Commons Sitting of 21 April 1986

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Carlisle—Settle Line
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail the viability of the Carlisle to Settle railway line.
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell):It would not be appropriate in view of the application for closure.
    Mr.Dalyell: Is it not a fact that 80 per cent. of the work that needs to be done is in employment and less than 20 per cent. in materials? What are the real costs, in view of the numbers that would then be employed? Does that not put the preservation of the Ribblehead and other viaducts in a different light?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman has drawn an interesting point to our attention. However, Ministers will have to consider the proposals for closure in a quasi-judicial capacity. It would be quite wrong today for me to give an indication of my view of the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr.Watson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's position, but is he aware that passenger traffic on that line, using the
    2
    Settle and Skipton stations, has increased by about 400 per cent. in the 18 years since the line was first suggested for closure? Is my hon. Friend at all perplexed about the fact that a line then considered viable should now be considered uneconomic by British Rail, even though it now carries four times as many people?
    Mr. Michell: Of course, that is one of the matters that we will inquire into. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to consider all relevant issues in reaching his decision.
    Mr. Straw: Is the Minister aware that an integral part of the closure proposals for the Settle to Carlisle line is the closure of a section of line between Blackburn and Hellifield? Is he further aware that that has been a very popular route for Dalesrail passenger services, and that there is also a connection through to the Settle to Carlisle services? Although we all appreciate the Minister's quasi-judicial position, will he end this farce of an inquiry by saying that he will provide the money to keep those essential services going?
    Mr. Mitchell: It is for the inquiry to report on hardship. When it has reported on that, Ministers will consider the reports on hardship and the British Rail closure proposals. We shall look searchingly into it to see whether it stands up financially, and will consider all the other aspects as well. The wider issues will be taken into account by Ministers. However, the inquiry is into hardship, and it would certainly be wrong to stop it.
    Sir Hector Monro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the line's importance for tourist potential in north-west England and south-west Scotland, particularly with regard to the steam excursion train? Does not British Rail owe some duty to the nation to maintain such splendid viaducts?
    Mr. Mitchell: The viaducts involve other matters, such as preservation orders, which are outside the scope of today's question. But of course we understand the tourist potential. I am very enthusiastic about the way in which steam railways can attract a lot of tourist trade. Ministers will have to consider such matters when we have the inquiry's report. However, enthusiastic as I may be about

    3
    steam locomotion, it is, regretfully, not something that I shall express a view about before receiving the report and before the decision is made.
    Mr. Stott: If my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lewis) had been in his place, I am sure that he would have asked the Minister a question, but unfortunately he is not here as he is ill. I fully understand the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role. In connection with the question of the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Watson), is the Minister aware that I am advised that the line made a profit of about £1 million last year? We are talking, not about any old railway line, but about one of the most historic, scenic and beautiful lines in the world. I very much hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will bear those points in mind when they make their decision. The nation is proud of that line and wants to keep it.
    Mr. Mitchell: One must recognise that there is a difference between making an operating profit and making sufficient money to be able to maintain the structures in a fit and proper condition. The two are different. However, I must agree with the hon. Gentleman about the scenic nature of the route. I have travelled on it and have climbed all over the Ribblehead viaduct. I am keenly aware of the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, and, of course, they are ones, along with many others, that Ministers will take into account when they come to take their decision.

    Tourist Signs
    Mr. Greg Knightasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he intends to introduce more widely the new white and brown tourist attraction signs following the experiments in Kent and Nottinghamshire; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The experiments were very successful. The system is to be introduced throughout England. Information is now being sent to local authorities and others. Signs to attractions with over 150,000 visitors a year will be allowed on motorways. On other roads there can be lower thresholds. The new scheme will benefit both tourists and attractions.
    Mr.Knight: Representing as I do an area of great tourist potential I welcome that reply and my hon. Friend's Department should be congratulated on the speed with which it has dealt with the matter. What implication does his decision have for public expenditure? Who will pay for the new signs?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The experiment was well carried out by the two counties and we are grateful to them. The Department has got on with this and that is generally welcomed. In general, the attraction operators will be paying for the signs. Local authorities can contribute, but we do not expect to see an increase in public expenditure.
    Mr.Haynes: The signs are attractive, but where is the Department of Transport's priority? We can travel up the M1 and at junctions 27 and 28 there is no sign at all for Sutton in Ashfield and Kirkby in Ashfield in my constituency? Will the hon. Gentleman consider that matter.
    Mr.Bottomley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome and when I next travel up the motorway I shall see whether I can advertise his constituency and the robust way in which he represents it in the House.
    Mr. Key: I welcome my hon. Friend's decision, but will he not go overboard on the standardisation of signs, which might be provided perfectly adequately by local businesses? Will he also note that people want to know about not just tourist sites but village shops in rural areas such as mine?
    Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure that we want to advertise every village shop from motorways, but the important point is that we are allowing signs to be put up and paid for by attraction operators, so that both in boosting tourism and in deregulation we are to be congratulated.

    Terminal 4, Heathrow
    Mr. Forthasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the arrangements for security at the new terminal 4 at Heathrow.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): I have personally spent a good deal of time on security arrangements at London Heathrow in general and terminal 4 in particular. There can never be 100 per cent. certainty about preventive measures and there will be a need for constant vigilance and, no doubt, future refinements. I am, however, satisfied with the attention given to this matter by the British Airports Authority at Heathrow terminal 4, which is one of the world's most advanced from a security point of view. Security measures at British airports have been further stepped up in the past few days.
    Mr. Forth: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and I am sure that we found it most reassuring, but he must be aware of the rather horrific stories that have been circulating recently about terminal 4 and the apparently easy access that some people have had to that terminal. Can he reassure the House that those stories will be taken seriously and will be investigated? What steps are being taken to examine baggage, both hand-held and destined for the cargo holds of aeroplanes, to ensure that there will be no repetition of certain disastrous events which have taken place in aircraft around the world?
    Mr. Spicer: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that it is our firm aim to ensure that British airports are as secure in future as they have been in the past. Some of the stories that have arisen, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, have been misplaced. One particular newspaper claimed to have broken security when in fact the journalists had to go through security before they were able to take their pictures.
    Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware of reports that security staff at Heathrow are not happy with the operation of machinery, which apparently failed to detect the presence of explosives at the airport last week? What action is he taking on the view of the staff that the only effective method of detection is a thorough hand search?
    Mr. Spicer: That point of view can be substantiated in view of the present state of the art. The X-ray facilities have their inadequacies, but the system as a whole worked at Heathrow last week, for which I am grateful, and I am happy to report that to the House.
    Mr. Higgins: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there are adequate facilities for security checks of passenger baggage going into the holds of aircraft? Are those facilities being used by the airlines?
    Mr. Spicer: One can never say that one is entirely happy about anything to do with security checks. Both technological and practical procedures are available for dealing with baggage going into the holds of aircraft, and they are used as they apply.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not true that the only reason why the operation at Heathrow last week was successful was that the hand search revealed a discrepancy between the weight and the contents of a passenger's case? Is the Minister seriously suggesting that he is happy with the existing arrangements? If there are not sufficient staff, and if staff are not equipped properly, surely the problem will arise again?
    Mr. Spicer: A number of factors led to the detection at Heathrow. I do not think that the House would want me to go into all the details; suffice it to say that detection took place—
    Mrs. Dunwoody: El Al.
    Mr. Spicer: Of course there are double systems for checking. The hon. Lady mentions El Al, and I can assure the House that other airlines have similar procedures and believe that a similar circumstance could have been detected.
    Mr.Dicks: I disagree with my hon. Friend. I believe that security failed at Heathrow and that it was only the additional protection taken by El Al that prevented a disastrous incident. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the commerial viability of the airport will not take precedence over the security and safety of passengers?
    Mr. Spicer: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. A permanent balance must be struck between the convenience of passengers and the needs of security. In times of high tension, the need for security must clearly be paramount.
    Mr. Tony Banks: In view of the enhanced security needs of Heathrow, will the Minister guarantee that no one-person-operated tube trains will enter the extension area? Will he go further and ask London Regional Transport to put guards in each of the carriages on tube trains entering the airport?
    Mr. Spicer: I cannot give the guarantee that the hon. Gentleman seeks. Obviously the security aspects of trains entering the airport will be closely monitored.

    London Buses
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to modify the performance objectives he sets for London Buses; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I gave London Regional Transport demanding objectives designed to secure better and more efficient public transport services. I am very happy to tell the House that revenue subsidies for LRT this year will be down to £79 million, which is about one third of the level planned
    6
    by the GLC when it was responsible. This has been achieved without any significant reduction in the quality or any increase in real prices of the services provided.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate LRT on the improved services that it has provided since it was established following its removal from the auspices of the GLC? However, is my right hon. Friend aware of the delays and consequent frustrations of passengers using buses in heavy traffic? Will he give an assurance that driver-only buses will be used only after exhaustive tests have shown that they will be of benefit to the passengers and will not create further delays?
    Mr. Ridley: I shall certainly pass on my hon. Friend's congratulations to the chairman and board of LRT on what has been, by any yardstick, a staggeringly successful performance. LRT already incorporates the effects of congestion into its appraisal of conversion to one-person operation. I also believe that the congestion effects have been much exaggerated, for reasons to do with factors other than congestion, by those opposed to one-person operation.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Secretary of State willing to join any bus queue in Battersea and tell people waiting at that queue that he believes the services are now staggeringly successful? Is it not true that one-person-operated buses are causing delays and frustration and are not a way to keep satisfactory services operating?
    Mr. Ridley: There has been practically no alteration in bus services since LRT took over from London Transport. The only alteration has been a 2 per cent. change in services at the margin. If services were wrong before they may well be wrong now, but LRT is improving services to meet customer demand.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the parking and garaging requirements, which are quite properly applied to London Buses in central London, and which it observes, should be applied to all coach operators?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend probably knows that we have been studying the provision of coach stations and possible coach parking sites in central London. Because of the massive increase in the number of long distance and tourist coaches in London, we will take a little longer to get on top of this problem.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State plan to alter the objectives as they affect the regularity of bus services and the price for short journeys in areas such as mine, in south-east London, where no alternative form of public transport is available and where, since LRT took over, services have been reduced, as admitted by SELKENT and management, and where local people are demanding more frequent bus services and, on some routes, a reduction in the relative costs?
    Mr. Ridley: Perhaps the deregulation of bus services in London would assist in solving the problem referred to by the hon. Gentleman, by allowing other operators to supply any demand not met. Overall, I do not believe bus services have been cut. A slight change has been made to accommodate areas in which there is more demand at the expense of areas in which the demand is less. A future objective will be to reduce the revenue subsidy cost, which this year is estimated at £79 million. It is even possible that

    7
    we shall reduce that to zero. Moreover, there will be a saving of £245 million to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, as ratepayers and taxpayers, on what the GLC intended to spend.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: I regularly travel by bus and wonder whether my right hon. Friend does so, too. Will he discourage LRT, at least in central London, from replacing the traditional open platform bus with oneperson-operated buses, which deter passengers.?
    Mr. Ridley: They also deter violence. Where one-person buses are being operated there is a far better record of safety for bus crews. I believe that it is better to leave the management of London buses to LRT. It is not my role actually to run the operation.
    Mr. Stott: Are not words such as "better" "more efficient" and "staggeringly successful" a prostitution of the English language when applied to London Transport? When I am in London I regularly use the buses, and I was late for Committee last week, as were some of my hon. Friends, because I had to wait 40 minutes in a bus queue for the No. 159 bus. Over the past few months the service in London has deteriorated. How can the right hon. Gentleman claim success?
    Mr. Ridley: I know that it is galling for the hon. Gentleman that there has been this massive change proving the GLC to be wrong in its forecast of the subsidy that would be necessary. I realise that the increase in investment is unwelcome to him. If he wants me to respond to the complaints in his supplementary question, I shall bring forward the date on which London will be deregulated, so that other operators can come in from the private sector to ensure that the hon. Gentleman arrives on time for his Committees in future.
    Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is excellent news for ratepayers, taxpayers and everyone who uses buses that about £4 million has been saved under the guidelines by going out to tender while retaining a similar passenger mileage overall on the routes tendered?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend points to an important issue. He will know that 52 routes have so far been put out to tender at a saving of about £2·5 million a year, not £4 million. That is the saving so far, and it is a staggering sum to have been saved on those routes. A further 6 per cent. of total mileage is to be put out to tender in 1986–87.

