idea of what a firework was

563
if they saw one or heard it go bang, or whatever it may do. If we are unable to define a firework that simply, surely this definition will not fit the bill. If we can define a firework, then it is completely unnecessary.
Lord Haskel: I am unable to respond to the noble Lord's question. We shall have to do some research. I do not have that information in front of me.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, who raised the question of what is a firework, that it is also important that we can deal with devices such as birdscarers and marine flares, which can be misused if they fall into the wrong hands. A power is needed to adjust this aspect of the definition if it becomes apparent that there is loophole which can be exploited. It is this exploitation of loopholes which is the concern of the Government. I can assure the Committee again that the power will be used only in those circumstances.
It may also be helpful if I comment here on the similar powers to alter the definition of "explosives" in Clause 14(3), on which the Select Committee also commented. The Clause 14 powers arise because of our desire to be able to stay in step with the changes likely to be made to the Explosives Act 1875 under the powers given by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I believe that ultimately we should aim to replace the 1875 Act altogether. Explosives have changed somewhat in the past 120 years. Most of the provisions concern safety at work, but some involve issues of public safety which go beyond the 1974 Act. I can assure the Committee that the powers to amend that definition are there only to ensure that we have the same ability to respond to changes in the kind of explosives where we need such controls.
There is also a "technical" reason for the power. If the 1875 Act is replaced in due course by a single set of regulations with a single definition of "explosives" which re-enacts the definition in the 1875 Act, that definition will apply automatically for the purposes of the Bill. But if the single definition is a substantially modified one or, if there are several definitions, it may be unclear which definition applies to the Bill. As a result, we may need to amend the definition in the Bill to make sure that we have the right one for the Bill's limited purposes.
I hope that that explanation and the assurances I have given will he acceptable to Members of the Committee and that they will feel that these amendments are unnecessary.
Lord Rees: Before the Minister sits down, he has been courteous in referring to the points we have made, but he did not refer to the second point I made on the definition in and application of subsection (1)(b). I do not wish to weary the Committee, but it looks to me as though Clause 1(1) provides two alternative definitions, as devices which
"are fireworks for … the British Standard Specification … or",
in the alternative,
"would be fireworks for those purposes if they were intended as a form of entertainment".
564
Perhaps I did not make the point with sufficient clarity. Perhaps the Minister could explain to me. It surely must be possible to have something closer than that. It cannot mean any device that is intended as a form of entertainment. Can the Minister reassure me and perhaps other Members of the Committee about the application of subsection (1)(b)?
Lord Haskel: I believe that the word "purposes" in subsection (1)(b) refers back to the purposes in subsection (1)(a), which says:
"for the purposes of the British Standard Specification relating to fireworks published on 30th November 1998 …"
Lord Rees: I apologise to the Committee and to the noble Lord the Minister. If the Minister reads the clause again slowly, he will see:
"(1) In this Act 'fireworks' means devices which—
"(a) are fireworks for the purposes of the British Standard Specification …"
That one can understand; "or", in the alternative,
"(b) would be fireworks for those purposes if they were intended as a form of entertainment".
I should be most grateful if the Minister could explain what further limitation must be read into that to make certain that it does not apply to any device which is intended as a form of entertainment.
Lord Haskel: It is the same test as in the British Standard Specification. I read the definition contained in that specification to the noble Lord. The fireworks referred to in subsection (1)(b) have the same definition as those referred to in subsection (1)(a).
Viscount Astor: If subsection (1)(a) is the same as subsection (1)(b), why do we need both? Why can we not have just subsection (1)(a)?
Lord Gisborough: When I was young there used to be a little game where one would put a match into a matchbox and hold another match against it; you would light both and they stuck together. That was for entertainment. Would those be fireworks?
Lord Haskel: I am not an expert on these matters and I cannot respond to that question.
Lord Renton: Will the noble Lord the Minister be so good as to give us even a broad idea of what is included in the word "entertainment"? Should it not be defined in the Bill? In some kinds of legislation it is carefully defined. Here it is used in the broadest possible sense. I believe that there should be a definition.
Lord Haskel: I believe that the definition of entertainment is fairly well known and obvious.
Viscount Astor: I apologise for rising again. I believe that the Minister said that the definition in subsection (1)(b) is the same as that in subsection (1)(a). In that case, why do we need the two? The Minister would help

565
the Committee if he could explain the differences between subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) and what they refer to.
Lord Haskel: Subsections (1)(a) and (1)(b) are not alternatives. "Fireworks" means devices within the definition in the British Standard and devices which would be fireworks if they were intended as a form of entertainment. Both of those things are fireworks as defined.
Lord Monkswell: It may be helpful if at this stage I intervene to try to wrap up this very interesting debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, moved his amendment in an admirably brief way, and, bearing in mind the time constraints on the Committee stage, that was very good of him. We have had an interesting and useful debate. Members on the Opposition Benches have demonstrated the Committee at its best in raising issues of considerable public concern about the way in which we frame legislation. I shall try to offer some reassurances, as the promoter of the Bill in this place, as to the way it is envisaged the Bill will work.
I make particular reference to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who was very concerned about the regulation-making powers in the Bill. I would describe them in two ways. First, there are the Henry VIII provisions in Clauses 1 and 14. Secondly, the other regulation-making provisions are almost a straight copy from the Consumer Protection Act and are fairly usual and normal in the course of parliamentary procedure and deliberations on public Bills.
I believe that the reference to the Henry VIII provisions in Clauses 1 and 14 was appreciated by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and there was a recognition by that committee that fireworks are a special case. The very fact that we have the Bill in front of us is a testament to that. Previous legislation has not provided enough powers for Ministers to ensure absolute safety for the public in terms of the use of fireworks.
The provisions in Clauses 1 and 14 are tightly prescribed in terms of the Minister's ability, by regulation, to change the definition of "fireworks". For example, bird scarers may not be explosive in their make-up but they may make a loud bang. If they were used as forms of entertainment, they would come under Clause 1(b). Another factor is the ability to change the definition of "fireworks" if circumstances change. Bearing in mind that we are now part of the European Union, the British standard and subsequent amended versions of it will become a European standard. That definition of "fireworks" will become a European definition which may not be relevant for our specific UK situation. The provision gives the Government the power to amend the situation to cover that.
We received ministerial assurances which, as was pointed out, are government assurances. One hopes that they will satisfy the Committee. I am sure that they will satisfy the aspirations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
566
Perhaps I can make one final point. We have had an interesting debate in relation to these important issues. It is my intention, as the Committee stage progresses, to leave ministerial assurances, as requested by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, to the Minister. It is not in my power to give those assurances and there may be other amendments where I shall want to speak at greater length. Bearing in mind the assurances that were given and the explanation I attempted to give to Members of the Committee, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, will withdraw his amendment.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: Before the noble Lord sits down and my noble friend Lord Kimball responds, perhaps I can make one point. The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, talked of addressing the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I am not particularly interested in addressing those concerns. We need to address the concerns of the Committee itself.
We spoke to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. But a number of Members of the Committee, including my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred to Amendment No. 13 as a second best if the noble Lord was not prepared to accept the proposal concerning subsection (2) which removes the first of the Henry VIII powers. Will the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, address the anxieties raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell and say whether he is prepared to accept Amendment No. 13. I say that in an attempt to expedite the business of the Committee bearing in mind the time constraints under which we are working.
Lord Monkswell: Amendment No. 13 was referred to, and there may seem to be a linkage. Bearing in mind that we have not debated that amendment specifically and that it has only been referred to in passing, I shall be arguing fairly strenuously against it and will give reasons for that. I had it in mind to wait until the debate on the amendment so that other Members of the Committee wishing to speak specifically to it could make a contribution. In that way, I would be able to respond more sensibly instead of having two separate debates. That would be more logical.
Lord Kimball: I do not want to be ungrateful or discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who attempted to wind up the debate. However, I must say clearly and categorically that he gave the Committee no proper form of assurance in response to the points raised by Members of the Committee on my left.
This is an extremely serious matter and one we shall have to pursue at Report stage. There was one moment when I thought that we were going to make some progress. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, used the words,
"amend the definition in the Bill".
I sincerely hope that that was a categorical undertaking and that when he returns at Report stage the definitions referred to in Amendment No. 1 will be clearly written into the Bill.

567
I am distressed by the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. He comes here and says, "I shall be guided by the Government." This Bill has nothing to do with the Government; I do not know what he is talking about. This is a private Member's Bill that went through the other place. It was the idea of a private Member who was concerned about the dealings with fireworks. The noble Lord says that it is a government Bill; that is not true. The truth is that it is a private Member's Bill and it is up to the noble Lord to make up his own mind about it.
Lord Monkswell: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for giving way. If I gave the impression that I was taking instructions from the Government, I utterly withdraw it. That is not the situation.
My point was that the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee had advised us to consider that in certain measure government assurances about the way the Bill would be implemented should be satisfactory. The point I made earlier was that, where it was applicable for the Minister to give those assurances, it would not be for me to speak at length on assurances that I could give as a sponsor of this private Member's measure and I shall probably speak briefly. It was not my intention to convey to the Committee that I am taking instructions from the Government on this or—dare I say?—on any other measure.
Lord Kimball: I accept the noble Lord's interpretation and we fully understand it. However, he gave the impression that it was a government Bill, which it certainly is not.
It is perfectly clear that we shall have to return to both these amendments on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but give notice that we shall see these matters again at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power to make regulations about fireworks]:
Lord Kimballmoved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("any provision which") and insert ("such provision under this Act as").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will speed up the process by telling us that he is prepared to accept it. With that in mind, I shall speak to it briefly.
The amendment aims to keep any provisions closely tied to the spirit and intent of the Bill in order for it to continue to successfully secure its purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Haskel: I must make clear that while the wording of the clause provides basic powers, there is no intention that those powers shall be used in trivial circumstances. The fact that the consultation process is a statutory one, that the Government are expected to publish four regulatory appraisals before making new regulations, and that regulations have to pass the
568
scrutiny committee's procedures and the possibility of a negative resolution debate, means that we simply will not be able to use these powers for trivial reasons.
I thank my noble friend Lord Monkswell for accepting the assurances of the Government. I hope that Members of the Committee opposite will also accept our assurances in which case the amendment is not necessary.
Lord Henley: This is a small amendment. I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will say, but I cannot understand why the Government want to resist it.
The words "any provision which" are rather wide and, as my noble friend suggests, it may be more appropriate to limit it to,
"such provision under this Act as",
which appropriately limits what the Secretary of State can do.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may suggest a quite significant reason for the Committee rejecting this amendment. If it were passed, as I understand it, it would suggest that the only regulations that the Minister could promulgate were those that were directly related to firework safety. That would be the way in which it would be construed, I suspect, by the judiciary.
The concern I have is that there are what one might describe as ancillary provisions which might not be specifically to do with safety. I think in terms of the insurance provision to be found later on, where the fact that somebody has insurance does not make things any safer. That is the risk of amending the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, has suggested. Therefore, I would strenuously ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rees: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has alarmed me hugely. It is only amendments to the Bill that relate in the broad sense and one would think that in the broad sense questions of fireworks safety would be permissible. It seems from the noble Lord's intervention, that, for example, matters of insurance law come into this. I agree there is a reference to insurance but it is insurance only in so far as it relates to providing some kind of, presumably, financial compensation for those who might be affected by a firework going off in their face, or something like that.
It is not enough to say, "That is not firework safety", but it is; and it should be; and it rightly should be. I have always understood, having looked at the Bill, that it is primarily directed at the safety of people exposed to fireworks. If the noble Lord, no doubt supported by his noble friend the Minister, says that there are other matters and that the department has to consider the broad spectrum, we ought to be told in a little more detail what kind of matters, although not directly concerned with fireworks safety, are likely to be covered by Clause 2 if not amended in the way in which my noble friend suggests.
Lord Mancroft: Perhaps I may go further than my noble friend Lord Rees. The noble Lord,