    National Bus Company
    Mr. Dixonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what improvements in customer services he expects from the privatisation of the National Bus Company in seperate sections.
    Mr. Ridley: The separate sale of NBC's individual subsidiaries will promote more competition in the bus industry. Deregulation and competition will give operators the freedom and incentive to provide the bus services which best meet the needs of the travelling public.
    Mr. Dixon: The Secretary of State must know that unions have already been notified of massive redundancies within the bus service. My constituents have been informed of drastic cuts in bus services in their areas. Many of the warnings given by my right hon. and hon. Friends during consideration of the Transport Bill are now
    8
    being proved to have been right. Many will find themselves without bus services as the effects of that measure are felt.
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman may know that the National Bus Company has reduced its work force over the past 10 years from 70,000 to 50,000 because the system of decline and subsidy was allowed to continue. I expect that there will be an increase in employment in the bus industry as demand picks up due to competition. It is time that the Labour party stopped trying to pretend that services which have not been registered will not be run. Labour Members know that stage one is to register commercial services and stage two involves local authorities going out to tender to fill the gaps that they think exist. It is misleading, scaremongering and irresponsible for hon. Members to pretend that stage one is the only stage.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any evidence that new types of services are being introduced?
    Mr. Ridley: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that minibuses were first introduced in Exeter as a result of the publication of the Transport Bill. Minibuses are now in Bristol, Bath, Dartmouth, Luton, Shrewsbury, Cheltenham, Taunton and Leicester. They are already greatly increasing patronage and the number of drivers in employment. At the same time, they are showing a much better financial performance than the old, large buses. This is a direct result of the Transport Act, a measure which Labour Members opposed so passionately and wrongly when it was passing through the House.
    Mr. Allen McKay: Will the Secretary of State tell Richard Benson, who is one of my constituents, and his fellow travellers—[Interruption.] These constituents have discovered that the first bus to operate in the Penistone area will start on its route at 8 am and that the last bus to serve the area will leave at 6 pm. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell Richard Benson how he is to get to work and how others will be able to visit hospitals, for example, when the last bus leaves at 6 pm?
    Mr. Ridley: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman's informants are fellow travellers. They are trying to spread alarm and despondency without revealing the full nature of the facts. He knows—if he does not, I am telling him—that the local authority in his constituency has the power and the money to let an operator provide early morning and evening services by means of tender and contract. The hon. Gentleman can explain to his constituents that that is the fact, instead of perpetuating myths that are typical of fellow travellers.

    Air Services (Scandinavia)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made towards the liberalisation of air services to Scandinavia.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: We have secured a welcome simplificaton and speeding up of procedures for new routes, but this is only a first step. We want to see real competition on routes to Scandinavia and the lower fares that this would bring. We shall continue to press for this.
    Mr. McCrindle: I welcome that reply. What has been the reaction of the Scandinavian authorities to the proposals? Is there a likelihood of liberalisation of services resulting in fare reductions in the near future?
    Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend's question implies that there will not be fare reductions. We are pessimistic about the matter, especially about multiple designation, by which more than one airline is permitted to fly along a particular route. I hope that my hon. Friend's question will be heard in the capital cities of Scandinavia, because we certainly agree that there should be lower fares on these high-fare routes.

    Bus Routes (West Yorkshire)
    Mr. Wallerasked the Secretary of State for Transport what proportion of existing bus routes have so far been registered under the provisions of the Transport Act 1985 in West Yorkshire.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Six hundred and fifteen local services with stopping places in West Yorkshire were registered with the traffic commissioner by 28 February. The figure for current road service licences, which is not directly comparable, is 681. The tendering process should be used to fill these gaps and to supplement commercial services in the evenings and at weekends.
    Mr. Waller: Does my hon. Friend recognise the extent to which many people have been needlessly misled into thinking that those routes which have not been registered will disappear? Does he accept that this reflects one of only two possibilities—either there is stunning ignorance by local Labour and alliance politicians about the facts, or a cynical attempt is being made to frighten, alarm and deceive people before next month's local government elections?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has hit the target, just as he did yesterday when he completed the charity-sponsored marathon. My hon. Friend is right. The transition works in two stages, the first involving the registration of profitable services, and the second, which is still to come, involving the provision of contract services on socially necessary routes. The people who are frightened by the scandalous campaign run by the Opposition will have the certitude of a contracts service with their county council if they are on a socially necessary route.
    Mr. Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of the services that run from West Yorkshire into my constituency in Lancashire, which adjoins West Yorkshire, will not be tendered for and maintained? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that will be another symptom of the reduction in services to the public as a result of the Transport Act 1985?
    Mr. Mitchell: No, I do not accept that. That is not the case, and it will be proved in the event not to be so.
    Mr. Stott: I absolutely reject the hon. Gentleman's comments that the Opposition have been scaremongering. Is the Minister aware that, of the current routes run in West Yorkshire, only 71 per cent. have been registered with the traffic commissioners, which means that about 30 per cent. remain unregistered? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that 35 per cent. of evening routes and 50 per cent. of Sunday service routes have been registered? Those are
    10
    broad averages, because registration ranges from 70 per cent. in Bradford down to 20 per cent. in Wakefield. Will the hon. Gentleman say with absolute assurance that those routes currently run by the passenger transport executive which have not been registered will receive sufficient financial support from the Government even though the county may be subject to rate capping and other financial provisions? Will those routes continue to run?
    Mr. Mitchell: Whether those routes will continue to run will be entirely a matter for the local PTE and how it distributes its resources. The West Yorkshire PTE has informed councillors that the commercial network mileage has increased from the 55 per cent. previously assessed to 75 per cent. of current mileage. That is a major justification of the statements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me, and a condemnation of the Opposition's distortions in recent months and during the passage of the Transport Bill.

    "Tourist Coaches in London"
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about his Department's publication, "Tourist Coaches in London".
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The first representations are just arriving. Comments are invited by the end of July.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware of the growing aggravation between natives and tourists at the congestion that is being caused by many of those vehicles? What would he say if British Rail decided that, instead of using stations, for which it pays rent and rates, it would park its trains in the streets, regardless of the inconvenience to other travellers? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's policy is to ensure that coach operators obey the laws, meet the cost of parking, and do it now?
    Mr. Bottomley: I should be slightly surprised if British Rail banned coaches from coming to railway stations to pick up or drop passengers. The report's proposals are for improving facilities for tourist coaches to include more on and off-street parking, to get better information and—what my hon. Friend asked for—more effective enforcement.
    Mr. Tony Banks: No doubt everyone in the House welcomes our visitors from abroad. When can they expect a fair deal from coach operators in London, and when can Londoners expect a fair deal? The Minister has known about the problem for a long time. Why does he not ask his colleagues in the Home Office just to enforce the parking regulations, then perhaps the whole of Westminster bridge will not be clogged up with tourist coaches?
    Mr. Bottomley: I do not think that I have heard a clearer condemnation of the activities of the hon. Gentleman in his previous work across the river. I have had my responsibilities for three months, while he had his for five years. I am tackling the problem, and he did not.
    Mr. Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend on this important paper. I warmly welcome the tourists who come to London and the business and prosperity that they bring to the City. However, does he agree that it is important that there should be a definite improvement in the problem this

    11
    year, because it is a great bore for the ordinary people of London trying to get from A to B if they are unable to do so because of tourist coaches?
    Mr. Bottomley: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware that his document includes a picture of tourist coaches parked on Westminster bridge? Does he understand that that is now a permament feature of life, winter and summer? Does he realise that having as many as 10 tourist coaches and the odd icecream vendor on Westminster bridge is a major cause of congestion and a potential accident risk? Does he believe that that ought to be encouraged in the way that he seems to be doing?
    Mr. Bottomley: The answer to the first part is yes, and to the second is no.

    Driving Licences
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving licences issued by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in respect of motor cars were valid at the latest available date.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: At the end of February 1986 the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre held a total of over 40 million drivers records, of which nearly 30 million relate to holders of current licences. Licences normally allow the holder to drive a range of vehicle types. Therefore, a separate figure of those covering motor cars is not available.
    Mr. Bruinvels: A substantial number of people possess driving licences, whether provisional or full. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is now a genuine need to prevent possible abuse when the licence circulates away from the holder of the licence? Therefore, as a matter of urgency, should we not introduce photo identity pass licences so that people can prove that they are entitled to drive and so that the system is not abused or the licence sold on the black market?
    Mr. Spicer: We have no evidence that such abuse is widespread. Insistence on a photograph on a driving licence would not square well with the long period driving licence up to the age of 70. We do not think that the British people would welcome a document which smacked of being an identification paper.
    Mr. Anderson: Has the Minister noted how infrequently the DVLC now figures in questions on the Order Paper, and when it does as today, it is referred to in a non-critical sense? Is that not some measure of the quality of performance of the centre? Will he give a public commendation to its work?
    Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who, I think, has the DVLC in or near his constituency. I can confirm that the number of complaints has decreased substantially; certainly it has decreased very substantially compared to the increase in business done by the DVLC. Therefore, I certainly join in the congratulations to that part of government which is is the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

    M6 Northern Relief Road
    Mr. Gerald Howarthasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the timetable for the statutory procedures following his announcement on the preferred route for the proposed M6 northern relief route.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope to publish draft orders for the line of the route in the middle of next year. A public inquiry would follow some months later. The publication of side road and compulsory purchase orders is not expected before 1989.
    Mr. Howarth: I thank my hon. Friend and his predecessor for the care with which they have considered the complex issue of the M6 relief route. My constituents have warmly welcomed the non-statutory consultation period offered by the Government, but I am alarmed about the time scale to which my hon. Friend refers. My constituents are becoming concerned about the uncertainty arising from the timing of the procedures. Could my hon. Friend not expedite them, and could he also reconsider—
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly.
    Mr. Howarth: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the question of compensation and whether it would be possible to offer replacement value?
    Mr. Bottomley: It is important for people to have a chance to air their views both in the pre-statutory period and during the statutory procedures. I doubt whether we would have roads as effective as we are now delivering if people were not given a chance to have their questions answered and their views considered.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Attorney-General what steps he takes to satisfy himself that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions operates efficiently.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): In discharge of my statutory duty of superintendence of the Director of Public Prosecutions I frequently meet the Director and senior members of his staff. I receive frequent reports concerning policy issues and issues concerning the efficient management of his Department.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does the Attorney-General recollect the serious questions put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) and to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, on the worrying case of Mr. Gerry Gable? As Mr. Gable, the editor of Searchlight magazine, was afforded police protection, why has the DPP's office failed to act?
    The Attorney-General: I understand that the editor of Searchlight was interviewed by police officers in 1984 in response to an approach from him. However, the facts alleged by the editor did not disclose the commission of any criminal offence. If there is any evidence of a criminal offence, the hon. Gentleman should make it available to the police.
    Mr. Gow: How confident is my right hon. and learned Friend that, if it becomes necessary to prepare any further papers in the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions

    13
    relating to extraditions from the Republic of Ireland of those required to answer criminal charges in Great Britain, those papers will be prepared in a way that is entirely satisfactory to the authorities in the Republic?
    The Attorney-General: As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his statement, all those documents will now be personally supervised by the Director. In addition, my officials and the officials of the Attorney-General of the Republic have been meeting and are drawing up what is known as a check list—rather like a pilot's check list—which will be used whenever warrants are sought from the Republic.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: In view of the serious nature of the bizarre but detailed allegations contained in the April edition of Searchlight, will the Attorney-General make a statement to the House at an appropriate moment? Specifically, will the statement deal with the alleged involvement of an officer of the armed forces and an hon. Member in a plot to intimidate Mr. Gable—or worse?
    The Attorney-General: I have not seen the April issue of Searchlight. I shall certainly look at it, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Chopeasked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the latest progress of the negotiations between the General Council of the Bar and the Lord Chancellor about fees for criminal legal aid.
    Mr. Maclennanasked the Attorney-General what recent steps Her Majesty's Government have taken regarding the remuneration of barristers and solicitors for legal aid work.
    Mr. Nicholas Brownasked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the remuneration of the Bar for criminal legal aid work.
    The Attorney-General: Discussions between officials and representatives of the Bar on criminal legal aid remuneration are proceeding in accordance with an agreed timetable which provides for a decision by the Lord Chancellor by 16 July. Regulations uprating the current levels of remuneration by approximately 5 per cent. came into operation on 1 April.
    Mr. Chope: Is my right hon. and learned Friend able to assure the House that sufficient funds will be available to pay such remuneration as is decided upon as a result of the negotiations? Is he aware that the 1984 figures show that barristers aged between 32 and 37 were earning only £8,700 a year on average? That was the median figure.
    The Attorney-General: That is a direct quote from Coopers and Lybrand. The Lord Chancellor's decision whether more funds should be made available will be made in the light of all relevant considerations, including the relevant provisions of the Legal Aid Act 1974, and also in accordance with the statutory requirement that any increase must be met from moneys provided by Parliament and subject to Parliament's control.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Attorney-General agree that it is relevant to consider that the availability of justice to the less well-off members of our society depends on those people who carry out legal aid work being adequately remunerated?
    The Attorney-General: Yes, that is certainly one of the considerations that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will have to take into account.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: Following the remarks made by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in our debate on legal aid last Tuesday, will the Attorney-General give an assurance that if extra funds are to be found for the remuneration of the Bar, the financial burden of that will not be placed on the consumers of legal services under the legal aid scheme?
    The Attorney-General: That must be one of the many matters which my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor will have to consider.

    Rape (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Attorney-General in how many cases involving alleged offences of rape referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions in each of the last five years a decision was made to initiate a prosecution; and if he will make a statement.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Only certain narrow categories of rape offences are required to be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions under the Prosecution of Offences Regulations 1978. In the five years 1980 to 1984 the Director himself prosecuted 77, 74, 90, 49 and 34 such persons respectively. He additionally advised chief officers of police in relation to other such offences, but statistics are not available as to the numbers in which prosecution was advised.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the list of statistics has shown that there has been a serious increase in the incidence of rape of women of all ages, including young girls? Does he further agree that there should be more prosecutions for their own sake and as a means of reassuring the public? Will he tell the House what action he is taking to ensure the anonymity of alleged rape victims before charges are brought?
    The Solicitor-General: The statistics prove that more offences of rape are being reported, and the criminal statistics are compiled on that basis. However, the question whether there should be more prosecutions has to be a matter for the prosecutor and the prosecuting authorities, according to whether the Attorney-General's guidelines are fulfilled. In response to my hon. Friend's second point about anonymity, the reform of the law relating to anonymity is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I acknowledge that the 1976 Act—with which my hon. Friend will be familiar—does not fully represent the recommendations of the Heilbron committee.
    Mr. Ryman: I am sure the Solicitor-General recognises that there is widespread concern about rape and murder involving young children. Will he confirm that he is entirely satisfied that the officers conducting inquiries into such cases have immediate access to the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice specifically with regard to the conference taking place today to coordinate inquiries into many child murders throughout the country?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman has raised an extremely important and sensitive area of criminal law. I can best answer his point by saying that the

    15
    staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions are always available to prosecutors and police investigators who have problems that they wish to raise in that connection. It is important that that access should be maintained.

    Republic of Ireland
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Attorney-General if he will seek to meet the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland to discuss extradition and other matters of common concern.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Attorney-General when he last met his counterpart in the Irish Government; and what subjects were discussed.
    The Attorney-General: I have no immediate plans to meet the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland. I have met him on three occasions this year and last met him on 7 April. Work is proceeding between officials on problems arising in the area of extradition.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Did the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland give my right hon. and learned Friend any idea when the Government of the Republic of Ireland are likely to start applying the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, which they have signed but which is not yet in operation?
    The Attorney-General: As I understand it, a final decision has not been taken. However, it is likely that that matter will require legislation in the Dail.
    Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that patient co-operation with friendly Governments and the resistance of the temptation to meet terror with terror is the best way to tackle terrorism?
    The Attorney-General: The co-operation between my Department and the Department of the Attorney-General of the Republic of Ireland is first class. There are constant meetings between officials and we are making very good progress.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman discuss with the Attorney-General of the Republic the kidnap insurance policies being sold in the City of London by Cassidy Davis, Sedgwicks, and Syndicate No. 702? Is he aware that they make payments to the IRA, and will he stop that? Why will he not accept that he has powers under section 10 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act to bring a case in the courts and secure a prosecution? Will he now do that and stop equivocating?
    The Attorney-General: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Winnick: Would it not be useful if the Attorney-General told critics of the Anglo-Irish agreement that the matters raised today are likely to make more progress if there are good relations between the Republic of Ireland and this country?
    The Attorney-General: With regard to my Department—the only one over which I can exercise any control—the relationship is first-class and extremely productive.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Sub-Saharan Africa
    Mr. Wallaceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to increase the proportion of aid given to sub-Saharan Africa; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): Most of our aid already goes to the poorest countries of the world, but we are giving increasing priority to those countries in sub-Saharan Africa where our aid can be used most effectively. Those countries are also benefiting increasingly from mulitlateral aid programmes, to which we are major contributors.
    Mr. Wallace: Is the Minister aware that in the decade up to 1982–83 the value of United Kingdom aid to sub-Saharan Africa decreased in real terms, whereas that of all other EEC countries, of Japan, of OPEC countries and of the United States and Canada increased, in some cases more than tenfold? Does he agree that that is a shameful state of affairs? Has that trend been reversed, and will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that reports today of a grain surplus in certain parts of Africa will not be allowed to instil a false sense of security, because as much help as we can possibly give is still needed?
    Mr. Raison: I certainly accept that Africa needs help both in the long term and, in some cases, in the short term, although in other areas of Africa the food supplies overall are completely adequate at present. With regard to our own developmental aid, I believe that we are maintaining a steady rate of assistance on the bilateral side. On the multilateral side, there have been increases and we contribute considerably to them. For example, the recent Lomé 3 agreement provided for a large increase in aid to Africa, and we play our part in that.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Could not that important programme be extended from Common Market development funds if that organisation did not spend so many hundreds of millions of pounds dumping cheap food on Libya, which certainly makes no contribution to the improvement of welfare in Africa or elsewhere?
    Mr. Raison: The Common Market is a very substantial contributor of development aid both through the Lome convention, to which I have referred, and through food aid, some of which is dubious, but much of which is valuable.
    Mr. Barnett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the areas of greatest concern are the semi-arid areas of the African continent? Does he further agree that he might be in a position to send a larger proportion of British aid to those areas where it is desperately needed if the Government had not moved away from the policy set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) in the 1975 White Paper "More Help for the Poorest" and if the Government had not introduced commercial and industrial considerations into their aid policies?
    Mr. Raison: We are, of course, concerned with aid in the semi-arid areas of Africa and I believe that we make a substantial and effective contribution. We also accept

    17
    that there should be commercial and political aspects to our aid programme, but, overall, I believe that our programme is marked by a high degree of effectiveness.
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's decision not to make a contribution to the special fund set up by the international fund for agricultural development to help farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa.
    Mr. Raison; A British contribution would be at the expense of our bilateral aid programme. In general, we think it better to help agricultural projects directly and through the voluntary agencies rather than to contribute extra money to IFAD beyond our share of the recent general replenishment.
    Mr. Chapman: Even accepting that our aid can be more effectively deployed through a grant system arranged bilaterally than through a loans system arranged by a multilateral agency, does my right hon. Friend agree that there must be a concerted and co-ordinated international approach if we are to help the sub-Saharan countries to develop their agricultural economies and thus give the best possible prospects for removing the scourge of famine?
    Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that our aid to poor African countries takes the form of grants, whereas aid through IFAD takes the form of loans. I agree that co-ordination is important. We have stepped up co-ordination recently and, I believe, successfully. We shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Deakins: Does not the Minister's answer overlook one simple and important fact, namely, that in sub-Saharan Africa populations are rising rapidly? That alone ought to be enough to make us consider this a special problem requiring a special multilateral solution, such as I have put forward.
    Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that population pressure in parts of Africa is great. He will acknowledge the increase in the scale of assistance that we have provided. I agree, however, that the matter requires continued and, perhaps, increased emphasis.

    Aid to Government
    Mr. Stuart Hollandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on providing aid to Governments who have not reached agreement with the International Monetary Fund on structural adjustment.
    Mr. Raison: Our general policy is to make balance of payments support for countries in difficulty conditional upon agreement with the International Monetary Fund. In the absence of such agreement, the level and form of any assistance must depend upon individual circumstances, and in particular on how effectively aid can be used.
    Mr. Holland: The Minister will be aware that, in practice, the IMF's structural adjustment terms have proved a formula for deflation, devaluation and the denial of the public sector and social spending. Is he not worried that countries such as Tanzania have very little prospect of development if those IMF conditions are applied? Is this to be a general or universal policy? Will the Minister make
    18
    an independent evaluation of the real development needs of those countries, or has the ODA simply become an agent of IMF policy?
    Mr. Raison: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments. We are absolutely right to support those countries which are prepared to take the steps of policy reform, which are widely accepted as desirable. It is interesting that the recent development committee communiqué stressed the growing commitment of African Governments to policy reform such as the hon. Gentleman talked about.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister aware that it is often possible for British aid to contribute directly to the welfare of peoples, even when the policies of their Governments on economic or other matters do not meet with our satisfaction?
    Mr. Raison: We continue to give aid to countries such as Tanzania, where we have useful programmes. I remain of the view, which is being accepted by an increasing number of African countries, that if we do not have policy reform there will not be any progress but a continuation of the rather depressing record of aid going in without commensurate results coming out.

    China
    Mr. Charles Wardleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for providing aid to China.
    Mr. Raison: We have offered the Chinese Government support under the aid and trade provision to enable banks to make long-term loans at 5 per cent. interest per annum for agreed development projects worth £300 million. In addition, we provided in excess of £2 million for a technical co-operation programme in 1985–86 and we expect to spend more in 1986–87.
    Mr. Wardle: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that education and manpower training are fundamental to China's development? What are the Government doing to help meet that need?
    Mr. Raison: I agree with my hon. Friend. We are running an important English language training programme and funding scholarships, mainly at postgraduate level, to Chinese students in science and technology and assisting the Chinese through British consultancies.

    Advancement of Women
    Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has taken any recent initiatives as a result of the United Nations Nairobi conference on the advancement of women.
    Mr. Raison: Since the Nairobi conference I have agreed to make a further contribution of £50,000 to the UN fund for women. We shall shortly publish a booklet setting out our policies and activities on women in development. We have also introduced regular training on the role of women in development for ODA officials.
    Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. The Foreign Office hosted a conference at the end of February on women as overseas students in the

    19
    United Kingdom, and a report has just been produced. What consideration is the Department giving to recommendations in the report, and what is the Department's initial response to them?
    Mr. Raison: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that.

    "Mandate for Change"
    Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he proposes any changes in overseas policy in the light of the consultation document "Mandate for Change" published by the World Commission on Environment and Development, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Raison: We share the World Commission on Environment and Development's commitment to environmentally sound activities. This is reflected in our own programmes and in the guidance notes and checklists issued to ODA's staff.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Minister agree that this is an extremely important document? Does he futher agree that the environment is just as important for those who live in the Third world as for the rest of us? Will he bear that in mind when he appraises projects?
    Mr. Raison: I agree that it is a significant document, although it is only an interim one. We shall consider the final document carefully. The environment is an important aspect of development throughout the world.

    Nepal
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present level of aid to Nepal; and whether he has any plans to increase it.
    Mr. Raison: Expenditure in 1984–85 was approximately £10 million. We expect to continue to spend about the same level of aid, and I have recently agreed to provide nearly £8 million towards the cost of rehabilitation of a section of the east-west highway from Naubise to Mugling.
    Mr. Alton: Given that about 77 per cent. of people in Nepal are illiterate, that the average life expectancy is only 45 years of age, and that 150 out of every 1,000 children die at childbirth, does the Minister not think that £10 million is pretty inadequate? Following the recent visit to Nepal by his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, has the Minister agreed to make more funds available for those areas of need?
    Mr. Raison: There are many pressures on our aid programme, but within it I believe that the amount that we have allocated to Nepal is very respectable. I also believe that the quality of the work that we are doing there is valuable and well appreciated by the people of Nepal.