569
Lord Monkswell, used the example of insurance. My understanding is that that would be covered by the amendment. My noble friend Lord Kimball's amendment uses the words,
"such provision under this Act"
but insurance is a provision under this Bill so it would be covered.
The question is which provision outside this Bill might be used that we do not know about? The example of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has made my noble friend's point for him.
Lord Monkswell: I apologise if I have misled the Committee in referring to insurance. My understanding is that the amendment is not necessary in terms of the structure of the Bill. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Kimball: I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has not satisfied the concerns which lie behind the amendment. At this stage in our proceedings I think the proper thing for me to do is to take the amendment away and consider the matter again but I must give the noble Lord notice that our concerns have not in any way been laid to rest and we shall wish to return to this amendment on Report. Against that background, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Kimballmoved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("no risk, or").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a delicate subject, perhaps the most delicate area of the Bill. It seeks to remove the superfluous "no risk" which is at the moment written into the Bill. The words "no risk" conflict with the minimum risk in this case. Furthermore, it is not reasonable that any activity can be seen as completely free of risk, least of all when considering the safe use of fireworks.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Haskel: The effect of the amendment would be to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations only to reduce the risk from the use of fireworks, but not to eliminate it altogether. This would in turn arguably deprive the Secretary of State of the power to make regulations prohibiting completely the supply, purchase, possession or use of very dangerous fireworks. I do not believe that this is desirable. I am sure that that is not the intention of the noble Lord. I hope that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Astor: If one follows the logic of this argument one could say that on that basis the Secretary of State could claim that any firework was a risk. After all, a sparkler might be a risk if you do the wrong thing. Following that analogy, the power could be used to remove fireworks totally from this country.
Lord Haskel: Perhaps I may remind the noble Viscount of what I said previously. I must make it clear
570
that there is no intention that the power should be used in trivial circumstances. What the noble Viscount has described I would consider trivial circumstances.
Viscount Astor: What is "trivial"? "Trivial" is not in the Bill. We are attempting in this Committee to pass a Bill that might become an Act and could become law. I defer on the legal points to my noble friends on my left. I cannot believe that we can gallop through this in this extraordinary manner by the Minister saying, "Do not worry, we will decide what to do in the future". I do not think this is what Parliament or the Committee stage is for.
Lord Renton: If fireworks are used safely then there is only a minimal risk. There is no need to say also that they are used safely when there is no risk. It is a very small drafting point, but it seems to me that the words "no risk, or" are, from a purely drafting point of view, unnecessary.
Lord Gisborough: If the Secretary of State failed to ban, for example, sparklers, and a sparkler committed damage to somebody, would there not be a case against the Secretary of State for damages because there had been a risk and he was under an obligation to deal with it because he is not allowed to have any risk?
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may intervene. It seems to me that a number of noble Lords are contributing who were not present for the Second Reading debate when it was made clear by me, as a sponsor of the Bill, repeating assurances given by the honourable Member who introduced this Private Member's Bill in the other place, that it was not part of our aim to restrict people's enjoyment of fireworks. Our primary concern relates to dangerous fireworks. One of the salient points about the Bill is that it seeks to ensure that we get some training provision in the use of particularly dangerous fireworks.
I hope that we shall hear no more about the Government planning to ban sparklers. This is not part of the agenda at all.
Lord Henley: The reason we are going through the Committee stage in this manner is that many noble Lords, whether or not they took part in the Second Reading debate—as noble Lords will be aware, I did take part in the Second Reading debate—have considerable concerns about the drafting of the Bill. That is why my noble friend is moving amendments of this kind. We are worried about the powers that the Bill gives the Secretary of State. A Secretary of State who has a slightly different attitude to fireworks from that of the noble Lord could take things a lot further than the noble Lord or the Minister has suggested.
Lord Monkswell: Perhaps I may make two points in response. Yes, it is important that we scrutinise the Bill carefully, but the assurances given by the sponsor of the Bill in the other place and by myself were reiterated by the Minister in the other place and by the Front Bench spokesman at Second Reading.

571
With regard to the amendment, I must repeat the point made by my noble friend on the Front Bench because I fear that the amendment would result in a lack of clarity. There is a risk of judicial review striking down some of the provisions which the Secretary of State might make which were specific rather than merely tending to reduce the risk. That is our concern. What may appear to be a simple drafting amendment may turn out to have unwarranted consequential effects.
Lord Mancroft: I was not present at Second Reading, but I have read the report of the Second Reading debate carefully, and particularly the noble Lord's speech. Indeed, it would have been wrong to speak today in Committee without having done so.
I should very much like to see the Bill on the statute book but, as we have gone through this Committee stage—it seems like a lifetime—it has become increasingly clear to me that the Bill is a frightful muddle. I believe that that is clear to the Committee as a whole. I listened carefully to what the noble Lord said about this small amendment relating to the words "no risk" and why they should or should not be in the Bill. I also listened carefully to what the noble Lord on the Front Bench said but, from where I am sitting, the explanations do not make any sense at all. I am concerned because it is just not possible to use fireworks with "no risk" at all. Leaving the Bill as it stands puts the enjoyment of fireworks—the other side of the coin—itself at risk. It would be virtually impossible to have a firework party without any risk.
We need to try to strike a balance because, if we do not achieve a balance in the Bill, it cannot get onto the statute book. We must find that middle road. During the past few minutes, it has become increasingly clear that the Bill is not correctly drafted and that it cannot go forward onto the statute book in this state. I refer not so much to what the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, said—I could understand and see what he was getting at—but to the explanation for not accepting the amendment which came from his noble friend on the Front Bench. I shall read the noble Lord's words carefully tomorrow in Hansard, but to me they were absolutely illogical. I simply could not see what he was getting at. It seems to me that the amendment improves the Bill, which is what we are after.
Lord Kimball: The noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, was kind enough to say that, in moving these amendments, we have done everything possible to facilitate the passage of the Bill. We have moved them all briskly. However, we are now running out of the time allocated to us and we have managed to cover only four amendments. That emphasises the genuine concern on this side of the Committee and the failure of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, to accept any of our amendments. We shall have to return to this but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Boardmanmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("or distress").
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kimball. It deals with a small point, but I must remind the Committee that it comes against the background to the Bill that we debated earlier. The Secretary of State may make regulations and those regulations may impose almost any penalty for almost any conduct relating to anything which might be even remotely connected to fireworks or whatever other objects are referred to as "like fireworks". The penalties can amount to six months' imprisonment. Although my amendment is small, it must be viewed against the larger implications of the Bill.
The amendment seeks to leave out the words "or distress" from Clause 2. It relates to distress caused to animals. I accept, of course, that anything that causes the death of, or injury to, an animal, is to be deplored. It is right that the Secretary of State should make regulations about that. However, distress is a different matter. "Distress" cannot easily be defined. Many animals suffer distress when fireworks go off or, indeed, when there are bangs from whatever cause. Anyone who has any care for animals ensures that on those occasions when they know that fireworks will be let off, such as 5th November, animals are brought indoors. I have a dog that goes under the table and I make sure that the curtains are drawn. I agree that the animals are not entirely happy at the time although they are fine afterwards. However, it would be wrong to make holding a firework party a criminal offence. It would enable animal rights campaigners to require prosecutions to be brought against anyone with a dog in such circumstances.
In the village where I live, the Bill, if unamended, would mean that it would be impossible to have any fireworks parties at any time, including on 5th November, because of the danger that some dogs, including one of mine, could be said to have suffered "distress". The passing of this provision would mean that firework displays would be banned and that a dog owner would suffer the possibility of severe penalties which, although ill defined in this Bill and left to regulations, could include six months' imprisonment. I hope that the words "or distress" can be struck from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I rise briefly to offer my support to the amendment. The words "or distress" go too far. Indeed, it is not clear what the phrase might mean. It might be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who has been offering a degree of legal advice to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, might be able to offer some advice either directly to the Committee or indirectly through the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about what the words "or distress" mean and whether there have been any previous court decisions, either in this country or north of the Border, which can guide us about how the courts might interpret those words. I did not like them when

573
I read them in the Bill because I believe that they go too far. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, will be prepared to accept at least this amendment.
Lord Monkswell: I can address this amendment briefly. One of the flaws, if I may put it like that, of current consumer safety legislation is that the distress caused to animals, or the issue of their welfare, cannot be taken into account. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will recognise that that flaw needs to be rectified.
Perhaps I may give the Committee one example of "distress" which falls short of death or injury to an animal. I refer to spontaneous abortions by sheep as a result of the antisocial use of fireworks. Although that may not cause injury to the sheep, I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that spontaneous abortions result from distress suffered by the animal and that that should be prevented wherever possible. I remind the Committee that the aim of this Bill is not to constrain the legitimate and sensible use of fireworks; it is to prevent their antisocial and wrong use.
Lord Annaly: I was not present for the Second Reading, but I feel bound to say something now in support of this amendment. Perhaps I may quote an example from my village. A firework party is held on 5th November just behind the yard in which I keep some ponies. I tend to move the ponies into the stable when I am tipped the wink that there will be a firework party because, inevitably, they are on edge. But should I not be there, are the people holding the firework party at fault if my ponies move around the yard, become nervous and get up a sweat? Would it be classed that the animals are "in distress"? Some people might argue that they would be. Perhaps I may refer to the example which the noble Lord used about abortions in sheep. Because his sheep abort somewhere around 5th November when fireworks are going off, a farmer may blame it on the people holding the firework party. I do not see how one can prove that unless the fireworks are being let off in the field where the sheep are. I am not a lawyer, but I am sure that any lawyer would say that these words should not be in the Bill. The noble Lord ought to take that on board and agree to the amendment.
Lord Monkswell: The noble Lord makes my case. Responsible people will let their neighbours know when firework displays are to take place so that the animals can be looked after.
Lord Boardman: Can the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, say what would happen to the sheep which are due to lamb and are in danger? Will one have to take them in doors and shut them up?
I am very disappointed that the noble Lord did not accept this amendment, which is very small, reasonable and essential, particularly as so many of the penalties in the Bill are so onerous and unfair. I take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, as regards an earlier amendment. I am sure that we shall have to come back to this matter again on Report. That being noted, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: Clearly, this is a matter to which the House will have to return in Committee. I am still confused about the ewe which is tupped in the third week of October and there is a spontaneous abortion on 5th November. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

School Standards and Framework Bill
9.2 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section shall be laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament and shall he subject to approval by resolution of each House.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a second opportunity that the Government will have to respond positively to the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. It refers now to the procedure which will be used for placing the regulations on the statute book. It is my view that this is a very important recommendation and that, given the Government's attitude to the first recommendation, they will accept it.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness how important it has been to have the draft regulations for these measures before the House as we discuss these items tonight. We have had not only the draft regulations but also the guidance. We have been able to pick over the small print of what the Government intend. It would be very nice if that could be replicated in other parts of the Bill, particularly as regards the areas I referred to in my letter to the noble Baroness on 9th April.
Nevertheless, even with the draft regulations one or two questions arise. In the debate that we had before dinner not only the noble Baroness, but her colleagues, in answer to questions, referred to the 31st child being a child with special educational needs. I referred to one without those needs who may come in during the course of the year and outside the admissions arrangement. The reference both in the guidance and in the draft regulations suggests that such a child will be accepted as an exception. The noble Baroness answered the question as though it would not be accepted as an exception. That referred to SEN children, but not to those without such needs. I want confirmation that that is the case and that such children will be deemed as an exception. The only reason they are exceptions is the class size pledge.
In other words, the reason they become exceptional in any situation is the imposition of the class size pledge. Do they benefit from costs incurred even though, as the noble Baroness explained, it will be only for the remainder of the academic year when the