Primary Health Care
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about primary health care services.
These are the services provided outside hospital by family doctors, dentists, pharmacists and opticians and by the community nursing and other related services. They have never been comprehensively reviewed in the 40 years since the 1946 National Health Service Act, yet they account for nearly a third of total spending on the health service and over 1 million people use the services every day.
The Government are now carrying out a comprehensive review of primary health care. With my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, I am today publishing a discussion document which will form the basis for extensive consultations throughout the country. The Government's main objectives are to raise standards of care and to make services more responsive to the needs of the public. The document we are publishing discusses a number of ways of achieving those objectives.
So far as family doctors are concerned, the introduction of a good practice allowance would reward both those doctors providing the highest standards of care and provide an incentive to others. This is in line with proposals made by the Royal College of General Practitioners. An allowance on these lines might recognise such features as the range of services provided, including preventive activities; the doctor's personal availability to his patients; and the achievement of particular targets for the levels of services such as vaccination.
The Government also believe that the public are entitled to more information about the different types of services that doctors provide, to enable patients to make better choices when seeking a general practitioner. Together with arrangements that would make it easier for patients to change doctors, this would further help to raise standards and make the services more responsive to the needs of the public. This process would be assisted if—as is also discussed in the document—more emphasis was placed on capitation payments in the doctor's remuneration system, so as to increase the financial value to the doctor of the individual patient.
Among other proposed changes is a new flexible retirement system which would mean that, as now, doctors could retire at 60 but with a compulsory retirement age of 70. It is also proposed to end the 24–hour retirement rule where doctors are able to retire and rejoin the Health Service 24 hours later, collect a lump sum payment and in some cases draw both pension and pay in full.
One effect of these changes would be in inner cities, where there is a disproportionately high number of elderly doctors. Although there is some outstanding work already done there, it is particularly important to raise standards in inner cities. This will entail attracting some younger doctors, and to help achieve this the discussion document suggests the possibilites of providing financial incentives within the remuneration system; of adjusting the allowances paid to doctors for practice premises in order
22
to compensate for the higher cost of accommodation in inner cities; and of experimenting with different forms of contract.
As regards dental services, the discussion document outlines ways in which patients could be more sure of getting the full range of National Health Service treatment. To help patients choose their dentist it suggests that the restrictions on advertising might be further relaxed and to improve value for money the Government will act upon the recommendations of the committee which they set up to consider the problem of unnecessary dental treatment. The discussion document also examines ways in which greater emphasis could be placed on preventive measures, and it outlines retirement arrangements similar to those discussed for doctors.
The Government also believe that pharmacists could and should play a larger part in the provision of comprehensive primary care services. The Nuffield Foundation recently published the report of an inquiry which shows some of the ways this can be achieved. Much has changed since the pharmacist's main function was to make up medicines himself, and he should now be enabled to make better use of his skills in advising patients and doctors on the use of medicines.
Among other matters dealt with in the document are ways of improving the procedures for dealing with complaints against family practitioners and the extension of informal conciliation arrangements for dealing with less serious complaints. The document also proposes an independent study of the quality of primary care services in England, initially in one or two areas.
I am also publishing today the report of a review of community nursing services in England carried out by a team led by Mrs. Julia Cumberlege, chairman of Brighton health authority. Among the matters about which the team has made recommendations are the establishment of neighbourhood nursing services, ways of making better use of nursing skills, and the training of community nurses.
The Government intend that there should now be wide consultation on the discussion document and the Cumberlege report, taking account also of documents published by other bodies such as the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Nuffield Foundation. We want to hear the views of all those who are interested in raising the standards of primary care whether as providers or users of the service. To carry forward the review, Ministers will be holding a series of consultation meetings not only in London but in several major cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle. We will invite to these meetings professional bodies such as the British Medical Association, the British Dental Association and the Pharmaceutical Society. We also want to take evidence from voluntary organisations, the statutory Health Service agencies, and organisations concerned with the interests of consumers.
These proposals have been put forward for discussion and the consultations will last until the end of the year. Therefore, at this stage, final decisions have not been taken. Many of the primary health care services are already provided to a high standard, but the Government believe that further improvements are possible. It is for this reason that we have embarked on the first overall review of these services for 40 years.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Clearly, everyone will need to consider carefully the details contained in the 150 pages of the Government's proposals, but everyone should bear in mind that the original exercise was designed to save money. In July 1982, the Government announced the Binder Hamlyn inquiry, to look into the control of expenditure and the possibility of operating cash limits. In April 1984 the Secretary of State, no doubt disturbed by the still secret recommendations of Binder Hamlyn, decided to play for time and publish a Green Paper. He certainly played for time fairly effectively, because it has taken him nearly two years to produce it. During the gestation period, all sorts of wild tales emanating from official leaks by Ministers appeared in the newspapers. Open advertising of doctors' services, the promotion of private primary care on American lines and charges by doctors for more expensive services have all been canvassed. Fortunately, none of them appear in full frontal form in the Green Paper. The Government have backed away from the consequences of their own ideology.
We welcome some of the proposals, especially those intended to provide patients with more information and greater choice. The proposals closely reflect the ones that we made in Committee on the Social Security Bill. While most people receive good service from primary care, there are parts of the country and groups and individuals which do not. The least satisfactory services are concentrated in inner-city areas, in some very rural areas and in rundown areas of heavy industry which combine the worst characteristics of both. The Green Paper pays scarcely any regard to the health problems in rural areas. They will be made worse by the Government's damaging attack on rural transport. There is little mention of rundown industrial areas.
The Green Paper refers to the problem of the inner cities, but only promises more of the same. That has not been good enough. Few of the Acheson report's 114 recommendations have been implemented. The last Government initiative has provided less than an average of £17,000 a year to the beneficiary authorities that were supposed to gain so much from the Government's initiative.
The Government are right to seek an increase in the pharmaceutical profession's involvement in day-to-day health care, but it pays no heed to the inherent conflict between objective professional advice and making money out of the sale of drugs. Government supporters of the idea of more across-the-counter sales of drugs should also remember that that proposal transfers the cost from the National Health Service to the patient. That, no doubt, is why the Treasury likes the idea.
We welcome the report of the community nursing review. Perhaps the Secretary of State could tell us why, in his blue document, he is not seeking the view of the public on its proposals for nurse practitioners and a limited degree of prescribing by nurses.
The proposals on dentistry seem unlikely to counteract the soaring cost of dental treatment and the gradual disappearance of the NHS dental service. The Labour party believes that general standards of primary care should be brought up to the standard of the best. We believe that everyone in primary care should in future play a much greater role in promoting good health by a team approach. The Labour party believes that family practitioner committees, or whoever succeeds to their
24
functions, should take on the positive role of monitoring the health of their area and making and implementing positive plans to improve it.
Finally, we believe that, whatever changes are made in primary care and whatever response is made by the professions involved, the general health of our people will not be improved until we have a Government dedicated to eliminating poverty and unemployment, to improving safety and health at work and to providing decent housing and healthy food at prices that all people can afford. Unless the Secretary of State can tell the House that he will be able to achieve all those aims, most of his propositions will have little impact on the health of the worst off and the least healthy people in our community.
Mr. Fowler: I think that the hon. Gentleman was scratching around in his response. His reaction had a lot to do with what is not contained in the discussion document but did not have a great deal to do with what it contains. As far as I could understand the hon. Gentleman's general point, it is that he is disappointed that the proposals are so reasonable. I think that he basically welcomes our proposals. We in turn welcome the report that the Labour party now accepts the principle of the selected list and also the principle of prescription charges. It is a very sensible move on its part.
As for the specific points, such as they were, that the hon. Gentleman raised, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that resources for primary care have increased under this Government by about 24 per cent. in real terms. In other words, the cost of the family practitioner service is now about £4 billion, compared with £2 billion in 1979–80. There has been a significant increase in the number of doctors, from 26,000 to 29,000. There has also been a significant increase in the number of dentists, from 14,200 to 16,500.
I share entirely the view—so does the document—that there is a special need in the inner cities for high-quality services. We have already allocated more resources to the inner cities. I believe that our proposals for the inner cities will continue that improvement. At the same time, we want to achieve better services for rural areas.
I think the hon. Member has misunderstood what the Cumberlege committee report said about community nursing. The committee had proposed that nurses should be given better opportunities to use their knowledge and skills in the treatment of patients. We welcome that and wish to consult on that proposal.
The purpose of the document is to improve standards in the Health Service; that is the Government's intention.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: It has become unjustifiably difficult and cumbersome to transfer from one doctor to another. Does the Secretary of State agree that, if there are proposals to make that easier on the basis of adjusting the remuneration package of a doctor and the advertising of alternative services, that will be widely welcomed by the public.
Mr. Fowler: Yes, I think it will. Changing one's doctor is already reasonably straightforward, and proposals which we have set out will make it even easier. The principle we have tried to set out in the document is that the public have the right to maximum information about the general practitioner who treats them.
Mr. David Alton: Has the Secretary of State resiled from earlier undertakings to publish the Binder Hamlyn report? The consultative process will not take place until 1987, does this mean that the Government have no intention of legislating in the lifetime of this Parliament? Has the Secretary of State finally buried his proposal to cash-limit the family practitioner service?
Mr. Fowler: We do not make proposals on cash-limiting the family practitioner service. The discussion document makes it clear that, currently, it is difficult to control many of the factors which determine expenditure.
The Binder Hamlyn report was received in July 1983. It seems to me that the debate has moved on from that, and the report's recommendations have been taken into account in preparing the discussion document. We do not see any point in publishing the Binder Hamlyn report in addition to the discussion document.
Following consultation and discussion, we want to have direct negotiations with the professions. There is the prospect of either legislation or a White Paper. I cannot say when that legislation will come, but I think the hon. Member would be unwise to assume that legislation could not come in the lifetime of the Government.
Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike the sour grapes of the Labour party, there is a warm welcome on the Conservative Benches for the discussion document—not least, for the concept of a career structure for GPs? The document also places emphasis on the importance of the patient as a consumer.
Will my right hon. Friend expand on his comments on the increased role that he sees for pharmacists? Assuming that professionals will be able to take part in the consultations, through their professional bodies, what method will be open to the ordinary patient, who may not be a member of a consumer body, to put forward his own views on the document?
Mr. Fowler: On the second point, we will be issuing a special leaflet which will set out a summary of the proposals. This is being published today with the consultation document. The leaflets will be made available to any of the public who are interested and want to take part in the consultation exercise.
We want pharmacists to have an extended role along the lines proposed in the report of the Nuffield Foundation. We want pharmacists to play a greater part in advising the public on their health care as well as doing the traditional things such as supervising the dispensing. Such dispensing could be done in a different way. We will take evidence fom the profession on this, but I believe that it is in line with what the profession wants.
Mr. Kevin Barron: I welcome parts of the Minister's statement, but in addition to talking about the need for services to meet people's needs, will he have discussions with his ministerial colleagues on what they can do to improve public access to primary health care in the form of health centres and doctors' surgeries? As a result of the abolition of South Yorkshire county council, bus fares in the county have increased this month by 250 per cent.; that limits the public's access to primary health care, because they lack the necessary funds.
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman takes me back to my last job as Secretary of State for Transport. The increased
26
opportunities for new forms of transport provided by the Transport Act will not in any way militate against the developments that we all want to see in primary health care.
Mr. Roy Galley: My right hon. Friend's statement will be greatly welcomed by many in the Health Service, but do his proposals for a good practice allowance and a capitation element in remuneration amount to a root and branch reform of the present complex and haphazard system of doctors' remuneration, or is he about to miss a great opportunity? Will he be abolishing all the various additions that are now part of the remuneration calculations, which most people assume are an integral part of a GP's job, and inserting instead a basic payment with, in addition, a good practice allowance on the ground of merit and a capitation allowance for the amount of work done?
Mr. Fowler: The proposals are a development of proposals by the Royal College of General Practitioners. The good practice allowance is an entitlement that will be based on a combination of objective measures such as the GP's availability to the public, immunisation, certain rates, the range of services and a performance review. Other general practitioners will have the responsibility for that. In addition, there will be increased emphasis on capitation fees. At present, a large proportion of a GP's income comes from allowances. About one third comes from capitation fees. We want to change both those factors, and that is fundamental to the proposals.
Mr. Allan Rogers: Does the Secretary of State accept that his remarks and proposals will be treated very cynically by Opposition Members, especially as, since 1981, there has been a cut of more than 20 per cent. in the number of people being trained for a nursing career in Wales? The loss of 700 people in that sector will lead to a diminution in primary health care in Wales. When will the right hon. Gentleman stop making hypocritical proposals and get down to funding the NHS instead of cutting it?
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman had better get his facts right. I do not know whether he was in the Chamber to listen to the statement—
Mr. Rogers: I was
Mr. Fowler: —but, as I said, the number employed in the NHS has increased. As I have said, under this Government the number of doctors has increased by 11 per cent. and the number of dentists has increased by 16 per cent. Those are the figures. They mean a better service for the public, and that is what the Government want.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: When my right hon. Friend looks at average and inner-city conditions will he ensure that he does not draw any wrong conclusions about the needs of rural areas? In particular, will he bear in mind the importance of the dispensing practice in enabling people to get to work instead of wasting working time trying to reach a chemist? When doctors who are not in dispensing practices visit a patient who is ill, they have to provide the drugs free, because they have no means of recovering payment for drugs that they take with them and then leave with a patient.
Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's general point. We are trying to concentrate on the inner

27
cities, but I hope to have meetings in some of the rural areas in order to gain an insight into their problems. We want to develop those services in the same way. I agree about the importance of general practitioners and dispensing.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Will the Secretary of State amplify the part of his statement which says:
"The Government also believe that the public are entitled to more information about the different types of services"
and so on? To some of us that smells of advertising. Is that so? Many of us are worried that people may choose a doctor on the basis of the quality of advertising rather than on the quality of service delivered. In other words, some doctors may be able to spend more money on advertising than others. Will there be come controls over the information given? Will somebody monitor and control the amount of advertising that a doctor could use?
Mr. Fowler: Obviously, it will be open for ranges of organisations to put forward their views on how far the process should go and some will probably seek to have rather wider advertising than is possible at the moment. The discussion document puts forward the case for more information—a move already taking place within the profession. That is being considered by the General Medical Council, but, as I have said before, the general principle that we are trying to put forward here is that the public have a right to the maximum information about the services which different general practitioners make available. Practice leaflets and so on will make clear to the public.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will my right hon. Friend accept from the Conservative Benches contratulations on the study? May we have some elucidation of whether he is considering that the carrot of incentives and the discipline of increased choice will be matched by providing general practitioners with more comparability information so that they may assess and improve their performance in order to match that of others? Will pharmacists' numbers be guarded in my right hon. Friend's reassessment of their role, since it is worrying that their numbers are being depleted in many areas? Will the community nursing services be given greater responsibilities, particularly for preventive medicine?
Mr. Fowler: On the last point, I hope that will be one of the effects of the Cumberlege report. General practitioners who already act as trainers under the vocational training scheme inside the Health Service for general practice will carry out performance reviews of their colleagues. At least, that is one way to go about it. Legislation is already before the House on numbers of pharmacists. At the moment there is a right to NHS dispensing. Basically we are setting out a way in which pharmacists in rural areas can be protected. However, we do not want an over-provision of pharmacists, as we perhaps have at the moment, in our shopping centres and the rest.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Secretary of State accept that the publication of this long-awaited and long-overdue report is welcome, not least because he has clearly rejected some of the wilder
28
notions entertained by the former Minister for Health and has gone for some of the saner counsels of the Royal College of General Practitioners instead? In accepting the importance of primary care and the strain upon existing hospital services, which can be somewhat reduced by a greater emphasis on primary care, will the Secretary of State also concede that that will mean considerably more money and pump priming in both urban and rural areas? What attention will he give to providing the additional resources which are implicit in his statement this afternoon? Will he also accept that an expanding role for the community pharmacist is welcome and that there are those of us on this side of the House who reject completely the nonsense which was spoken by the Labour Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—[Interruption.] I would not go to the hon. Members for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) and for Rother Valley (Mr. Brown) for health care—who appears incapable of recognising that a chemist can distinguish between profit and the health and well-being of a patient.
Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. Resources generally rose to £4 billion in 1984–85, which was a real increase of 24 per cent. Some of the proposals will cost money; others will mean improved value for money or will lead to savings. The overall effect will depend on the outcome of the consultations.
One impact of better primary care on hospital services, especially in inner cities, will be in accident and emergency departments that are presently operating general practices because of the inadequacies in the general practice system. If we can improve general practice, that will be a tremendous plus for the hospital service.
Sir Hector Monro: I welcome this initiative, along with the great increase in resources provided by the Government. I wish to emphasise the rural aspect. Does my right hon. Friend agree that distance, small numbers and the remoteness of pharmacies and hospitals aggravate the problem of the country areas? Are not the people living there entitled to as good a service as those living in urban areas? Will he give careful thought to that?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, I certainly will. My hon. Friend's comments are absolutely right. We want the development of general practice and family practitioner services, not only in cities and towns but in country areas.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that far too many former patients of psychiatric and mental hospitals live out their lives in appalling circumstances? What is the likelihood of an expansion of the community psychiatric nursing services in England, Wales and Scotland in the near future?
Mr. Fowler: Those services have already expanded, but I am the last to deny that further improvements are necessary. I hope that we can put forward proposals that go a little wider than this document to help that position, which I readily recognise.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ultimate success of any detailed