575
children have to be taken into the LEA's plan? These are children who could not be planned for. Will they be taken into the legitimate area of expenditure which is incurred directly as a result of the imposition of the class size pledge? I cannot see any answer other than that they must be as regards the three exceptions referred to in the regulations. It would be very helpful if the noble Baroness can confirm that.
I was interested in reading again the committee's report. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for accepting it. It suggests that the figure of 30 children maximum for a class should be on the face of the Bill because of the unequivocal nature of the pledge itself and because almost everything else flows from it. But the committee says that it is not an either/or situation because it adds also that the committee should think about making sure that these regulations come before the Bill using the affirmative resolution procedure. I not only hope but rather expect the noble Baroness to respond positively to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: This amendment, like Amendments Nos. 2 and 247, which we discussed earlier, reflects the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee which reported on the Bill at the end of last week. As I indicated in the debate on those amendments, the Government have noted the committee's report. We are in discussion with our legal advisers about the necessary amendments to the Bill. We accept the principle behind the committee's recommendations and we want to respond as positively as we can with government amendments at Report stage. We need to reflect on some of the practical issues that might affect the implementation of this key policy on class size. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will understand that, having only recently received the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, we have not yet had time to look at these matters in detail and discuss them with our legal advisers. We will take this away and think very carefully about it, as we said when discussing two earlier amendments. Given that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The noble Baroness asked particularly about SEN pupils. There is a difference between exceptional situations where the class may exceed 31 for a short period, which we believe is possible for pupils with special educational needs, and the situation in rural schools—of which the noble Baroness makes quite a lot—where the 31st child will trigger the funding for an extra teacher and situations where the class size limit will not be exceeded. I believe that that is a rather different situation from one where there is the temporary addition of a 31st child as a result of an allocation for a child with special educational needs. That situation would not be allowed to go beyond the school year in which the allocation had been made.
Baroness Blatch: I find that an extraordinarily disappointing answer. The 31st child will in many situations be there only for that academic year. I have said time and again that in rural schools very often the class size is broken simply for the purposes of one
576
academic year. The next year one family moves out and another family moves in. The answer provided by the Minister in relation to children of military families was breathtaking. I spent most of my earlier life as a military wife. At this moment my daughter is a military officer in the Royal Air Force. If like me the noble Baroness had been governor of a school that took in a very large number of children from military families she would know that the number of movements in and movements out, to use the educational jargon, was phenomenally higher than at any other school. Those schools always try to make the case to their local education authorities for extra funding to meet the requirement to take children mid-term and mid-academic year. There is difficulty in taking children in at different ages without the follow-through material and information from previous schools; or it may arrive too late and therefore a much longer period of assessment is required. There are many children who do not see through the whole of their academic lives in any one school. There are many military establishments around the country where the movement of children in and out exceeds the normal movement of children in and out. It is not true that they can be set aside as not being material to this debate or because the noble Baroness believes that all of them neatly come in at the beginning and neatly move out at the end of an academic year. Some families go to great lengths to ensure that the children see through the term, and wives do not follow their husbands. They do so at great cost to themselves and their families. If they are moving into a village where the children are to attend a local school at home the chances are that they will come in mid-term. It is extraordinary that a child with special educational needs or a child who comes in mid-academic year does not trigger the money pledged on the basis of class-size, but that a child who busts the number because of denominational preference or parental preference, or where the distance between two schools is too great, does so. Why should the local education authority pay for a policy that is to be imposed upon it by the Government? Are these children to be taught in classes of 31 without an extra teacher while a school next door that takes in the 31st child gets an extra teacher? It does not make any sense.
I am extremely disappointed by the answer to my second question. I am also very distressed by the answer to my first question. I do not believe that it takes more than a few minutes to determine whether or not this is an important set of regulations. Given the way that this House considers such matters, I believe that this is a very important set of regulations, particularly as any breach of them when they are on the statute book will mean that a local education authority can be taken to court by an aggrieved parent or that the Secretary of State for Education can issue a direction to an authority and/or school, or both. Therefore, the consequences of the imposition of this policy can be very serious indeed. It is not for officials or councils but for Ministers to decide whether or not they believe the affirmative resolution procedure to be acceptable and appropriate.
The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has reported. Its view is that consideration should be given to the affirmative resolution procedure. I believe

577
that we should do that. When we on these Benches sat on the opposite side of the Chamber we accepted every single recommendation—sometimes under pressure from noble Lords on the opposite side—of the scrutiny committee from its inception right up until leaving office. On a number of occasions, the Leader of the House has reminded us that we should have respect for the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and its work and that the House should regard it as an obligation to accede to its recommendations.
I am disappointed with the Minister's answer and I shall return with the amendments at the next stage of the Bill unless the Government bring them forward. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Plans by LEAs for reducing infant class sizes]:
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 18, after ("information") insert ("in such form").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas, I shall move Amendment No. 12 and speak to Amendment No. 13. The proposal is his phraseology, not mine. He considers the words to be inelegant and hopes that the Government agree that his suggestions are an improvement. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, came to see officials in the department, I understand that he is offering the amendments as a constructive proposal. I am happy to consider them in that spirit. We do not believe that they make a great deal of difference to the effect of the clause. The wording may be an improvement, but we must ensure consistency with similar references elsewhere.
I should be happy to take advice on the amendments and introduce them or similar government amendments on Report, or write to the noble Lord, with a copy to the noble Baroness, explaining why we do not believe them to be necessary to achieve the purpose set out. In that case, he can decide to return to them on Report. I hope that on that basis the noble Baroness will be willing to withdraw them.
Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for his comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment on the agreement that my noble friend Lord Lucas can return to them at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenfordmoved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 46, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall not approve any statement prepared by a local education authority under this section which envisages an increase in the average size of classes in junior schools or secondary schools in that authority's area over the level prevailing in the same area in 1997.").
578
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16. As noble Lords opposite realise, we agree with their noble intentions. But there is an old Irish story that you never say in confession that you stole a rope, forgetting to say that there was a horse on the end of it. The consequences of this Bill are not always realised.
I do not know which of the trio of heads will answer—is it a gorgon?—but I am not frightened. It is the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who was most generous. I wish to pin him down about the way in which Her Majesty's Government will support all the consequences of taking the rope and not mentioning the horse. We have isolated certain issues because governments can be not dishonest but careless and at times the Treasury can be over-powerful.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, have assured us that there will be no problem in relation to the subject of Amendment No. 14. Since Ministers' words are now in law absolute in this House, I hope that the noble Lord will assure us that there will be no increase in the average size of classes in junior or secondary schools. Although I admire the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in many ways, he has not run schools. They do not run as neatly as he says. The fact is that if classes are reduced in one section there is no guarantee that they can be reduced in another. The first amendment builds on the assurances given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for which I admire him—they are written on my heart and on those of many other people—that there will be no danger of increasing the size of classes in junior schools.
Now we have a problem. The noble Baroness wishes to enhance travelling. I agree that she entered a greater note of caution than did the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, but I wish to have on the record whether there will be any problem in respect of travelling. The right reverend Prelate pointed out that some people who go to Church schools are not Christian. It is up to the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues to sort that out. However, it might be that a devout Catholic and a devout Anglican must travel 20 miles to find a Church school, as is the case in my part of the country. I am assuming that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, would not require that of a devout person who wished to attend a school of his parents' faith. Again, I ask for assurances.
The third matter relates to accommodation provided. At times, Her Majesty's Treasury is careful with its money. Members of the Committee opposite will know that some temporary classrooms have lasted for 20 years. I gather from assurances given that this will not be a cheap Bill. The Government are putting in £40 million and they are prepared to put in resources to ensure that their pledges are met. Therefore, it is not wrong for us to ask for those assurances which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, almost gave before. However, I should like just to see the commas marked and the full stops.
These are exploring amendments. I do not like this clause, which I shall speak against. However, my main purpose in tabling these amendments is to seek an

579
assurance from the Government, which would stand up in court, that their heart is where their money is or more particularly, that their money is where their heart is. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will give me every satisfaction. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: As the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, made reference to Church schools, perhaps I may comment on what he said. The Church of England is in the education system in order to share in the total provision of education rather than in order to make provision for particular denominational members. Therefore, the basis on which we participate is quite different from that of the Roman Catholic Church. That is perhaps not always understood. In the light of the noble Lord's comment on my reference to those who may not be Christians but who nevertheless wish to attend a Church school, that needs to be made clear.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Perhaps I may ask the right reverend Prelate a question because although I am a priest of the Church of England, I was speaking for the nation in general. I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church shares the view which the right reverend Prelate put forward. I believe that it holds a stronger view. I ask the right reverend Prelate that because no Roman Catholic Bishop is present. I believe that the right reverend Prelate has joined in discussions with that Church.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: The Roman Catholic Church holds a different view because it believes that it is making denominational provision for Roman Catholic Church members. Many Church of England schools are rural schools in tiny communities which serve the whole community. Therefore, they do not have a basis of denominational membership for attendance.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I recognise the position of the Roman Catholic Church in that situation. In the absence of anyone speaking for the Roman Catholic Church, its position should be borne in mind. The right reverend Prelate is speaking in a different sense. My noble friends have spoken of the problems of denomination and that should be borne in mind on the Government Front Bench.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should start by warning the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, against a trap into which I have fallen too often, although not today; that is, irony. It does not work very well in this Chamber. It reads quite differently in Hansard. What he meant ironically will undoubtedly appear as wholehearted support for the position of this Government and remarks that I have made in particular. I do not say ironically that I find these amendments not so extraordinary in themselves but I find their provenance extraordinary.
I find it extraordinary that a Front Bench who were in government for 18 years, in the course of only the past 10 years of which the average primary class size rose from 25.4 to 27.5 and the average secondary class size rose from 20.3 to 21.7, should now put on that guise
580
of concern for primary school class sizes. I find it extraordinary that a government who, over a period of 18 years, did nothing effectively—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: The amendment that we are discussing is not about primary school class sizes; it is about the effect that these proposals will have upon them. I admire the noble Lord's picture of the record of the past and its history. However, I do wish that he would speak to the amendment about the effect of the proposals on future class sizes.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall of course speak to the amendment and do so directly. However, I am allowed to make a few comments on the provenance of the amendment which I find suspect.
As regards Amendment No. 16, I find it extraordinary that a government who held office for 18 years and left temporary accommodation, mobile classrooms, outside toilets and a grotesque deterioration in the physical condition of our schools, both primary and secondary, should now be expressing such concern for the physical condition of schools as a result of the improvements in standards that we propose.
Amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 would all require the Secretary of State to deny approval to LEA statements in specific circumstances. I believe that the amendments are unnecessary, but I will deal with each of them in turn. The first is Amendment No. 14. I want to make it clear, as did my noble friend Lord Whitty, that we do not intend to fund reductions in infant class sizes by allowing class sizes to rise in other key stages. We make specific reference to key stage 2 classes in the draft regulations and guidance that we have issued for consultation. In guidance, we state that,
"plans will not be approved that show reductions in infant class sizes being achieved at the cost of increases in Key Stage 2 class sizes"—
to an old fashioned person like me, that is junior—
"arising from a transfer of funding from junior to infant classes".
To put an amendment such as that proposed on the face of the Bill would stop the implementation of plans to reduce infant class sizes if there were unconnected developments in junior or secondary classes that might lead to small increases in those later key stages.
Perhaps I may stress that we do not envisage class sizes rising from January 1998 levels—and I am deliberately saying 1998 rather than 1997, as class sizes in January 1998 will have been the result of the spending plans of the previous administration. We are providing extra funding for schools (£835 million extra for schools in England this year) which should bring down, or at the least keep down, class sizes at all key stages.
The amendment would impose unnecessary restrictions upon the Secretary of State's consideration of LEAs' plans. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will feel able to withdraw it.
We support the principle behind Amendment No. 15. We are aware that children in rural areas may only have one school within reasonable distance. It is important that they should therefore be able to attend that school. Indeed, Mr. Stephen Byers, the Minister for School

581
Standards, has made it clear that children should not have to travel an unreasonable distance to school as a result of our pledge to reduce infant class sizes.
However, I am unable to support the amendment, in part, because I consider it unnecessary but, more importantly, because I do not think that it could be effective. The statements that LEAs have to produce will be quite detailed documents. I feel that LEAs would consider it more than a little unreasonable were we to ask them, as the amendment would require, to set out the travel arrangements of every infant pupil. I therefore do not think that the amendment could achieve what it is intended to deliver. I believe that we can, without such an amendment, ensure that children will not have to travel an unreasonable distance to school. Funds will be provided for an extra teacher—and, where necessary, for an extra classroom—when a child has only one school within reasonable distance and could not otherwise be admitted without an infant class exceeding the limit of 30. Our draft regulations make it clear that LEAs will have to provide information on how they will be handling such instances.
It is upon this broad level of the approach that an LEA intends to take that we should focus our attention. We can ensure that each LEA is adopting an approach that is suited to the demands of that particular area—and can pay particular attention to those areas where rural schools play an important role.
As regards Amendment No. 16, I shall explain why we do not require this amendment, but I must express some disappointment that the Opposition have raised this issue. As I said, under the previous government, schools suffered badly from under-investment in schools capital. This has led to mobile classrooms being used for extended periods, as well as many other unacceptable aspects of recent school life, such as leaking roofs and outside toilets.
Through the New Deal for schools, we are investing extra money in schools capital. A significant part of the first tranche of New Deal funding was directed at replacing old mobile classrooms with permanent structures. The Chancellor's Budget Statement provided an extra £90 million of capital to update boilers, to replace outside toilets and to provide extra classrooms for more, smaller infant classes. Our letter to LEAs wishing to apply for the class size capital funds makes it clear that their plans will have to be for permanent classrooms not mobile classrooms. The guidance we sent out states that,
"Applications relating simply to the provision of mobile classrooms will not be accepted."
We are putting additional money into allowing schools to undertake real improvements, expansions or adaptations to allow them to accommodate more, smaller infant classes. We can control the use of mobile classrooms more effectively—
Baroness Byford: I hesitate to interrupt the Minister when he is in full flow. He condemned the previous government's history—if you like—as regards temporary accommodation. I assume therefore that any
582
new provision that will be made for these extra places which we have discussed today will definitely not be in temporary accommodation but will be in permanent buildings built of bricks and mortar.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have just said that our letter to local education authorities wishing to apply for the class size capital funds makes it clear that their plans will have to be for permanent classrooms, not mobile classrooms. As I have already quoted, the guidance we sent out states that,
"Applications relating simply to the provision of mobile classrooms will not be accepted".
I hope that that answers the point the noble Baroness has just made.
Baroness Byford: The Minister must forgive me, but it is obvious that over the years some schools have found it useful to erect temporary accommodation. However, now the Government are saying that it will not be possible to do that in the future. That is the point I am trying to make.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I must be precise about this. We are saying that applications for funding for the purpose of reducing infant class sizes which rely on the use of mobile classrooms will not be accepted. As regards all the amendments we are discussing, it is more effective to control the funding than to introduce such amendments on the face of the Bill. I hope noble Lords will appreciate that point and will wish to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Young: I wish to press the noble Lord further on the point about not having temporary buildings. I have no doubt that, when he says that so confidently, that is precisely what he means. However, I wonder about the reality of that in practice. If a class size is to rise by three, is the noble Lord seriously suggesting that a local authority will build permanent accommodation for three extra children in a class? I do not have the relevant figures in front of me but anyone who knows anything about school buildings knows that to build a permanent classroom is an expensive proposition. It would be exceptionally expensive if the three children were to leave the school the following year because they were temporary pupils.
I do not wish to cast doubt on what the noble Lord says, but I wonder whether it constitutes a sensible use of government and local authority expenditure. Like the noble Lord I am not a particular supporter of temporary accommodation as I have seen too much of it in my life. If I may say so, his remarks about what the Conservative government provided were in many cases quite unjust. I remember quite clearly in 1979, when I was a Minister in the Department of Education and Science, we inherited a situation which everyone has, of course, now forgotten. The IMF had intervened and told the government they had to cut down on expenditure. Public buildings, in particular schools and hospitals, suffered from those cuts. We inherited a situation in which little had been done for years. In fact, we poured money into

583
schools to make them better. It may not have been perfect. Noble Lords may take an intake of breath, but the figures speak for themselves every year.
All that I am saying now is that I have been chairman of an education committee. I agree that it was some time ago and things may be quite different now, but to say that you will always have a permanent building when there are perhaps two or three extra children in the class is something I find very surprising. It is something which needs to be considered very carefully.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suppose it is my fault. I referred back to the record of the previous government, and I can quite understand why noble Lords opposite are very sensitive about it. However, if we were to go into the matter the record would show that the shortfall, the deficit, in the necessary provision for school buildings which the previous government left in 1997 vastly outweighs any shortfall which the previous government found in 1979.
For the third time, therefore, perhaps I may repeat what I said about the particular issue which we are debating at the moment. It is the issue of how to reduce infant class sizes to 30. What I said was,
"Applications relating simply to the provision of mobile classrooms will not be accepted".
Of course, it is not the case that we can remove mobile classrooms from all of our schools immediately. Nobody said that. I did not say that, and nobody in government has said that. We recognise that it may be the economical and sensible thing to do when there are changes up and down in school populations in individual schools or, indeed, in local education authorities. Anyone who has been concerned with education locally knows that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is right about that.
Our undertaking related to applications concerned with the reduction in infant class sizes. It relates specifically to those applications.
Baroness Blatch: Before my noble friend responds to the amendment, will the noble Lord not agree that in 1979 there were actually classes of over 40 and many, many classes of over 35? Would the noble Lord also not agree—and the information bears it out—that more money was spent per pupil when we left office than when we arrived in office?
Indeed, if one looks across the country as a whole and compares, for example, the Inner London Education Authority, with which the noble Lord is very familiar, with my own shire county, which is Cambridgeshire, with which I am very familiar, we have a very good rolling programme of capital spending. It was managed very well and our school stock is in pretty good order. That goes for many well-managed local education authorities. There are other poorly-managed local education authorities where the stock is pretty awful. Therefore, it is not just about money; it is actually about the management of the authority and the degree to which priorities are considered year on year.
584
What the noble Lord said about the previous government does not raise any sensitivities with us. We are rather proud of what we achieved in many of our local education authorities with money provided for by government and by the local taxpayer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am delighted to hear it. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, will now return to the amendments.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: The noble Lord interprets kindness as ironies. It is rather sad. I was impressed that with a policy which has many ramifications a Minister on the Front Bench was prepared to guarantee more than I had expected. My noble friend said that the noble Lord was making a ministerial statement with the authority of the Government behind it. He stated that the problems which could occur from class sizes could be resolved. There was no irony in my remarks. I hoped that the Minister was right. I hope that he can resolve the problems. I thought that his ministerial colleague, the Minister of State, was a little more cautious. I shall read Hansard tomorrow.
I think that there will be problems about class sizes. That is why I put down the amendments. I think that there will be problems about Roman Catholic schools. There is strong passion for attending denominational schools. There will be problems about travelling, as I know from my home county of Somerset. I have experienced that in an anecdotal way. There will be problems about buildings. I believe also that there will be problems about the slight overlap. The Government have made promises which they may find hard to fulfil.
I shall withdraw the amendment. But there was no irony in my approach. The smile belied the tiger, I think. However, we shall return to the issue. The Government have promised more than they can give. On this side of the Chamber, we shall hold them to every dot and tittle of the promises they have made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
9.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: I oppose the Question that Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill. At the outset let me make it clear that we have sought to do some mental arithmetic on how much the policy will cost. We now have an additional aspect to what I call the McIntosh formula: that even the buildings that will be built will be permanent.
I wish to echo a point made by my noble friend. I believe that the Government may rue the day. I remember when there was a policy to move large numbers of people out of the cities, in particular out of London, into greenfield sites in Middle England. The temptation was to build large numbers of primary and secondary schools in order to accommodate a large

585
influx of families with children. But about 15 years later it was discovered that, as the population settled down, there were too many schools. Therefore one had to take out those schools. With hindsight, one would say that we overbuilt those schools at that time in many of the shire counties with that movement of people from the cities into the countryside.
Something similar will happen in this situation. But this is a more fluid policy. It is a policy in perpetuity. Every year local authorities will have to present minutiae of detail to the Government. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to say, "We don't want to be involved with little Johnnie X who has to travel an unreasonable distance to an alternative school". The truth is that if the Government are to carry out that policy, that is precisely what they will have to do. If that work is taken away from the local authorities which should be undertaking it, the Government will have to get involved in the minutiae. In order for the local authorities to trigger the money which will come from heaven (if I may so describe the Treasury in this case) they will have to make out the case that X-number of children are travelling unreasonable distances; X-number of children are making denominational preferences which cannot be met; and X-number of parents are losing their preferences. According to the guidance and the regulations, there is a responsibility to the local authorities to enhance parental choice, not simply to sustain it. There is also a movement of SEN children.
This is a very fluid policy indeed. If all of that is to be rigidly met by 2001, it will be necessary to erect buildings for very small numbers of children. If, for the 31st, 32nd, 33rd or 34th child, the alternative to a particular school is an unreasonable distance, or there is no denominational alternative, then that child will go to that school. If there is not another classroom for such children, then one will need to be provided. I suggest that some of the mobile classrooms in today's world are excellent; they have changed out of all recognition. A sensible local authority would have a quota of high-quality, very mobile classrooms which it could move into place to resolve the issues of the day, and to prevent a challenge in the courts, in order to meet its obligations under this policy.
My first point is this. If money is to be made available to provide an extra teacher for one child, to provide brick buildings for a small overflow of children, to provide for keeping class sizes down wherever and whenever it is necessary, to meet all the capital and revenue costs, and to cover the bureaucracy—as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, this information will need to be planned, recorded and submitted to the Government for them to crawl all over and approve or disapprove, as is their wont—that will be a considerable sum of money. My plea is for that money to be made available directly to local authorities and to the schools themselves. They would make good use of it. I still trust them, in that their priority, particularly in primary schools, would be to make sure that that money was applied to the education of the youngest children. I would trust them to use it in that way. Instead, we
586
have a bureaucratic proposition and a very cumbersome system in which the DfEE would run everything from London.
For that reason, the proposal is fraught with practical problems. It pre-empts the budgets for schools and local education authorities. As I said, though measures are desirable, so far as I and my colleagues are concerned, teacher quality is the key to good teaching. A less than adequate teacher teaching 20 children will do more damage than a highly competent teacher teaching 31. That is the issue that we should be examining. I can promise that, over a very short space of time, when the one-off payment of windfall money has run out, this money will be top-sliced from education budgets, and there will be less money for other priorities.
The Government have given no definition of "reasonable distance". I therefore ask the Minister to do so in replying. No definition has been supplied for "poor schools". I asked a question earlier which has not been answered; namely, do we mean "poor schools"—and, if so, what is the definition? Or do we mean where a parent makes a choice and, for one reason or another, that choice is denied and the child is sent to a school down the road, if the school down the road is poorer than that school, rather than being a "poor school"—in other words, its achievements are not as high and it is not as popular—is that parent given the right under the law to challenge the local education authority or to challenge the Secretary of State? It seems to me important to have the Government's response on the record.
The Government have committed themselves to a blank cheque policy. There is no question of that. Whatever this policy costs, the revenue and/or capital costs will be met by specific grant. It is to be by specific grant into the foreseeable future, because the amendment asking that this money be fed into the revenue support grant was rejected earlier on the grounds that the Government wish to retain the specific grant.
I noted in either the guidance note or the regulations a reference to the money being paid through the LMS formula. Again, I am not absolutely certain what that means. My understanding is that if a specific school triggers a specific need for a teacher under this policy, that school will receive that money. It will not receive it through some LMS formula, but it will receive the cost of a teacher in that school for the children who break the 30 barrier. There is an inconsistency and confusion in relation to the application of that policy, either through the LMS system or by specific grant to the local authority to meet the specific needs of each local education authority school.
If the local authorities are to enhance parental choice; if they are not to send children an unreasonable distance to school; if they are not to fill up surplus places at poor or poorer schools—depending on what the answer is from the Government; if they have responsibility, as they do under the guidance, to expand popular schools that are achieving high standards, according to Ofsted; if they are to protect denominational preference—and that is to be protected; and if the 31st child under those