29
proposals that result from the discussion document will depend, at least in part, on their acceptability to the many different people who provide the services?
Can my right hon. Friend therefore give us a detailed assurance that the consultation process will be widespread—I was glad to hear him mention voluntary organisations—and will take account even of the views of individual practitioners?
Mr. Fowler: We have given sufficient time for the consultation process and, as I have have tried to make clear, the Government intend to hold public meetings not only in London and cities such as Birmingham and Manchester, but in country areas. That will provide a genuine consultation that will add to the effect and the worth of the proposals.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us hear of many cases where the patient suffers more from the treatment than from the original ailment? When he talks of a procedure for examining complaints against general practitioners, does he envisage the setting up of a medical ombudsman?
Mr. Fowler: We envisage simplifying the statutory procedure for complaints. The discussion document proposes to expand the time limit for complaints so that no artificial time span will be placed on the time allowed; it also proposes that oral complaints should be accepted, whereas currently the requirement is for written complaints. We are prepared to listen to any arguments or suggestions on that matter.
Mr. Roger Freeman: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and also his proposal to seek the views of those in authority at local level. Can he assure us that he will take into account specifically the comments of the community health councils, family practitioner committees and district health authorities on the way in which care in the community policies are being implemented and the areas in which they need to be strengthened?
Mr. Fowler: I can give my hon. Friend complete assurance on that point; we shall consult all those organisations.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Secretary of State said that he is concentrating on inner-city areas. Does he agree that the problem of deprivation associated with those areas are also to be found in the older industrial communities of Britain, such as the south Wales valleys? Does he acknowledge that they need the same level of increased resources as the inner-city areas, as they both suffer the same problems of unemployment, bad housing and bad environment?
May I seek some clarification of the role of the community health councils? I am glad that, at long last, the right hon. Gentleman has taken on board some of the suggestions made by the Royal Commission on the National Health Service in 1979. What does he intend to do to strengthen the role of the councils, which represent the views of the consumer to the health authority? Should they not be given more resources and more teeth? I should like to hear proposals to that effect.
Mr. Fowler: For the purposes of this exercise, the community health councils are free to give evidence—I
30
am sure they will—to the Government on primary health care. They are in an especially good position to do so, and I would welcome their contributions.
On the hon. Lady's first point, I understand that there is nothing unique about the problems of inner cities. I have made it clear that we are seeking a policy that will bring improvements throughout the country. However, I want to recognise the position of the inner cities with their high proportion of elderly doctors, difficult working conditions and need for good premises. It is right to concentrate to some extent upon those undoubted problems.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Most of my constituents will welcome the Green Paper announced this afternoon—[HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"] Because, over the years, many of them have written to me to complain about a small minority of doctors who, quite frankly, are too old, too rude and too incompetent to do their jobs. My constituents, together with many other constituents, hope that the Green Paper will provide proper redress.
Mr. Fowler: We should also take into account the fact that family practitioner and family health care services in Britain are probably better developed than in most other European countries. The document is intended to improve even further the standards of care provided.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are not the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—to whom I have addressed questions on dental care—concerned that dentists often have to make decisions not on the basis of clinical judgment but on their assessment of what patients not covered by insurance are likely to pay, up to f115?
What on earth is all this in paragraph 5 of chapter 4 about companies having to take over certain dental responsibilities? It states:
"The Government would welcome discussions on the balance of advantage between these two points of view."
What does the right hon. Gentleman think about that?
Mr. Fowler: Currently, there are restrictions on the setting up of dental businesses that make it impossible to have under one roof a general practitioner, a dentist, an optician and a pharmacist. It might be for the convenience of the public if that restriction were taken away, so that all those services could be provided in an integrated way under one roof. That is the purpose of the proposals, and that is why we want to hear the views of the public.
Mr. Michael Stern: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his generally welcome statement, and especially on the part that dealt with the increasing problem of the aging practitioners? He referred to them especially in relation to inner-city areas, but does he agree that the problem occurs just as frequently in aging outer-city estates? Can he confirm that, in the light of consultation, he will not restrict his view to the classic inner city?
Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is correct. I recognise that the problem of elderly doctors is not confined to inner cities. Our latest information is that there are 515 practising doctors in their seventies, 74 in their eighties and two in their nineties.
We think that the present arrangements are out of date. They were brought forward at a time when the idea was to enable elderly doctors to continue in practice. That is not so relevant today.
Mr. John Ryman: What does the Minister think about the reorganisation of ambulance services? Is he aware that in Northumberland absolute chaos has been created by the relatively recent arrival of the new chief ambulance officer, who has murdered the ambulance service throughout the north-east?
Mr. Fowler: Clearly, we want the best possible ambulance service but, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, this matter has nothing to do with the proposals announced this afternoon.
Mr. Eric Forth: All members of the Conservative party will share the emphasis my right hon. Friend is placing on improved quality of service; this is what the people want, above all else. We do not share the paranoia of Labour Members about information and advertising. Does my hon. Friend agree that all the information possible given to consumers about all kinds of medical services must be of benefit to practitioners and to patients and potential patients?
Mr. Fowler: That is clearly right. We have tried to write this document from the point of view of a member of the public. We believe that people have a right to the maximum amount of information possible, and what we have set out in the document takes us towards that goal.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Does the Secretary of State agree that the health of people in the community depends on a combination of services provided by the National Health Service and by local authorities? No amount of administrative organisation, even if for the better, will make up for the continuing cuts in local authority social services, as such cuts damage the very people the right hon. Gentleman seeks to help. In addition, will he say, as he has not mentioned local authority services this afternoon, whether his discussion paper will allow proposals which might suggest a change in the balance between the services provided by local authorities and those provided by the National Health Service?
Mr. Fowler: That matter would certainly be open to argument. Social services have improved and the resources committed to personal social services have increased. The Cumberlege report on community nursing is crucial if we are to provide a better community care service that I agree with the hon. Gentleman is needed.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and look forward to advertising, will he consider the problems of the inner city of Leicester, where, because of high rates and non-rate capping, many surgeries are no longer available to my constituents because doctors cannot afford to continue to run their practices and also to pay those exorbitant rates? Will he also look at the problem of doctors who cannot afford, because of the rates, to buy houses in the city of Leicester?
Mr. Fowler: I will certainly examine the need for good premises. We intend to review the payment level for premises in inner-city areas. There is a need for new premises, rather than providing, as has too often happened in inner-city areas, lock-up premises. To make that possible, we intend to increase financial help to general practitioners practising in inner cities.
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that the proposals he is making for incentives and greater rewards for better doctors—which we support in principle—will not result in the rewards and the better doctors being concentrated in those parts of the country in which people are healthier and better of?
Mr. Fowler: The whole purpose of the paper and the good practice allowance is to improve the standards of general practice and of general practitioners throughout the country. We clearly want to improve standards in inner-city areas, but we equally want to improve them in other areas, notably country areas.

Libya (Butter Deal)
4.15 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the secret butter deal between Brussels and Libya."
Although there are different views in the House on the use of United Kingdom bases, the whole House acknowledges that Libya is a terrorist state that initiates and co-ordinates acts of international terrorism. There is common ground that action should be taken to coerce Libya into refraining from such deeds. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition argued eloquently for such policies last Wednesday. Such discussion focused on a joint European approach, both as a sensible step in itself and also as a means of reducing the risk of further military action. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has crossed the Channel today to persuade his European colleagues to introduce the necessary measures.
How is it then that the bureaucrats—the civil servants—in Brussels, in direct conflict with the efforts of the Community's political leadership, are empowered to launch and carry through this grotesque and shady deal? A quantity of 4,500 tonnes of butter is to be spirited to Libya at a cost to Libyans of 8p per half-pound packet. What of our own poor and of the starving in the Third world? Beef and milk powder are also being included in this sordid trade. A sum of £7 million of European money will be stuffed into Gaddafi's pocket as a down payment for future terrorist outrages. How many extra deaths will this money buy?
These questions need answers urgently. Can this decision be reversed and the shipments stopped, or do the bureaucrats have complete discretion in this supremely political field? How is it that such a deal was hatched in secret? At what stage was the Council informed, if it was informed at all? At what stage can it make a political
34
impact? Can we prevent our produce from joining this absurd traffic, or is the situation that, while we can control British bases, we have no control over the destiny of subsidised British butter and British beef? Is the decision legal? I understand that the Community is empowered to send subsidised products to some states, but is it empowered to send them to Libya?
There is a need for an urgent debate, first, so that this House can use its power and influence in an attempt to prevent this cargo from being dispatched or, if dispatched, from reaching its destination. There is also a more fundamental reason for an early debate. On Wednesday, we are to consider a Bill whereby the House surrenders yet more power to European institutions. Surely we should sort out the present constitutional nonsenses before we embark on a course of further largesse with Britain's sovereignty.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the secret butter deal between Brussels and Libya."
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House. However, I hope that he may have other occasions on which he can raise the matter.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Mr. Speaker: By leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Dental Auxiliaries Regulations 1986 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Consequential Amendment Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986, No. 198) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Neubert.]

Opposition Day
[11TH ALLOTTED DAY] [FIRST PART]

Education
4.19 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: I beg to move,
That this House is of the opinion that, in view of the widespread lack of confidence in Her Majesty's Government's education policies, the salary of the Secretary of State for Education and Science should be reduced by £1,000.
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
Mr. Freud: I am pleased to see the Secretary of State for Education and Science in his place, though I am sorry to hear through the usual channels that he has decided not to speak in this debate,, I very much hope that he will change his decision, because this is quite specifically a censure motion on what he has done since he has held office.
Mr. Ian Gow: In view of the quality of the spokesmen on the alliance Benches this afternoon, the hon. Gentleman should understand that he is lucky indeed that a Minister of State and an Under-Secretary of State are to contribute to the debate. It is great arrogance on the part of the Liberal party to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should reply to a debate on a motion moved by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud).
Mr. Freud: One is well aware of the sour grapes of ex-Ministers who intervene before hon. Members have had time to begin to make their speeches. I am deeply conscious of the fact that the Secretary of State is in his place, and I am grateful for it. I hope that he will decide before the end of the debate to intervene as this is specifically a debate about his office.
It is sad that when the Opposition allow the alliance to initiate a debate it tends to be on a day when the European elections are taking place, or, as today, on Her Majesty's 60th birthday. That sadness is compounded when a Minister makes a statement and there is a Standing Order No. 10 application, which mean that an important debate will be restricted to a little more than two and a half hours. I shall be briefer than I had intended to be originally so that as many Members as possible may participate in the debate.
The motion follows the arcane rules of the House in that rather than dismissing Ministers we try to reduce their salary as a manifestation of discontent. I should not like it to be thought that in seeking a reduction of £1,000 from the Secretary of State's salary we are 96 per cent. satisfied with his work. If there is to be some justification for the reduction of £1,000, it should be understood that it is the minimum sum that all teachers feel that they should have deservedly added to their salaries and which, thanks to the monetarist policies of the Secretary of State, they are not receiving.
I found the reaction to the motion interesting. The Labour party, whose critical motions we steadily support, met it with silence. It seems that it considers party political
36
isolationism to be more important than national educational needs. I hope that it will vote in favour of the motion as my colleagues and I have steadily voted for its on education. The Labour party and the alliance have been pretty united to date in condemning what is happening in education.
Mr. David Sumberg rose—
Mr. Freud: I shall not give way now. I must get on with my speech.
The Government claim to be beginning to think about starting to consider looking at the possibilities; their amendment lacks any sort of genuine direction. This Government have been seven and a half years in office and it is disappointing that only now are they starting to consider education needs.
If it is thought that the Government are beginning to change their spots, it might be sensible to remind the House that an announcement is in the pipeline—it will be made this week or next week—concerning a £263,000 project to survey parental involvement in primary schools. I am entirely in favour of such a survey, but it is typical of this Administration that they choose to finance a survey when the money could be used to train 1,000 people, to finance a substantial pilot programme or to fund a cost-benefit analysis. However, the Government continue to finance surveys, and there has been survey after survey. I have nothing against the National Foundation for Educational Research, which will carry out the survey. It just continues to be a disappointing way in which to spend substantial sums from the education budget.
We had high hopes in 1979. The right hon. Lady was the first person to become Prime Minister after having been Secretary of State for Education and Science. We had high hopes too when the Secretary of State was appointed. We considered him to have genuine concern for education and our hopes were boosted by his memorable speech at Sheffield, which suggested thought and commitment. Unfortunately, our high hopes have not borne fruit, as everyone involved in education will accept.
I do not believe that it is right to take random statistics and use such figures to frame an indictment of the Secretary of State, but the education budget as a proportion of GDP has fallen from over 13 per cent. in 1974 to just over 10 per cent. now. That is a genuine indictment. The proportion of GDP is the one that is important.
Mr. Alan Howarth rose—
Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
Mr. Freud: I shall not give way. Hon. Members will have time to make their own speeches.
The graduate entrant to the teaching profession was paid £3,714 when this Government came into office and he is paid £6,252 now. A graduate entrant to the police force was paid £3,247 when the Government came into office; he is paid £8,442 now. So the graduate entrant to the police who was paid £500 less than the graduate entering the teaching profession is now paid £2,200 more, and that figure does not take London weighting into account. Nor do the figures take account of the substantial overtime provision for those in the police force. There is virtually no such provision for teachers.
It is right to compare the police force and teachers because as the leader of the Liberal party, my right hon.