587
circumstances is to trigger a teacher, I believe that the Government will be in difficulties in realising this policy.
In his response to a previous set of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to irony. There is no irony. In the course of their first year, so far the Government have got away with very warm words about a lot of policies. As my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking said earlier, they are a government of adjectives. Because this policy was so clear, because the clarity was as crystal, because we have unequivocal responses that costs, revenue and/or capital, whatever they are, whatever it takes, will be met, we believe that the safeguards that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, have been offering all day should be on the face of the Bill. If that is what they mean, there should be no problem about putting them on the face of the Bill. It is not what we would do. I oppose this clause because I believe it is bureaucratic and fraught with difficulty and because I believe fervently that, if this money is in the system, these decisions could be taken at a local level more economically and efficiently and in a more educationally effective way. For that reason, I do not believe that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: I am disappointed and sorry that the noble Baroness does not feel able to support Clause 2 of the Bill, which is central to the Government's delivering smaller class sizes for young children. Without a clause placing a duty upon LEAs to produce statements setting out how they will introduce the limit on infant class sizes in their area, the whole policy would be jeopardised. The target is clear, but the way that limits are introduced in an area will rightly depend on local circumstances and the differing starting points of different LEAs. It is therefore right that LEAs should determine the approach that best suits local needs.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: May I ask the Minister a question? Why is it that in this clause all the schemes have to go to the Secretary of State? As I said at Second Reading, it seems to me very dirigiste. An enormous problem will be landed on the department. As I have said before, I am sure that under the noble Baroness it will become a much quicker department, but it has not been famous for its speed in the past. These schemes for class sizes all have to go up to Whitehall and come back. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he trusted local government. Why is it that you are so mistrustful that the Secretary of State has to be like an ombudsman, an intendant or a prefect?
Baroness Blackstone: I believe it is perfectly reasonable, in asking LEAs to consider what their approach should be and allowing them to look at local needs and to take into account the particular circumstances of their authority, to ask them then to submit their proposals to the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, have made a great deal of the costs of the scheme. Taxpayers' money will, of course, be involved, although
588
I think that most parents, and indeed many taxpayers who are not parents, will welcome money being spent in this way. It is only right that Ministers should take the responsibility of ensuring that the schemes that are introduced are acceptable and meet the Government's objectives, since money will be put behind those objectives.
The required contents of the statement will be set out in regulations, as will the dates by which they have to be submitted. We are presently consulting on the regulations and copies of the consultation papers are in the Library of this House, as noble Lords opposite are aware. We want to keep to a minimum the work required by LEAs. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness said in that regard. Of course it makes no sense to impose ridiculous demands on local education authorities that deflect them from all their other work. However, for the most part LEAs accept that this is a reasonable request, particularly given our assurance that we will try to keep to a minimum the work that is needed. At the same time, we need to ensure that we have collected sufficient information to have a clear picture of how class sizes will be reduced by each authority.
In preparing their statements, LEAs will be asked to consult with schools and with other interested parties, in particular the representatives of the Church and parents. That will ensure that the LEA statements represent a clear consensus of the right way forward for each area. That again is extremely important.
The clause places a duty upon LEAs to consult and regulations will state whom they must consult. Other bodies or persons may be called upon to provide LEAs with information or assistance and the clause will allow us to set out in regulations who must assist the LEA in that way. Grant-maintained schools would be an example of those who may have to provide information to LEAs. We are clear that pupils in existing grant-maintained schools must also be able to look forward to smaller infant class sizes and those schools must therefore be part of the planning process. I am sure again that Members opposite will think it right and proper that that should be so.
Statements will have to be submitted for the Secretary of State's approval. If he does not approve a statement—I hope that there will be few cases where that occurs—the LEA will be notified and given the opportunity of providing a revised statement. Only when the revised statement has been approved will grant be payable.
The noble Baroness mentioned the importance of teacher quality. I absolutely agree with her on that. There is nothing more important than having teachers of the highest possible quality, not just teaching five, six and seven year-olds, but throughout the educational system. It is vital—this is one of the points of which the noble Baroness will be aware—that the great majority of teachers feel as strongly as do the Government that class sizes for these very young children should be lower than they are and certainly not more than 30, if we are to be absolutely clear that we are doing our best for these small children and ensuring that they do not in any way fall behind, particularly in the key areas of early learning of literacy and numeracy.

589
The noble Baroness asked what was a "reasonable distance". It would be quite wrong to quote a specific distance in miles. A reasonable distance will depend on local circumstances; for example, what the transport links are like. In some cases it may be easier for a child to travel quite a long distance because there is a good train service. There may well be a situation where the parents can take a child by train quickly or there may be, as is more likely in rural areas, a good bus service as opposed to a train service. It is important that we take into account what the services are like rather than having a rather arbitrary figure for a reasonable distance.
The noble Baroness mentioned that populations can change and that therefore investment in capital is undesirable. She went back to new town policies or policies of population movement that took place much earlier. It is, of course, true that there are shifts in population and there have been ever since compulsory schooling was introduced in the 1870s. In some cases we have empty places in our schools and there are other cases when there are big influxes of population. I know from my period in the ILEA that Tower Hamlets, for example, had a big influx of people from Bangladesh which caused pressures on schools. We had to expend capital in order to meet those needs. Similarly, it is perfectly reasonable to expend capital in respect of keeping class sizes down for very small children.
Clause 2 is absolutely central to our approach to reducing class sizes, in close co-operation and in partnership with LEAs. This is not a top-down matter. It is a dialogue—and a constructive one—and a partnership. We are well aware that we have to work through LEAs who are much better placed to consult on plans and propose how best to deal with the statutory obligations they have. If reductions in class size are to be achieved it is vital that they make these plans. The statements that they will submit to the Secretary of State will illustrate and demonstrate how the plans meet the objectives of smaller infant classes. For those reasons Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.
10 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: From these Benches we support that the clause stand part of the Bill, mostly because we support the aims of the Government. I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, earlier. I would have more sympathy if I had not been involved in schools during the time when space standards were changed by government which meant that flexibility and the problems of dealing with smaller class sizes were made infinitely worse.
I say to the Government that it will not be easy to carry out the proposal. There will be problems. The message I would like to give is that consistency over a number of years in policies will pay off.
I was chairman of governors at a first school during the period of the last government. I was not a governor of the school when it was a joint middle/first school. The middle school was closed and we had a wonderful modernisation of the Victorian building, which was a sort of sop to the community. All the things that we said
590
would happen happened. Parents were not prepared to go to split sites with their children at middle schools and first schools and so we were a school that was not full. That was very nice in many ways but when schools' space standards changed and the policy changed so that it became an all-through school, we were back to an even worse situation than before. Consistency of policy is extremely important if we are to go down this road.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I may make two points. The noble Baroness said that this was not an edict of the Government on local authorities. It certainly reads like that and I am bound to say that that was the impression given.
The great thing about having been interested in education for a long time is that the wheel turns full circle. I well recall that when I first went into local government there was a direct grant to education authorities, of which Oxford was one, which had to be spent specifically on education. Then, of course, things moved on. We were told that this was quite wrong and that it was much better for local authorities to have freedom to spend the money they were given in the way they thought best. So the direct grant was removed. There was then a general grant, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred earlier. We are now coming back to saying that that is not perhaps such a good idea, that local authorities, on the contrary, cannot be trusted to deal with the policy of reducing class sizes, and we must therefore give them a specific grant which will tell them precisely what to do. If I were a cynic on this matter—of course, I am not—I would say that perhaps the policy will work. Indeed, perhaps it is necessary because some of the worst education authorities, sadly, are Labour-controlled. I leave out those where the Labour Party is conducting an investigation on matters of fraud and so on but, nevertheless, clearly Labour feels that local authorities are not to be trusted and must be told precisely what to do. Perhaps that is the state we have reached.
As an old local government hand, I welcomed the freedom that local authorities were given to make their own determination of their priorities as they thought right, but so much has subsequently gone unhappily awry in education that many things have changed. It seems to me that this is a Bill in which the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be, will be able to say, "I know what is going on in every school in the country because I have looked at the plans and I have determined them". That is what we are getting under Clause 2.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister left two questions unanswered and I should be grateful if she could respond to them before I respond to her answer. I refer, first, to the feeding of the money through the local management of schools formula and, secondly, to the definition of "poor" and "poorer" schools.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may respond, first, to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said and then return to the questions about LMS and the definition of "poor" and "poorer".

591
There is no edict, but there is a new duty on local education authorities. Indeed, much education legislation imposes new duties on LEAs. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, was a Minister at the Department of Education and Science, as it then was, and she will have been involved in such legislation. Given that the Bill places a new duty on LEAs, it seems reasonable that a specific grant should be provided in order to support local authorities in fulfilling that duty. It would be wrong not to provide that additional funding.
The noble Baroness also said that she thought that the Bill would lead to the Secretary of State knowing what is happening in every single school. That is something of an overstatement. I do not believe that the Secretary of State wants to know what is going on in every single school at every single minute of the day, as used to be said happened in the French system, where the French Minister of Education could look at the clock and say, "It is now 10 past 10"—not at night, but in the morning!—"and I now know that throughout the land pupils will be looking at their Latin primer". That is not what is intended here. We are trying to ensure that every child of five, six and seven should be in a class with no more than 30 children.
Perhaps I may return to the question about LMS. We shall shortly be consulting on the new LMS arrangements which will include the necessary arrangements to fund schools for this class-size policy. A process of consultation on LMS needs to be gone through to ensure that we have a sensible scheme available.
As regards the definition of poorer schools, again it is impossible to be precise. I do not believe that the noble Baroness can expect me to be precise. We all have a good idea what is meant by that. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may take the last point first. Either we have to believe the words on the page or we do not. Paragraph 13 of the guidance says:
"While it is not possible to guarantee all parents that their child will gain a place in the school of their choice, LEAs' class size plans must however not lead to a reduction in parental preference, but to an enhancement of it. LEAs should plan on the basis of enhancing the exercise of parental preference, wherever possible, which would mean: (a) no child should have to travel an unreasonable distance to school: (b) surplus places in poor schools should not be tilled by keeping children out of schools that offer higher standards and a better quality of education".
This is a legal obligation on local authorities and on schools. If it has to be interpreted, then I as a parent would want to know what it means. I have a view of what is meant by a poorer school being other than the one where I would prefer to send my child. Where do I stand under the law? At the end of the day someone has to make a judgment and who is going to do it? Will it be the Secretary of State in approving the plans? In that case, is the local education authority expected to say that it refers to each school to which a child may be sent if there is no place in the school of choice? I do not know. It is important because, if these are the words on the page and they are to be the guidance to schools,
592
LEAs and parents, we need to know what they mean. I hope that by the next stage of the Bill we will have had some definition.
I take some of the points which the noble Baroness made about distance. Those of us who live in the country were mildly surprised. If one wanted to send the 31st or 32nd child from my village to another school, there would be no bus to take that child at school times to another primary school. There would be transport to the secondary school, but the distances and the directions are different. But if a primary school child has to be sent, there would be no way whereby that child could leave at 9 o'clock in the morning and return at 3 p.m. or 3.30 p.m. Therefore, there would be dislocation of the family. The suggestion has been made that the child can get on a train to go to school. In many communities they cannot even get on a bus unless there is a recognised school run. Even then, all the children are being bussed anyway. Children have grown up accustomed to going to their local village school and the little overflow of one, two or three children does not fit into that situation if they have to be sent on to other villages.
From my village it is easier to get into the local town which is 10 miles away than to get to the next village which is only a mile away. One has to walk there. We also have a dual carriageway to negotiate. It is a very difficult issue. The Government are going to have very real problems. They deal in broad-brush plans, which all sound wonderful, but when it comes to actual policy on the ground where a single child can breach the magic figure of 30, there will be all kinds of practical problems. The answer to some of them has not been given by the noble Baroness.
As regards LMS, I am quite perplexed. We were told by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as regards LMS and the revenue support grant, that this money would be specific grant. If it is to be paid through LEAs by a formula, that is not specific grant, but something different. If it is formula, then each local authority will receive just its allocation which will come through under the normal formula. That would be expected to meet all the costs of the pledge and flies in the face of the unequivocal promise we were given earlier in some detail by the noble Lord.
In answer to my noble friend Lady Young, the Minister said that it was not an edict. I had a quick look in the dictionary to check the definition. The definition is: "Order proclaimed by authority". This is an order proclaimed by authority to local authorities and schools. It is a statute by which they will be obliged to conform and it cannot be anything other than an edict, so my noble friend was right.
I end with the statement with which I began. We do not argue with the policy intention of the Government but we are seriously worried about its rigidity and the practical implementation of that policy on the ground and the difficulty of sending—I hope that the noble Baroness did not mean it—five year-olds to school on a train. We are talking here about infants and not grown-up children.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: This discussion about the travel arrangements of small children has perhaps gone a bit far. I said that it was impossible to specify a precise distance which might be regarded as reasonable. It will vary according to the transport arrangements in different parts of the country. I made reference to trains and went on to say straight away that in most rural areas trains did not exist. I have a small cottage in a village in the country which has trains. That is very unusual. For the most part one is considering buses. Nothing I said suggested that small children of that age should be put on trains or indeed buses. Their parents would have to take them where such facilities existed. For the most part, we hope that children will be able to go to schools in their own villages where these facilities exist. I believe that we are making rather a meal of this.
While on my feet perhaps I may make one point absolutely clear. The noble Baroness said that she was confused about LMS. As I understand it, funding would not go to LEAs by formula but by a specific grant, as has been said on a number of occasions. However, they may pay schools through LMS arrangements to ensure that there is fair funding for all schools. Therefore the grant will go to the LEAs. There is to be consultation on this matter so that in the longer term there is a fair funding system.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I do not wish to burden the Minister with the "country" point but I live in the country. One of the problems of broad-brush government Bills is that people are actually affected. There are people in the country who do not own motorcars. In the area of the country where I live there is no bus or train and I do not drive. I am very well aware of this. The noble Baroness must not dismiss this. The 31st, 32nd, 33rd and 34th child present a problem which the Government must face. The fact that the noble Baroness's village has trains is not a common feature in the country. This is not a frivolous or political point; it is a real point of concern. When one imposes classes of 30 and sends some children away the Government must give thought to it.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Baroness exhorted me not to make a meal of this. This is the policy of the Government. When I was a serving county councillor I was always taught that whatever I did, and whatever policy I made, thought should be given to what it would mean on the ground. Before my time there was a rather good chief education officer, George Edwards, who was well known in the educational world. The noble Baroness may even have heard of him. He often stopped education committees to ask what would happen to little children. I do not believe that we are making a meal of this. We are considering the Government's well-intentioned policy aims. They have taken a view that there should not be flexibility. It is envisaged that children will be moved from schools which would have taken them had there been some flexibility. I have even asked the noble Baroness that where in any small village in the country the parents, governors and staff of a
594
school have agreed that the education of the children will not be compromised by accepting the 31st or 32nd child, they should be free to make that decision but that that should be underwritten by the consensus view of all of those bodies, rather than that a child should be put on a country bus or even a country train.
Baroness Blackstone: I want to move on while trying to be helpful. I have said twice—perhaps three times—in the course of either Second Reading or this afternoon that the Minister for School Standards has made it absolutely clear that a child in an isolated rural village that is some distance from the next one or another school will be able to remain at that school but that we will provide extra resources so that there is an additional teacher to ensure that children in rural areas are not taught in over-large classes any more than children in urban areas.
In many village schools, classes are much smaller because the population does not sustain large class sizes. We are talking about a rare and unusual situation. I know that in some villages the class size might be about 30 and could go to 31, but in most cases the reverse applies. Classes are smaller than classes for the same age group in urban schools.
I repeat that where there are more than 30 children in infant school classes in rural areas the resources will be made available to provide additional teachers in order to ensure that that does not happen and that children are not sent some distance to a school in another village or town.
Baroness Blatch: We welcome everything that the noble Baroness said, but I believe that she is under-estimating the number of areas in which classes will be bigger. To my knowledge, during the past 20 years many small schools have been taken out. I was responsible for taking out a school with fewer than 10 children. I was part of a group which as an experiment set up a federation of three schools whose total number was less than 40. Many experiments have been tried but a large number of small schools have been taken out. Village schools have been amalgamated and therefore three, four, five or more villages feed into the school.
Will it be possible to brick build between now and 2001? My local authority bid this year but has received nothing from the Government. Its bid to address class sizes of 30 was rejected. I do not know whether we will be lucky next year or the year after. I do not know what will happen in 2001 when it has not received its money. However, by 2001 every education authority in the country will need to receive money in order to ensure that they can conform to the proposals. On occasions, children will be moved to another school. Therefore, the definition of poor schools is important. There must be a realistic expectation of building brick extensions for small numbers of children, which is the only way some rural schools will be able to cope.
The whole purpose of opposing the Question that Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill was to elicit more information. I still believe that we will need yet more information and no doubt I shall return to the matter on Report.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Payment of grant in connection with reductions in infant class sizes]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 8, after ("grants") insert ("for the purposes specified in subsection (1)").
The noble Baroness said: I hope that the Government will respond in detail to this amendment. From the outset of the policy, and well before the election, the Government made a firm promise to phase out assisted places—almost to remove them overnight—making available the money saved to meet the pledge. It was not long after the election before the Government realised that capital was separate, whatever they say. No doubt, there will he capital costs which we have heard today will be realised in the form of solid brick buildings. Therefore, the costs will be considerable.
On a previous occasion, the noble Baroness made it clear that money from the assisted places scheme was not meant to fund the capital scheme. I accept that that is a separate issue. However, I wish to know that the money which is being made available this year, the extra money which was made available for education and the money which was made available for all kinds of pet schemes that have been announced during the year are coming from a one-off source. When that one-off source of money dries up, perhaps the noble Baroness will tell me whether the Treasury is standing by to pick up the deficit which will appear. Something must replace that money or the education world must learn to live without it. What forward promise will the Minister give that the one-off money which has been used for many of those schemes will be reimbursed, substituted or made up to education?
In the case of the assisted places scheme, we have some concern as to whether the moneys being saved will completely meet the revenue costs of the pledge. Secondly, I am not absolutely certain that the Government have given us the net figure which must account for all the young people who will be fed back into the system. We must remember that this is mainly secondary education money. There was some in the primary sector but it mainly affects the secondary sector. Therefore, some of that money must pay for returning children back into the state system whose places will be removed from the independent schools.
Furthermore, it is not right to say that those children will go back in and be absorbed by the education authorities, because we now live in a world where money follows the pupil. Therefore, if a school has 1,000 pupils in one year, it will receive the aid-weighted pupil unit money and 1,000 times whatever that amount of money is, according to the age of the child. If the following year, the school has 1,010 pupils, it will receive 1,010 times whatever that unit of money is from the education authority. Therefore, there is a cost for each child returning to the state education system from the independent sector under the assisted places scheme. It would be helpful to know what the Government believe that net figure to be.
The point of my amendments is to make it clear, and abundantly clear to Parliament, that where the amount of money is exceeded—in other words, when and if there is
596
a deficit from the money used from the assisted places scheme to provide revenue and it needs to be topped-up—first, the additional costs will be met by government and, secondly, that the specific grant will be dealt with by way of regulations so that we in Parliament can be aware of the costs of meeting the pledge. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Baroness asked me to respond in some detail. I find that difficult because the amendments as drafted do not make very good sense. However, I hope that I can reply in sufficient detail to convince the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 17 sets out to do something which the present wording of the clause already achieves. The amendment relates to the grants that the Secretary of State may withhold when he has not approved an LEA's class size implementation plan. It is to ensure that he may withhold no grants other than those that would be paid for the purpose of reducing infant class sizes.
The amendment is not necessary. Clause 3(2)(a) refers to grants "under the regulations". The Bill states:
"Regulations under this section shall provide for the Secretary of State … to withhold grants … where no proposed arrangements by that authority have been approved by him under section 2"
The regulations to which it refers are those in subsection (2) which relate to "this section"—that is, Clause 3—the clause covering the payment of grants to reduce infant class sizes. The power given to the Secretary of State under subsection (2)(a) would not enable him to withhold any other grants. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will recognise that her amendment adds nothing to the drafting of Clause 3.
Again, I am afraid that we found Amendment No. 18 rather confusing. I understand from what the noble Baroness said that the intention of the amendment is to ensure that the specific grant must cover all the costs that the LEAs will incur, but the drafting does not actually say so. We have said that we will provide the funding that LEAs require to enable them to reduce infant class sizes. We will base the funding, in the initial years at least, upon their plans. However, we will have to be careful how we assess the costs.
If an LEA has under-invested in infant classes so that its problems appear worse than those of comparable LEAs, we should not reward it for past under-investment. That would be a perverse incentive; but we will provide, through specific grant, the costs of meeting the limits on class sizes. We said as early as last June that the assisted places savings would be for revenue expenditure. The Minister for School Standards, Stephen Byers, said then in another place:
"The assisted places scheme is releasing revenue money which we shall use for the benefit of teachers' salaries … capital is dealt with differently in terms of public expenditure".
We have already released the first £22 million of savings from assisted places to pay for extra infant teachers from this September, and we have made £40 million of new capital available in 1998–99. The noble Baroness sought a categorical assurance that we