37
Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), said, by reducing spending on school books we ensure that more must be spent on law and order. There is a connection between education and hooliganism whether we like it nor not and it is right that that is borne in mind. The relationship between teaching and policing is not merely that of relative pay levels but involves political priorities and synthesis. We are talking about the same children, the same communities and the same democracy. The same money will be spent on educating children or on making good the damage that they do.
The first and most damning charge against the Secretary of State is his lack of leadership. He has failed to fight his corner in Cabinet over resources for education, and he has failed to fulfil the promises that he made in his Sheffield speech. The second charge in the indictment is his incompetence and insensitivity. Let us consider the teachers' dispute and the teachers' request for a 7 per cent. increase. The Secretary of State said that there was no question of the Government giving them that increase but within days of making that statement the Secretary of State voted in support of giving judges and other senior civil servants substantial salary increases on the basis of the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body. It was that which infuriated teachers as much as anything else.
Student financial support is another example. The Secretary of State cancelled the inquiry into that support and followed this by abdicating his responsibility to the DHSS, which knows nothing of students and understands nothing of their needs. It has carried out no research into the welfare or support of students and when we ask it questions about availability of student jobs it tells us that no research has been undertaken on that issue. Yet the DHSS now has financial responsibility for student support.
On the subject of incompetence, it is fair to bring up the corporal punishment legislation. If this were not a serious debate, one would say that the Government's attitude smacks of major incompetence. But this might be a good time for the Minister to tell the House of the prospects for introducing that ill-conceived measure which was properly thrown out by the other place.
On the subject of insensitivity, it is proper to refer to school reorganisation and the average delay of 14 months before announcing a verdict. And, even when the verdict is announced, there is no explanation and no recognition of the costs to local authorities when proposals are rejected. Now there is a new trend of rejecting proposals affecting grammar schools, even when, like Stroud, they are supported by local Tories and the schools take between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. of the catchment.
Another justified charge against the Government concerns the failure to respond to new demands on the service. What prevents the formation of a merged Department of Education and Training, in favour of which both sides of the House have so much to say? By providing financial support for 16 to 19–year-olds—I accept implementation would cost a great deal—we could establish a framework. We know what happened with public lending rights; there was no money to pay authors, but the concept of PLR was right, and it was introduced. I hope that, by the same token, the concept of paying 16 to 19–year-olds to stay in education will be accepted as right. We should not make it financially attractive for 16 to 19–year-olds to sign on the unemployment register rather than remain in education. Perpetuating the 21-hour rule does such great harm, is insensitive and plumb wrong.
38
My next charge concerns destruction of the partnership—despite the rhetoric of "Better Schools"—between Government, teachers, local education authorities, parents and pupils. Thanks to the Secretary of State, they have been isolated and effectively set against each other by neglect, or perhaps deliberate calculation. The Government have shown that they are either unwilling or unable to work with their partners.
The Secretary of State tells us that he has no power. We say that the power of a good Secretary of State is the power to lead, to inspire and to make the partnership work to create a climate in which partnership can flourish. I am afraid that the Secretary of State has been discredited. In fact the biggest ovation at the conference of the National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers occurred when a delegate made that point.
The breakdown has two consequences. The most serious is that, although the Secretary of State has a duty to the maintained sector of education, everything he has done has caused the flourishing of the private sector. Every hamfisted intervention, every setting aside of Her Majesty's Inspectorate's strictures has boosted applications to get out of the maintained sector. No matter the cost, people put down the names of their children for education in the private sector. The success of the private schools is bought at the cost of the state schools. They suffer from the teachers' dispute, and the introduction of GCSE and A/S levels. It must be clear to every Government Front Bencher that A/S levels vastly benefit those children who can be educated in the private sector, which has the ability and finance to provide the relevant education which cannot be found at other than the largest comprehensive schools, certainly cannot be provided by those schools in my constituency.
Consequently, there are increasing calls for the abandonment of the partnership. They come from the Right wing of the Conservative party, which prefers to bypass the democratic process with the dishonest rhetoric of freedom of choice which it offers under the shorthand of "vouchers". The calls come also from the centralisers, who argue that the Department of Education and Science should step in where the partnership has failed to deliver. We oppose both moves. Vouchers offer opportunities to a selected few rather than standards for the many. As the Minister of State has said a number of times, they are "practically hopeless".
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): Nonsense. I said it once.
Mr. Freud: The hon. Gentleman might only have said it once. It has been repeated, and, if I may say so, once is enough.
Centralisation offers no suggestion that the Department of Education and Science would be any better at providing the service. The Department cannot escape the charge of unaccountability. The vouchers idea is a smokescreen to cover the lack of direction and achievement in the past seven years and the lack of valid and convincing responses to Government critics. The idea has nothing to offer. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has said, there are no gimmicky solutions to the problems of providing better education. It is easy to dream up new schemes, such as Crown schools, or to advocate vouchers, but that is political escapism, designed only to fill a gap in the next election manifesto.
Mr. Marlow: What would the hon. Gentleman do about ILEA?
Mr. Freud: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, I shall tell him exactly what I would do.
The alliance believes in partnership. It is not a case of everything being rosy before 1979 or of plucking dates from the sky and saying, "It went bad then" or "It was good then." I do not believe that simply putting more money in will rectify the problems or that the old partnership is fully adequate to meet today's needs. We in the alliance are uniquely qualified to speak of partnership in education, not just because of our political organisation but because of our roots in local government and belief in people—their rights and abilities.
It is strange that, if there is a crisis in education, nothing is done, but, if there is a crisis in almost any other branch of life, the Government bail us out. In 1978, when there was a major flood in the Fens, central Government said, "Spend 1p of your rate money and we shall give you 75 per cent. of all the extra expenditure." Crises and disasters in education are identified by Her Majesty's Inspectorate, that most professional body. The crises of high truancy, poor achievement, misery among teachers and despair among parents can be solved only by a local education authority. However, if the local education authority spends money alleviating a disaster, it is penalised and fined for doing its job. Rate capping they call it.
Mr. Barry Henderson: The hon. Gentleman has raised a serious matter. Does he agree that a problem arises when we have a remote control system operated by the Department of Education and Science in England through local education authorities? If education authorities choose to spend their money on what some of us might think are less essential matters, which are not part of their education duty, it is difficult to say that they do not have enough money to undertake properly activities for which they have a clear statutory duty.
Mr. Freud: I have considerable sympathy with that view. There is no simple answer, but it is wrong for a local authority which does its duty to be painted with the same brush as those local authorities that exceed all normal standards. I am not saying that there is a simple solution. I am saying that there is a virtual breakdown in the partnership which should exist between central and local government, let alone teachers, pupils and parents.
I promised the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that I would give a brief list of the alliance's priorities in education. We would return more autonomy to local government and we would institute an education ombudswoman, or ombudswoman, who would listen to genuine complaints which, at the moment, have no route whereby they can be heard or brought to the attention of an independent arbiter. We would open access to educational records. We would provide training for parent-governors and, with the devolution of more decision-making, would involve individual schools. That is currently being done in Cambridgeshire where we have tried an independent financial system for schools so that headmasters can make their own decisions. At the moment that may not be totally accepted or work brilliantly but it is an innovation which I think is genuinely appreciated and can be built upon.
We believe strongly in fixed term headships. I think it is right that the head teacher should not be secure until
40
retirement. We believe in having pupil members on governing bodies and we believe that working with parents should be included in initial teacher training. We believe that teacher's pay should be linked to their conditions of service. I know that on that issue I have the consent of the Conservative party, even if I do not have the consent of the Labour party. We should use HMIs not just as inspectors but consultants. What they say and recommend should have more clout than currently. By using central Government money for specific purposes rather than asking the local education authorities to bid for their own money and, above all, by respecting local government, one would renew the partnership which used to exist. Henry Morris, the director of education for Cambridgeshire, said very tellingly in the 1930s that every dictator realises how obstructive to power is local government and every dictator abolishes it.
I do not like what is happening now, with more power going to central Government or the Crown schools being brought in as if, all over this country, we do not have enough schools of proven excellence in the public sector of education.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Freud: I am coming to the end of my speech.
I would like to put new life into the partnership by putting more stress on community education, which is currently regarded in some Conservative circles as slightly more dangerous than the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I believe that community education can start to meet the legitimate demands of an increasingly aging and leisured society. I saw examples of community education in Coventry the other day where the school is open for 24 hours a day and the cleaners come in late at night. The school is open for further and higher education, for vocational teaching, for games and for meetings, which are able to take place at low rentals. We should involve members of a community in a school, treat people as more mature and responsible and recognise that the value of a service is a consequence of the stake that the people put in it. I have always felt that involvement in all sectors of education was essential to make the public responsible. Even in primary schools, to have the children vote on what sort of sweets they have in the school shop or the location of the telephone box gives them an identity with a school which stops them—
Mr. Sumberg: While the hon. Gentleman is running through the shopping list of alliance policies, will he tell us whether it is correct that the alliance would phase out the assisted places scheme? Will he also confirm that he will attack the charitable status of the independent sector? I would like to make it clear to my electors, who might think about voting for the alliance and whose children attend private and independent schools, exactly what they are voting for.
Mr. Freud: I am pleased to answer the hon. Gentleman. We would certainly phase out the assisted places scheme. It seems absolutely wrong, especially for the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to give up on the education of academically talented children. It is right that there are children of academic ability who should move from one school to another. However, we totally reject the notion that the only schools to which they should move are those in the private sector of education.

41
The alliance would look at charitable status again. I do not see that there is anything charitable about Eton or Harrow. I think that it is proper to have a yardstick and to give charitable status to institutions which do an element of charitable work. We would say that a school could have charitable status if its shows that it deserves it and shows that it does something for the community which will allow education for those who cannot pay, for example, perhaps a minimum number of scholarships in a school. Certainly it is wrong for the community to suffer a shortage of rate payments and tax payments so that an elitist body can go on being elitist.
Mr. Robert Key rose—
Mr. Freud: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that he will make his own speech.
I ask the Secretary of State to remember that education should not merely be a consequence of good government but that good government should be a consequence of good education. Currently, we have neither.
4.46 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the education policies being pursued by Her Majesty's Government, which are beginning to tackle the urgent need to raise and sustain educational standards at all levels of ability, to create a wider range of opportunities for young people, and to enable the education system to make its full and proper contribution to national life.".
I welcome the opportunity for this debate. However, I am not sure that I thought the speech of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) was worth a grand. He seemed to nail his colours to almost every fence going. I shall return to that shortly. I also welcome the interest which at least some Liberal and Social Democratic Members are taking in education this week. Normally, as the House knows, they leave these matters to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East who labours manfully on his own. However, with the local elections in prospect and with the growing salience of education as a political issue, the hon. Gentleman finds himself with at least a few of his hon. Friends here to sustain him today, but none of his right hon. Friends. I am sure that he finds that extremely gratifying. It seems to me that it is another example of the potency of Dr. Gallup.
Sir Russell Johnston: I am sure that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will concede that that is a wholly bogus point. We cannot produce every single one of our members at every debate any more than he can.
Mr. Patten: We are pleased to see at least some of the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East. We are sorry not to see the leader of the Liberal party or the leader of the Social Democratic party.
Mr. David Alton: Where is the Prime Minister?
Mr. Patten: This is the finest hour of the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East. This is the charge of the light brigade. We are sorry not to see here the leaders of the Liberal party or of the Social Democratic party for reasons which I shall seek to adduce shortly.
Mr. James Wallace rose—
Mr. Patten: I shall give way later.
I should like to concentrate mainly on schools and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will speak mostly about higher education when he replies to the debate.
I want to take as my text the speech given by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) at Ruskin college in October 1976. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is nodding. The right hon. Gentleman was the leader of the Government which the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends so assiduously supported. I shall take it as a text for three reasons. First, it set out an admirably bipartisan agenda for the reform of education. Secondly, it launched what the right hon. Gentleman described as the great debate. Thirdly, the present Government have spent the past seven years taking action on a number of the matters that the right hon. Gentleman talked about in that speech. We have turned into reality a number of the aspirations that he referred to then.
I should like to quote three sentences from the Ruskin college speech which, in my judgment, should enable us to sweep aside some of the partisan clutter that normally dominates debates such as this.
"I fear that those whose only answer to these problems is to call for more money will be disappointed."
Expenditure per pupil was 14·5 per cent. lower at that time than it is today. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
"But that surely cannot be the end of the matter. There is a challenge to us all in these days and a challenge in education is to examine its priorities and to secure as high efficiency as possible by the skilful use of existing resources."
That is a salutary reminder—the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East touched on the point and then backed off—that any serious debate on education should contain more than a drab recitation of rival statistics. There is no mechanistic relationship between the level of expenditure on education and the output of our schools. If there were, life would be a great deal easier and the standards set in ILEA schools would be second to none. Nor is there any evidence to relate variations in local education authority expenditure to variations in achievement levels.
On the other hand, I accept that the admirable objectives that we set out in our White Paper "Better Schools"—for example, the hoped-for spread of TVEI from the pilot stage to a wider range of schools—will need more investment per pupil. We have achieved that. We have been investing more per pupil. I am surprised that the Opposition parties rest their arguments on education so much on expenditure levels, although I concede that the Opposition now tend to mix that argument with the sanctimonious argument that we are entirely wrong to add up the cost of their promises—and not only in the case of education. The Opposition suggest that that cost would not be very high and that we could do it all for the cost of the return fare to Brighton.
Resting on spending levels is not a comfortable posture for the Opposition. Let us get the figures out of the way and turn to more serious matters. Expenditure per pupil is now higher than ever. It has risen by about 18 per cent. since the Government came to office. In January 1980 there were 18·7 pupils per teacher; now there are 17·8. Expenditure on books and equipment has risen in real terms by about 8 per cent. per pupil. There has also been

43
a smaller increase in expenditure in real terms on repairs and maintenance. The average real salary of a teacher today is £800 more than it was when Labour left office.
Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
Mr. Patten: The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made his speech at Ruskin college in a year when the value of teachers' pay fell in present-day terms by over £1,000. Those were the high days of inflation under the Labour Government. I suppose that a teacher might have stayed slightly ahead of the game if he had been paid in gold bars or cocoa futures.
The figures do not suggest—and I understate the point—that everyone in education has all the resources he wants. As I go from local education authority to local education authority, that is not my experience. The figures do not demonstrate that we are making the best use of our money. They do not dispose of some of the arguments to which I shall now turn. However, they certainly dispose of the proposition that education is suffering from a ludicrous shortage of resources and that everything could be put right if we simply spent a little more. Those propositions are 18 carat nonsense.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister accept that since 1979 the Government have reduced educational expenditure in real terms by about £2·5 billion? Many economies of scale were made during the 1970s, and it is not reasonable for the Government now to expect economies of contraction too. It costs as much to heat a classroom if there are 20 pupils in it as it does if there are 30.
Mr. Patten: That is a strong argument for getting rid of surplus places—which we are anxious to do as rapidly as possible. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East did not concede that the number of pupils in our schools has fallen by about 12 per cent. in the past six or seven years.
Mr. Dalyell: I have asked the hon. Gentleman about the difficult subject of physics teachers. Has he read the leading article in the New Scientist of 10 April entitled "Money for New Rope" in which it is stated that
"in a number of schools, below sixth form level, there may well be no physics teachers in the foreseeable future"?
Mr. Patten: I have not read that article, but I will do so. I will take up the hon. Gentleman's point later on.
In his Ruskin speech, the right hon. Gentleman identified a number of educational issues which had to be tackled. He talked about the relationship between parents and education and between the world of work and the world of school. He talked about the curriculum, examinations and teachers. I should like briefly to deal with that agenda.
Our Education Act 1980—I must pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle) who laid many of the foundations on which we have built—did much to increase parental influence on, and involvement in, children's education. The Bill at present in another place, which we hope will shortly come to this House, takes that process a good deal further. I trust that we can rely on the unremitting and unstinting support of the alliance parties in taking that legislation to the statute book, despite reports of recent speeches by the right hon. Member for Plymouth,
44
Devonport (Dr. Owen), whose interest in education has not survived until this debate. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was talking for himself or for the alliance. However, he lauded parent power and local autonomy. They were in while, in his view, central control was out. I mean no disrespect to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sorry that he is not here. In view of his recent interest in education, I would have expected him to be here.
Mr. Alton: Where is the Prime Minister?
Mr. Patten: It is not the Prime Minister's motion.
I must say that I have always found the "power to the people" side of the right hon. Gentleman's personality less convincing than the "power to Dr. Owen" side. The right hon. Gentleman talked about parent power and local automony. Then—the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East exhibited a similar form of schizophrenia—he advocated giving Her Majesty's inspectors the power to recommend school closures, and providing central funds to set up new schools.
As an innocent bystander I think that there is a contradiction in those propositions. They are perhaps, another example of tough and tender out riding. Whatever the conundrums or paradoxes, I am pleased that we can count on the support of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties when we put on the statute book that legislation which takes parent power and parental influence much further.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth continued in his famous speech at Ruskin college to consider the relationship between work and education and the relevance of the curricula. The Government have acted on those points. We have established much closer links between education and the business world through schemes such as young enterprise, the school curriculum industry project and the understanding British industry project. We have promoted economic awareness as part of the school curriculum and we have brought non-advanced further education closer together with local industry and the Manpower Services Commission. We have placed more emphasis in schools on the application of knowledge and we have encouraged the growth of craft design and technology. Technical and practical learning have been stimulated through a number of pilot schemes like the technical and vocational education initiative in which 100,000 pupils will be involved at a cost of some £250 million. As I said earlier, we are considering the extension of that project so that all secondary school pupils can benefit from the lessons that we have learned.
As the House will know, the Government have been setting the pace in the use of computers in schools. We have invested almost £40 million in the past five years on information technology.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth continued in his speech to discuss curricula. Despite all the difficulties and turmoils, the Government have worked for agreement with teachers and local education authorities about the type of curricula that we should have in our schools which we believe should be broad, balanced, relevant and differentiated. We have also been working for agreement on the different parts of the curricula. We began by publishing our proposals which have been discussed and are now in their final form on the teaching of science for five to 16–year-olds, and we shall shortly be producing—
Mr. Dalyell: What about physics teachers?
Mr. Patten: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point in a moment.
We shall shortly be producing proposals on modern languages as part of the curriculum. The Government's main purpose is to try to ensure that 80 to 90 per cent. of our school leavers aged 16 are brought up to and beyond the level now achieved by 50 per cent. of pupils in a range of subjects—that is approximately CSE grade 4.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has shown a great concern for the lower achievers in our schools. The lower achievers' programme aims to discover and spread a curriculum which will interest and involve that worrying minority who are now getting very little from their secondary schooling.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth also raised the problems about the examination system. He was specifically concerned about less academic students who remain at school beyond the age of 16. He proposed that there should be more discussion about 16-plus examinations and about other examinations, and he told us that Mrs. Shirley Williams would consider those problems. We have acted. We have introduced or are proposing to introduce A/S levels to broaden the base of the curriculum in sixth forms, and I do not accept what the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East said about that earlier.
The Government have introduced the certificate of prevocational education with the new sixth formers, about whom the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was concerned, in mind. As the House will know, we are conducting a review of vocational qualifications which will soon reach fruition and this year we are starting the GCSE, which is the most significant reform of 16-plus examinations for 20 years.
We had an opportunity to debate the GCSE last week and all hon. Members who took part in that debate regarded it as useful and constructive. I do not want to traverse in this debate the ground that we covered then. I shall, however, make four brief points. First, the preparations for the GCSE are literally unprecedented. Secondly, we have tried to respond to every legitimate professional concern. For example, we have considered resources and training in that connection. Thirdly, I repeat what I said last week, that postponement for a year is not an option. We could not stand down the boards and groups and require them to produce some makeshift GCE and CSE examinations in 1988 with machinery which, in many cases, has already been dismantled, and at the same time tell them that they must get on with the job of introducing GCSE the following year. A postponement would lead to a protracted delay against a background of chaos. My fourth point is that we are always ready to discuss with teachers associations, examining groups or local authority associations professional concerns about the introduction of the GCSE. We want to ensure that the GCSE examination is the success that it needs and deserves to be.
Mr. A. J. Beith: If everything is going as smoothly as the Minister so blandly suggests, why does he believe that the secondary heads and the Parent Teachers Associations are so anxious as to call on him to postpone the examination? Does he realise that that anxiety extends far beyond the teacher organisations and is now so widespread that he cannot blandly dismiss it, as he has tried to do?
Mr. Patten: I was not trying to be bland. If the hon. Gentleman had had the opportunity of listening to our debate last week he could not have accused the Government of blandness. We are anxious to do all that we reasonably can to ensure that the GCSE examination is introduced smoothly. I had the opportunity of addressing the Secondary Heads Association conference yesterday and I have spoken to other professional bodies. I recognise their anxieties and a number of their concerns are related to the last argument I wish to make regarding teachers.
The final piece of the jigsaw concerns teachers. I accept that a fair and sensible deal with the teachers would greatly improve the climate for the introduction of the GCSE. That is behind many of the anxieties expressed at present. If we do not get such a deal, much more than the GCSE will unfortunately be threatened. That underlines the importance of achieving a deal in the summer.
I have said before, and am glad to repeat myself, that without good and highly trained, highly motivated teachers our other objectives for education are as sand in the wind. Because we are concerned about training, we have, with the help of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, been attempting to improve standards in initial teacher training. We have done much to improve and develop in-service training because we are concerned about better quality teaching. The Government want to see better paid teachers, a better career structure and improved promotion prospects with better rewards for skills in short supply.
In response to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I believe that until we achieve those objctives it will be extremely difficult to deal with the serious skill shortages that he mentioned. Once we begin to deal with those problems there are many other imaginative and radical proposals that the Government could discuss with industry for dealing with the shortages that have been evident for too many years but are especially acute today.
We must establish a clear link between what teachers are paid and what they are paid to do. Teachers cannot argue on the one hand that it is impossible to define what they do in a contractual sense because it is all a matter of good will and on the other hand argue that that good will can be withdrawn at considerable damage to schools at no cost to themselves, whenever they so wish. The teachers cannot have both those propositions. That is the nub of the argument and the main reason why we have suffered such a wretched year, and that is the issue we cannot run away from. It is ludicrous to suppose that that has only been a problem for the past two years.
We hear a great deal about "back to Houghton". The problem goes back to Houghton and Lord Houghton made that point recently. I cannot quote him directly, but in essence he said that it was not just salary scales that were written on the banner of Houghton. He said that his report, as well as dealing with money, was an attempt to establish and define professionalism. The teachers received the money but we have never managed to achieve the other side of the bargain. That is what we must achieve now.
The past year has been wretched partly because the discussions which were taking place in the autumn of 1984 had the plug pulled on them by the National Union of Teachers. The discussions were held to bring together pay, duties and conditions of service. If those discussions had been successful, we would not have had to endure the turmoil and aggravation of the past 12 months.