597
will provide, through specific grant, the costs of meeting the limits on class sizes. The answer to her question is that we do give that assurance.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I did not make myself clear on the first point, but I am enlightened by his answer. I wanted to be absolutely certain in that respect. I am still haunted by shades of the Teaching and Higher Education Bill in which the Government have taken a power to withhold grant—the grant being general grant—in order to punish a university or college for charging top-up fees for a course. These regulations apply where a local authority does not conform, or does not live up to its duty to uphold this particular policy and where grant will be withheld. In other words, my understanding, from what the noble Lord said, is not that it will be withheld; the LEA simply will not get it. The grant is not being withheld because, if the LEA does not apply for it and is not doing its duty, it will not receive the grant. If an LEA is not conforming and is then directed to do so, I understand that the money will follow the direction.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I was not entirely clear in my reply. The noble Baroness is right to say that the power to withhold grants applies under the regulations. The regulations relate to plans to reduce class sizes, where necessary, in infant schools. The grant will be withheld where no proposed arrangements by the authority have been approved; in other words, not when no application has been submitted but when it is not satisfactory.
Baroness Blatch: Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I understand the policy, there is no long-term proposition that a local authority can continue not to have a policy. If its plans are unsatisfactory and not approved by the Secretary of State—or worse, if the local authority does not provide the Secretary of State with such plans—then, as I understand the noble Lord and the Minister this evening, he will issue a direction to the LEA and that direction will be accompanied by the funding to produce and pay for whatever the direction is; for example, teachers, the building of premises, and so on. I understand that that direction will be accompanied by the resources to meet it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes. I repeat the assurance that my noble friend Lady Blackstone and I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour; namely, that a direction would be sought under Section 497 of the 1996 Act. Of course, a direction which required expenditure would be accompanied by funding.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful for that because now I understand that the withholding of grant is a technicality. It is withheld because plans are unsatisfactory, or for other reasons. On a direction of the Secretary of State the funds would flow. Eventually the children in that authority would still receive the benefit of the application of this policy.
598
The noble Lord missed completely my further point in his answer. I said right at the outset that I understood that the revenue and capital were separate. The noble Baroness has said that on previous occasions, and I have read every word that the Minister for School Standards in another place has uttered there on this Bill. However, the promise has always been that the savings from the assisted places scheme will meet the revenue costs of this pledge. We have reservations about that. Where in any year the costs that are needed to meet the pledge exceed the money saved from the assisted places scheme, there should be a specific grant and a regulation should come before Parliament so that the issue is exposed for Parliament to consider.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can repeat only what I have already said. We shall provide through specific grant the costs of meeting the limits on class sizes. That undertaking is not limited by savings from the assisted places scheme.
Baroness Blatch: I press the Minister further. Is he giving a further pledge that if the assisted places moneys are not adequate they will be topped up by the Treasury? That question has to be posed because this is an open policy; whatever the costs may be, they will be met. If the revenue costs exceed the savings from the assisted places scheme, will they be met by the Treasury? If, and when, that is the case, is there some mechanism the Minister can offer that Parliament would be informed or that regulations would be drawn up? Or, is the noble Lord not giving the guarantee that if the assisted places scheme savings do not meet the revenue costs the Treasury will meet the additional costs?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The undertaking that I gave was quite clearly not related to receipts from the assisted places scheme. I said that we shall provide through specific grant the costs of meeting the limits on class sizes. If the noble Baroness wants me to say that we expect the receipts from the assisted places scheme to meet those costs, we do indeed expect that. However, the undertaking I have given is independent of that expectation.
Baroness Blatch: I accept that. I am grateful that I have obtained that undertaking from the Minister. It may be that I am asking about a hypothetical, theoretical, stratospheric occurrence. If, and when, the costs exceed the savings from the assisted places scheme, could we as parliamentarians be informed of that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The reason we are not able to calculate now the exact costs local education authority by local education authority and in aggregate is because local authorities have to submit applications for their solutions to solve the problem that we have set them of reducing class sizes. We do not know what solutions they will find; we hope that they will find economical as well as satisfactory solutions but we are dependent on them—subject to the guidance we give them about the submission of those applications—to produce the solutions which are most appropriate to their local areas.

599
Therefore it is not, and never has been, possible for us to give the total sum that will be required for this purpose over the period of this programme until September 2001. However, we have said that we will meet these costs.
Baroness Blatch: When we reach the next stage of the Bill I shall not have this opportunity to keep pressing the Minister for detailed answers. I understand and agree with everything that the noble Lord has just said in that I accept he cannot say at this moment what next year's costs will be, or those for the year after that. That is not the point of my amendment. What the noble Lord can quantify are the savings that come on stream in any given financial year from the assisted places scheme. That will be a definitive sum of money that is made available to the department. Is the Treasury prepared to make provision that where the costs cannot be met from savings from the assisted places scheme—which was the pledge made by the Government—the Treasury will undertake to top up these sums? As the noble Lord has said with great confidence, he does not even envisage this happening. I am simply saying that if and when it does happen, can Parliament be informed? I shall leave the noble Lord to answer another time, unless he particularly wants to come back now.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It now seems to me that the noble Baroness is asking for something for which I had hoped she would not need to ask. The amounts which will be spent on fulfilling this pledge and fulfilling the programme under this part of the Bill will be transparent. In other words, they can be known to Parliament. When we allocate specific grants we will advise the allocations to the local education authorities and that information will be available to this House.
Similarly, as was made quite clear during the passage of the Act which introduced assisted places, the savings which will arise from the abolition of the assisted places scheme are not secret; they are available and they will be available to this House as necessary.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord and his colleagues opposite made an explicit statement that this would be an assisted places scheme revenue paid policy. We will extrapolate the information ourselves if the Government are not prepared to present it in the form that I have asked for in this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 18 to 21 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 23:
Before Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
("CHAPTER IA
GENERAL DUTY OF SECRETARY OF STATE
—(1) The Secretary of State shall ensure that his functions relating to the provision of education in schools under sections 10 and 11 of the Education Act 1996 are exercised with a view to promoting high standards of attainment.
(2) The Secretary of State, in fulfilling his duty under subsection (1), shall not require any school to alter its status if it is performing within the top third of schools or is consistently improving its performance in national performance tables for National Curriculum tests or GCSE examination results.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 23 requires that it shall be a general duty of the Secretary of State to ensure,
"that his functions relating to the provision of education in schools under sections 10 and 11 of the Education Act … are exercised with a view to promoting high standards of attainment".
I put emphasis on the word "attainment" because I believe that is a rather clear way of making a judgement about schools. There are all kinds of other things that can be measured but, for the purposes of my amendments, I wish "attainment" to be added to the words "high standards".
The second part of my amendment asks that:
"The Secretary of State, in fulfilling his duty under subsection (1), shall not require any school to alter its status if it is performing within the top third of schools or is consistently improving its performance in national performance tables for National Curriculum tests or GCSE examination results".
I feel particularly strongly about this amendment. I was about to say, "If the Government are genuine"; I shall rephrase that. I do believe that the Government are genuine in wanting to see high standards. I think it would be wrong of me to doubt that when the Prime Minister, even before the election, said that "Education, education, education" is a priority he actually meant it, that the Ministers in the department mean it and that the Ministers in government mean it and are supported by Cabinet colleagues, members of the party and members of the Government. I do not wish to call that into question.
I simply wish to call into question the ways of achieving it. It does seem to me particularly pernicious—I do not use the word lightly—when one looks across the piece at education to see what is working out there and to see where good education resides out there in the community. We know that our grammar schools are performing well. One has only to look at the performance tables produced each year. We also know that the majority of our grant-maintained schools are performing very well.
I have some colourful memories of a particular grant-maintained school. It was going through a traumatic time when overcoming the hurdles to become a grant-maintained school. I was visited by the chief education officer of the relevant local education authority who pleaded with the department not to allow the school to become a grant-maintained school. I was fascinated by the case put by the representatives. They said they wanted just a little more time because they felt that the school was not quite ready; its performance was

601
not all that it should be. They had real doubts about whether the school could manage its own affairs. I was rather sucked into the case being made until I considered that that local education authority had had that school for decades, probably a century, and it was still underperforming in its eyes. Given that a good case had been put, I took the view that if the school were to be grant maintained it would be responsible for its own future, its performance, and the way in which the school was run within the family of state-funded education. I was not wrong. The school almost flew when it became free and independent but within the state sector.
There is something rather distasteful about insisting that these schools should have their status taken away in the way prescribed in the Bill. With grant-maintained schools, the parents themselves voted to take that road. Many went through a great deal of difficulty in doing so—opposed by the local education authority, opposed by the LSI (which I understand has now become an organisation called TEN), opposed by the Labour Opposition at the time, opposed by Labour councillors up and down the country, and, I admit, opposed by some Conservative councillors who have since realised how successful the policy was. It was because local authorities saw it as somehow losing their fiefdom.
As someone who came up through a local authority, I always took the view that the situation is rather like that of one's own children. When one grows up one has one's children; one is very attached to them, worries about them and nurtures them. One is concerned about their future. There is that dreadful moment when they start to seek their independence and to move away. Parents become nervous about that. But the joy of seeing one's children standing on their own two feet, being independent and taking their own decisions, is something to be grateful for. The fact that they can stand on their own two feet is to be celebrated. I see that as a simple analogy with schools. I used to say to colleagues on local education authorities, "Why don't you see it like this? Where schools become independent within the family of state education, reflect on and celebrate the fact that they are able to shine as schools." And shine they have.
It seems particularly pernicious not to give those parents an opportunity to vote the other way. At a stroke of the pen, when the Bill becomes law, with the massive majority in another place, it will see the end of grant-maintained schools and probably the end of grammar schools—all that works out there.
Another aspect of the same picture of good education is this. Given the opportunity, those schools on day one would like the opportunity to become foundation schools. It is the same argument. The Government began with a policy that they could become grant-maintained schools when the policy was implemented. Because the teacher unions—or some body—have now persuaded the Government otherwise, they have now put a hold on the time during which those schools could exercise their choice to change their status. I and my colleagues feel strongly about this. I do not doubt the intentions or the policy aims; I support them most strongly. But I think
602
that it would be quite wrong to take away the status of grant-maintained schools and to return them to local authorities.
I have read these documents very well. Irrespective of LEA relationships and the code of practice, there are so many clauses in this Bill which give local authorities a window of opportunity to intervene in relation to grant-maintained schools. Indeed, the Secretary of State also has powers to intervene.
I therefore plead with the Government to think again on this policy. These are good schools. The amendment provides enough flexibility even for schools which are not achieving highly in the performance tables but are nevertheless making seriously impressive improvements year on year, starting from a very low base, and doing all that the Government want them to do and are exhorting schools up and down the land to do. Why not give them this opportunity? It is possible that some of them will, overnight, want to become foundation schools. I should be the first to say: give them that opportunity too. Where they have democratically voted for that status, it is only fair that they should be given a democratic opportunity to determine their own future. In the meantime, if schools do not wish to change their status, they should be left alone—particularly when they are performing so well and when some, while they may not be very high in the performance league tables, are making impressive improvements year on year. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: This amendment goes very much to the heart of the matter, affecting the whole approach to the new framework. It is true that the first part of Amendment No. 23 is fairly straightforward. However, it is unnecessary. The proposal in the first subsection is that the Secretary of State should be placed under a duty to promote high standards similar to that which we are placing on education authorities and governing bodies.
We strongly support the assumption that the Secretary of State should promote high standards of attainment, but this provision is unnecessary. Section 11(2) of the Education Act 1996, with which the noble Baroness will be familiar, already places the Secretary of State under a duty to,
"exercise his powers with a view to",
among other things,
"improving standards, encouraging diversity and increasing opportunities for choice".
We believe that that duty is sufficient. The wording is not quite the same as that of the amendment, but it achieves the same purpose.
However, it is the second subsection of the proposed new clause which strikes at the very heart of the Bill. The intention appears to be to allow up to one-third of the highest-achieving maintained schools the option of retaining their present status. In the case of GM schools, that would mean remaining outside the new school framework.
I hesitate to use the term "wrecking amendment", but in effect this amendment challenges the whole basis of bringing the GM schools into the new framework. Moreover, the amendment seems to be based on the

603
false assumption that the Secretary of State will have power to require any school to change its status. He does not and will not. Changes of status brought about by the introduction of the new school framework will be the result of the relevant clauses of this Bill being approved by Parliament.
If, as the noble Baroness implied, the main intention is to protect successful schools from unnecessary and unwarranted intrusion by local authorities, then that is also our intention in the new framework. We made it clear in the White Paper, Excellence in Schools, that intervention by local education authorities should be in inverse proportion to success. It is one of the key principles behind the code of practice referred to by the noble Baroness which we shall introduce under Clause 119 of the Bill and which we shall no doubt discuss later. The code of practice will ensure that local education authorities use a very light touch in their relationship with successful schools. But that is very different from excluding a large section of schools from the new framework. We have no sympathy for the retention of any system of school organisation which is divisive and which would leave some schools outside the new framework and beyond any influence on the part of the local authority.
We shall have opportunities later in the course of the Bill's progress to discuss grant-maintained status and the new framework. However, there are three points which are particularly significant to the present discussion.
First, what the noble Baroness proposes is not what the grant-maintained movement itself wants. In the Second Reading debate my noble friend quoted from a letter from the Grant-Maintained Joint Monitoring Group, which represents the main grant-maintained organisations. It said:
"We join the Government in looking forward to the new framework, not backwards to old divisions".
That is exactly the point.
"We believe, like the Government, that self-managed schools will play an important part in driving up school standards and securing financial prudence".
Secondly, it is our approach that all schools, including our most successful schools, do not operate in isolation from others. Success breeds success.
Thirdly, we believe that all schools, no matter how successful, should be considering how they can improve further. We have made clear on many occasions that all schools should regard themselves as primarily responsible for their own improvement. But we also see an important role for the local education authority in this area. That, it seems to me, is the main cause of the noble Baroness's opposition to these proposals. We regard the local education authority as key to supporting such improvements generally,
I am not sure whether the noble Baroness was referring also to Amendment No. 24, which is grouped with Amendment No. 23. I understand the objectives behind Amendment No. 24, but it is our view that, if it were carried, it could lead to a narrower interpretation of the duties of local education authorities than we intend. The word "attainment" in relation to pupils is sometimes used rather narrowly as attainment in relation to assessment in the national curriculum. We believe that the
604
duties on standards should be interpreted more widely in that local education authorities have other duties in which they need to promote high standards and that that is reflected in the current wording of the clause.
I hope I have made it clear that I regard Amendment No. 23 as a serious inhibition on the intention of the Bill and Amendment No. 24 as unnecessary and possibly counter-productive to the intention behind the Bill. I hope, therefore, that, although we shall debate the issue of the framework and the definition of the new status of schools at a later stage, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendments.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord takes some satisfaction in reading and re-reading the letter that apparently speaks for grant-maintained schools. I do not argue with that. I know the lady who signed the letter, or who had it signed for her, and I know the organisations for whom she speaks. However, I have to say to the noble Lord that many grant-maintained schools feel very strongly about this issue. There are also some, even among the organisations which are part of the trilogy behind the letter, which have taken the view that this Government was elected on 1st May with a very large majority and that they intend to carry out these proposals. Those schools have therefore fought for the best of a bad lot. They have been working with the Government, visiting Ministers and securing as many concessions as they can in order to make the Bill slightly more palatable than it was. I have checked their preferred position with them, and the noble Lord can check himself. Indeed I understand that they prefaced their comments by saying that they would rather there was no change from the present status at all. Given that they believe that that change will happen, they have taken a realistic view.
I thought that the Government could be more mature about this policy, offer the framework and give all these schools an opportunity to stay where they are. They are within the family of state education; they are not outside it. Many of our grant-maintained schools are working well with their neighbouring schools and have very good relationships with their local authorities. They are not out there as alien beings. There are a number within my own local authority, and their relationship with the authority is a very good one.
The noble Lord rightly said that the Secretary of State would not personally take away their status; it is a matter for Parliament. That is what we are here for today, unless we are rubber-stampers. I do not intend ever in my life to be someone who simply rubber-stamps policy, whether it is for my government or the party opposite. The proper job of Parliament, and particularly of this Chamber, is to look for ways of achieving policy objectives. The policy objective as I see it is that within our state system we should have the highest possible standards of education that are achievable. I strongly support that policy. I simply say that there are at least two categories of schools that are achieving very well; many of them are beacons in their own right. Certainly any performance tables that we have seen since their inception more than bear out how well those schools have been performing. And we have a Bill which is going to wreck them. It is a wrecking policy and will wreck them, particularly the grammar schools, to which we will come at some time in the future.

605
I am simply exercising my right, as a Member of this Chamber, to say to the Government that they could achieve their policies of seeking, promoting, encouraging and, where necessary, cajoling local authorities and schools to improve their standards from whatever base they are now at. They would receive a good deal of support from us for doing so. But I cannot think, for the life of me, why we should see the changing of the status of these schools and the demise of the grammar schools.
It may be new Labour, but this is "old" Labour with a vengeance. There are people in the Labour Party—who I understand in the future are to be expunged from it—who have been looking for a long time to get rid of the grammar schools and anything that they regard as elitist. I do not regard them as elitist; I regard them as rungs in the ladder for young people. Some young people are more suited to a highly academic curriculum than they are to a vocational curriculum or a mixture of the two. I thought diversity was now something that was common parlance between us as parties. In this great educational system of ours, choice and diversity—which I believe are now more commonly used by both parties—had room for these schools. I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord gave an old Labour answer from a new Labour Government.
This is the politics of envy back with a vengeance. We saw it over the down on Oxford and Cambridge; we saw it over assisted places; we are now seeing it on grammar schools; and we are certainly seeing it on grant-maintained schools. While there is breath in my body I shall fight for them. I hope that the noble Lord will at least use the time between now and the next stage of the Bill to register with his colleagues in another place that we are very concerned about these schools. We are not saying that they should not become foundation schools; we are not saying that they should not be brought into the framework. But they are owed democratic process. They voted for their present status. Why not give them an opportunity to vote openly and democratically for the opportunity to become foundation schools or even community schools if that is what they wish? I would trust them to make that choice. Some would, and some would not. I believe that we should encourage them and, where we see those lights burning, we should encourage them to shine even brighter.
This is a policy backed by the politics of envy. It is a sad day for education in this country. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Duty of LEAs to promote high standards in primary and secondary education]:
Baroness Blatchhad given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 44, at end insert ("of attainment").
The noble Baroness said: I am sorry that the Minister will not accept the words "of attainment". Perhaps he would like to think of all the other standards and place those other aspects on the face of the Bill. However, there is a coyness about "attainment" on the part of the Government opposite. I believe that "attainment" is an extremely important word. It is missing from the Bill. It should be in the Bill. It was missing from the 1996 Act
606
and ought to be included. If it cannot be included in this Bill, then perhaps through the Bill the 1996 Act could be amended to include the word "attainment".
Perhaps the noble Lord can think of ways of making sure that attainment, quite specifically, is covered. I would be grateful if he could do that between now and the next stage. Meanwhile I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Baroness Byfordmoved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 8. at end insert ("and "high standards" applies inter alia to education, learning, teaching, governance and behaviour, and to the local education authority's own activities'"').
The noble Baroness said: I wish to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas. This whole section deals with a duty to promote high standards. Clearly the amendment seeks to clarify that further. I should like to ask what the Government mean exactly by "high standards"? How do they propose to enforce that view unless there is some direct definition of it in the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: The specification here runs up against the same difficulties as the specification of attainment, and nothing else, in the previous discussion. Local education authorities have a duty to carry out many functions in relation to education at school level: provision of services to schools, transport, personnel, health and safety, leadership, co-ordination, supply of school places, communication and other functions too numerous to mention. Those are not included in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but each of them in its own way contributes directly or indirectly to the quality of education provided and, therefore, to high standards. We think that local education authorities should be striving for excellence in all aspects of what they do.
To accept the amendment as it stands would risk diluting the commitment to standards in all of those fields. As currently worded, the reference to high standards is all-embracing, and includes all of these areas. If we start to specify it in this clause the opposite of the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, would be the result. We would dilute the effect and limit the way in which high standards were interpreted in the functions of local authorities. I, therefore, ask the noble Baroness, to withdraw the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Baroness Byford: I thank the noble Minister for his response to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He will be disappointed that the Government are not prepared to include it as a definition in the Bill. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at seven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  Horses: Health and Welfare
  Horses: Health and Welfare
  Fish in UK Exclusive Economic Zone
  Fish in UK Exclusive Economic Zone
  Pesticides Safety Directorate: Performance Targets
  Pesticides Safety Directorate: Performance Targets
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Performance Targets
  Veterinary Medicines Directorate: Performance Targets
  Veterinary Laboratories Agency: Performance Targets
  Veterinary Laboratories Agency: Performance Targets
  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency: Performance Targets
  Farming and Rural Conservation Agency: Performance Targets
  Meat Hygiene Service: Performance Targets
  Meat Hygiene Service: Performance Targets
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science: Performance Targets
  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science: Performance Targets
  Central Science Laboratory: Performance Targets
  Central Science Laboratory: Performance Targets
  Food Safety Incidents: Report
  Food Safety Incidents: Report
  World Trade Organisation and Farm Animal Welfare
  World Trade Organisation and Farm Animal Welfare
  Farm Animal Welfare
  Farm Animal Welfare
  Pesticide Residues in Food
  Pesticide Residues in Food
  Military Assistance to Foreign Governments
  Military Assistance to Foreign Governments
  Roadside Emission Testing
  Roadside Emission Testing
  Biocidal Products Directive
  Biocidal Products Directive
  Waterloo International and Ashford International Stations
  Waterloo International and Ashford International Stations
  Urban Traffic Management: Capacity Assessment
  Urban Traffic Management: Capacity Assessment
  Allotment Closures
  Allotment Closures
  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Firearms Consultative Committee
  Terrorist Crimes: Pursuit of Perpetrators
  Terrorist Crimes: Pursuit of Perpetrators
  War Crimes Prosecutions
  War Crimes Prosecutions
  Working Peers: Remuneration
  Working Peers: Remuneration
  Mentally Incapacitated Adults: Responses to Green Paper
  Mentally Incapacitated Adults: Responses to Green Paper
  House of Lords: Members' Ages
  House of Lords: Members' Ages
  Employment Rights: Pregnant Women
  Employment Rights: Pregnant Women
  Education Action Zone
  Education Action Zone
  Grammar School Selection: Ballots
  Grammar School Selection: Ballots
  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease: Statistics
  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease: Statistics
  Pensions Policy
  Pensions Policy
  National Insurance: SERPS Accruals
  National Insurance: SERPS Accruals
  Basic Pension: Uprating Cost
  Basic Pension: Uprating Cost
  Medical Devices Agency: Targets
  Medical Devices Agency: Targets
  UNHRC Reports: Delays
  UNHRC Reports: Delays
  Yad Vashem, Jerusalem: PM's Visit
  Yad Vashem, Jerusalem: PM's Visit
  Achehnese Asylum-Seekers
  Achehnese Asylum-Seekers
  Tibetan Hunger Strikers
  Tibetan Hunger Strikers
  Cuba: Amnesty Appeal
  Cuba: Amnesty Appeal
  Cuba: US Economic Blockade
  Cuba: US Economic Blockade
  EU General Affairs Council 27–28 April
  EU General Affairs Council 27–28 April
  EU Business: May to October 1998
  EU Business: May to October 1998