47
ACAS, with the employers and with representatives of the majority of teachers, is now attempting once again to resolve this issue which has been with us for so long. If we are to achieve a deal that is fair to teachers, fair to taxpayers, fair to ratepayers, fair to employers, fair to parents and, above all, fair to children, it must link pay and duties once and for all.
Mr. Marlow: I hope that my hon. Friend is right and that that will come about, to the great satisfaction of the teaching profession, but how will it resolve the problem of inner city schools, especially those under the ILEA, in which a great deal more money is spent per pupil but the results are much worse than elsewhere? What plan has my hon. Friend to deal with that?
Mr. Patten: I emphasise again that the key to education quality and standards everywhere is good teachers. My hon. Friend is being very persuasive, tempting me to take a walk down one or two boulevards into which I perhaps should not stray, not least in the interests of others wishing to take part in the debate. I hope that there will be other opportunities to deal with the point that he raises, as it must be of particular concern to many of us that one of the disadvantages faced by some children in inner city areas is the attitude of a minority of teachers and of some members of the education authorities in those areas.
The agenda set out by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth 10 years ago was extremely sensible and I am delighted that we have been able to act on it. It is perhaps presumptuous to say "we". The main credit for what has been achieved in relation to the curriculum, teacher training, links between industry and education, parent power, examination reform and the drive to raise the quality of education in all schools to the level achieved in the best should undoubtedly go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has carried through a major programme of reforms which will work through into higher standards of state education for the next 10 or 20 years. Other changes which have been discussed in the past few weeks may need to be contemplated to ensure that the partnership on which the education system is and continues to be based works as well as we all wish. I am sure that the Opposition will wish to contribute to that discussion.
Today, however, we have to deal with the motion on the Order Paper. In the past few years, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had to endure more than his share of slings and arrows and has borne those tribulations with more forbearance and civility than most of us could muster. Compared with all that, today's preposterous motion is but a minor irritant. Nevertheless, I am sure that I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends in saying that I resent its appearance on the Order Paper and invite the House to throw it out.
5.14 pm
Mr. Giles Radice: I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) on his speech. I am glad that it was made by the hon. Gentleman and not by the leader of the Liberal party as originally advertised. Unlike his leader, the hon. Gentleman has always shown an interest in education matters. However, despite the glorification of local
48
government, he ignored the record of the Liberals in the Isle of Wight and glossed over the split between the Liberals and Social Democrats on loans. It is perhaps a pity that more SDP Members are not present today. Nevertheless, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his speech and assure him that Labour Members will vote for the motion today.
I, too, am disappointed that the Secretary of State will not be answering the debate. Perhaps he is so enthusiastic about cutting public spending as to support a cut in his own salary. Be that as it may, I welcome this opportunity to debate education matters as there is a growing awareness of the vital importance of education not only for individual life chances and self-development but for the survival of this country. As we move towards a knowledge-based economy, it becomes ever clearer that our future will increasingly depend on human capital in terms of the intelligence, information and creativity of our people. It is equally clear that the best way to develop that capital is to invest carefully and effectively in education and training. It is clear, too, that in today's and tomorrow's world the prizes will go not to nations prepared to educate only their elites but to those which give good quality education to all their citizens.
It is therefore all the more disturbing that, according to a number of recent studies, we are less well educated and less well trained than many of our main competitors. Only one third of the work force in Britain holds recognised qualifications equivalent to O-levels, compared with two thirds in West Germany and Japan and almost 80 per cent. in the United States. Britain is also well down the league table in providing education and training opportunities for young people. In 1983, 64 per cent. of the 16 to 18 age group received such provision, compared with 84 per cent. in West Germany, 79 per cent. in the United States and the Netherlands and 73 per cent. in Japan. A much smaller proportion—12 per cent.—of the relevant age group has qualifications at degree level compared with 22 per cent. in the United States and 24 per cent. in Japan. Moreover, the proportion of adults receiving training or enjoying continuing education is much smaller than in a number of other advanced countries. Relatively speaking, Britain is a badly educated and badly trained nation.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the hon. Gentleman share my anxiety that in ILEA schools, which are permanently dominated by the Labour party and the National Union of Teachers, pupils with the lowest ability suffer most and achieve the worst examination results?
Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman may be unaware that the programme of reform that ILEA is putting through has been welcomed by the Secretary of State. I refer to the Hargreaves report and the follow-up to that, which was directed precisely at below-average and average achievers. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I should wait until 8 May for the verdict of the electors on what ILEA has done so far and is planning to do in the future.
It is against the background of relative educational backwardness and what is needed to equip ourselves for the future that we have to judge the Government's performance. The plain truth is that they have a miserable record. It is widely recognised even by members and supporters of the Government that the Conservatives have failed on education. Our schools do not have the level of resources for the job that we are asking them to do. Even

49
the Secretary of State has admitted that teachers are underpaid, as has the Minister of State. For the past few years, Her Majesty's inspectors—the Secretary of State's own advisers—have been warning the Government about the shortage of teachers in key areas, to which reference has been made today, the inadequate supply of books and equipment and the bad state of repair and maintenance of too many of our schools.
The most significant and worrying paragraph in the recent HMI report, paragraph 89, said:
"While most LEAs appear to have held or slightly improved the overall levels of their provision for schools, the baselines of some of that provision are such that it seems unlikely that present levels will be sufficient to enable schools to respond successfully to the national and local calls for improvements in pupils' achievements and in the curriculum."
Mr. Eric Bolton, the chief inspector of schools, underlined that in a recent speech when he warned that, unless schools receive sufficient resources, the changes that are being demanded cannot be implemented. He went on to say that, while money was not the only answer—I agree with the Minister about that—it is a vital part of the solution. I did not hear that from the Minister today, although I shall quote him when he appears to recognise that money is important.
Mr. Eric Bolton said that the TVEI had shown what could be done when teachers are given adequate resources and time. That is instructive. In his recent speech to the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association conference, the Minister said:
"The demands on schools are increasing, and there is a need for more resources per pupil and a further limited improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio if they are all to be met."
I hope that the Secretary of State will argue for that in Cabinet.
We also have a crisis of morale. We all know that, for more than a year, most children's education has been disrupted in some way, leaving pupils uncertain, parents anxious and teachers demoralised and alienated. Too many of our schools now exist in an atmosphere of crisis, as I know from personal experience.
The Minister referred to the reforms which the Government have heralded, but many have come to nothing while others have petered out in bickering and dispute. It is interesting that the amendment does not boast of the Government's educational achievements but speaks of their "beginning to tackle" educational standards.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: After seven years.
Mr. Radice: Indeed. I accept that educational reform takes time, but that is going too far. Under the Conservatives, the United Kingdom is about the only major Western European country which has cut resources going to higher education. The consequences are well known. Since 1981, 12,000 well qualified students have been turned away from our universities each year and 6,000 jobs have been lost in universities. In the next three years, cuts equivalent to the closure of a medium-sized university every year are to be imposed on the university sector. It is reported that Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer, the chairman of the University Grants Committee, has warned that three universities may have to be closed. I hope that the Minister will comment on that. Perhaps he would care to deny it.
Polytechnics and other institutions of higher education have rightly been praised for their contribution to the provision of more opportunities for quality higher
50
education, yet they face the possibility of a 3 per cent. cut in 1987–88. The National Advisory Body secretariat has told public sector institutions that, if the unit of resource is to be maintained, the institutions will have to exclude more than 9,000 students and close whole departments, including engineering and science departments. The Secretary of State rightly keeps going on about maintaining standards, but he cannot have it both ways. He must provide the money. Despite the lip service which the Government pay to its importance, resources for continuing education have also been reduced significantly.
Bearing in mind the Government's poor record, the crisis in our schools and cuts in higher education, it is hardly surprising that education has become such an important issue. Voters believe that education should have top priority. They want the Government to get a grip on things. Above all, they want a return to calm and stability in schools.
The Government's reaction to mounting popular discontent has hardly been reassuring. It is no exaggeration to say that the Government have been running around in a state bordering on panic. The Prime Minister, apparently oblivious of the fact that the Government have been in power for more than seven years, is reported to have declared that something must be done about education.
The Foreign Secretary, on one of his few sorties into domestic politics, told eager listeners on the "Today" programme:
"Education is the most important part of the national agenda still calling for action".
The Secretary of State for Energy, in one of his messages—as usual, it was in code—implied that more ought to be spent on education. There is, of course, the reactionary tendency. It is not as well represented today as usual, although I see one member of it present. Encouraged by the Prime Minister, it has dusted off several old ideas—yesterday's solutions to today's and tomorrow's problems.
We have been told that the answer to raising standards for all pupils is the introduction of vouchers, despite the Secretary of State's conclusion that they are not practical. A return to direct grant schools has been mentioned, as has more selection and even the introduction of what are apparently called Crown schools, which borrow the prestige of Her Majesty to support selection. I hope that most parents will fail to see what those notions have to do with the education of their children. Indeed, they will find those notions irrelevant.
I have never questioned the Secretary of State's sincerity and integrity. On behalf of the Labour party, I have supported him when I thought that he was right. However, for some time past, I have thought that it would be better for education if he resigned. He has clearly lost the support of parents and of teachers. He has said that he will retire at the end of this Parliament, but there is speculation that he will go in the autumn. I do not believe that, when parents are so concerned, schools are in such crisis and education is a top priority, we can afford a lame duck Secretary of State. We have had the unedifying spectacle of Ministers almost daily putting in applications for the job. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) is never off the screen.
Mr. Alex Fletcher: Off the streets, or the screens?
Mr. Radice: I am not sure about the streets. Bearing in mind his electoral prospects in Bath, he is probably on the streets as well. I have seen the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), at whose name the hon. Member for Bath is said to pale according to one newspaper, spending quite a lot of time in the House of Commons recently.
Mr. Fletcher: Shock.
Mr. Radice: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's name has been mentioned, but many have. Tomorrow, The Guardian is running a punter's guide to the 11 runners so far. Such speculation and rumour is not good for education and the only way in which it can be ended is by the Secretary of State deciding that enough is enough. It would be in the best interests of education if the uncertainty about the Secretary of State's job was rapidly brought to an end. I have therefore to repeat my call for the Secretary of State to resign.
Changing the helmsman alone is not enough. If we are to equip ourselves adequately for the future and to meet the challenge that I have described, which I believe is widely accepted, the Government will have to change their education policy. We shall have to widen educational opportunity, to improve standards and to invest more in education.
The main aim of educational policy should be to open up opportunities for quality education throughout life. Every three and four-year-old should have the chance of a place at a nursery school or in a nursery class. Every child should have the opportunity of being taught in adequately resourced comprehensive, primary and secondary schools, and in classes small enough to allow for individual attention. Every 16–year-old should have the right to two years of high quality education and training with adequate financial support. Every adult should have the right to benefit from a period of education and training, and we ought to open up higher education to a much wider group than ever before.
We must also introduce measures that will address this Government's neglect of quality and standards. This must include smaller classes, particularly for younger children; an adequate supply of books and equipment; well maintained and well ordered schools; access to a broad and balanced curriculum; an assessment system that encourages success rather than highlights failure; a real partnership between home and school; a local ombudsman for parent complaints; and a decently paid, well trained and highly competent teaching profession.
Mr. Chris Patten: How much?
Mr. Radice: How much more does the hon. Gentleman think ought to be spent in order to ensure that the demands on schools are met? He does not say how much.
Mr. Patten rose—
Mr. Radice: The fact is that neither "Better Schools", the White Paper produced by the right hon. Gentleman nor the Minister of State himself has costed his proposals. He is giving the electorate a lot of promises for the future while having failed in the past. If his promises are to be carried out, a substantial amount of extra money will have to be spent on education. We acknowledge that, but the Government are not honest enough to do so.
Mr. David Madel: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Radice: Not at the moment. I should like to comment on the progress of the ACAS talks, because they are important. I hope that they succeed, because, as the Minister said, unless we can settle the teachers question, we shall not get further progress in our schools. I hope that those talks succeed, but if they are to do so it is clear that the NUT—the majority union—will have to be included. I am absolutely certain about that. I am also certain that more resources will have to be provided to back the ACAS talks. If they are not, I do not believe that we shall eventually get a deal.
Mr. Madel: Is it not a fact that the NUT will not agree to the 1985 deal and that it was in a minority? If the hon. Gentleman wants the ACAS talks to succeed, he should urge the NUT to be more reasonable and not to adopt an attitude that will make it run foul not only of the Labour-controlled employers but also of the other unions.
Mr. Radice: The hon. Gentleman probably does not know that I have spent the last four days trying to bring both sides together—[HON. MEMBERS: "It was a failure."] I would not talk about failure on that score, given the mess that the Conservatives have made of this whole teachers question over the last two years, which has disrupted our schools.
Mr. Chris Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way. Will he clarify another important point? Is it the view of the Labour party that a deal must include duties as well as pay? I understand that that is part of the Labour party's position north of the border. Is it the Labour party's position south of the border as well?
Mr. Radice: I have said that we must first tackle the pay issue. Once we have done so, I believe that it will be easier to introduce the whole issue of duties—[HON. MEMBERS: "They can be brought together."] That may well be so, but that depends on the amount with which the Secretary of State is prepared to back the deal. If he continues to say that the sum should be only £400 million at the end of the fourth year—which he calls l·2 billion—I doubt whether he will achieve the results that he is looking for.
If opportunity is to be increased and quality improved, we shall need to increase spending on education. I am not ashamed to say that, because education is expensive. Since the Conservative Government came to power, the share of education as a percentage of total public spending has declined from 11·8 per cent. in 1978–79 to 10·8 per cent. in 1985–86. A sign of the Government's priorities is that in 1985–86 we are spending £3·7 billion more on defence than on education, whereas in 1978–79 we were spending £260 million more on education than on defence.
It is true that, despite cuts in educational spending—which the Minister of State has admitted have taken place—and because of a school population which is declining sharply by nearly 1 million, the Government are able to claim that spending per pupil is now significantly higher than in 1979. That is true, but instead of using the leeway of falling rolls to repair the glaring inadequacies of provision and the necessary investment in improved standards which the chief inspector says are so important, the Government have imposed tight restrictions on educational spending. Indeed, under this Government, spending on education has often been thought of as a

53
luxury item which, as with higher education, can be cut without damage to the future. No wonder that the voters are now demanding a higher priority for education!
From now on we should regard spending on education not as a consumption item that can safely be cut but as a prudent, long-term investment without which our future is likely to become increasingly bleak. We should also decide here and now that education should be top priority. It is of vital importance, not only for personal development and improved life chances but also for the future economic and social health of our society.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. There is less than an hour to go before the winding-up speeches begin. I therefore appeal for short contributions.
5.38 pm
Mr. J. F. Pawsey: It would seem that the alliance has now discovered education, as it had earlier discovered the environment, and perhaps we might look forward to a considerably better attendance at our debates in future than we have seen in the past. I exclude from that comment the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). His attendance at our debates is exemplary. Indeed, his attendance is as regular as "All-Bran".
While the conversion of the alliance to education may be a little late, it is, none the less, welcome, and it seemed to be signalled in a recent speech by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) when he said that if the case for investing in higher education is strong, any such favourable treatment has an obligation to ensure greater efficiency in the use of extra resources. That seems to be a long-winded way of saying that the alliance requires value for money in education. There is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, that argument has been advanced by Conservative Members for years.
In the same speech, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
"Universities and polytechnics would set up student aid offices which would receive funds—decided by the institution from the sum of the research and teaching allocations—for various forms of student support on an income-related basis."
When one strips away all the jargon one sees that the right hon. Gentleman is calling for some sort of means test for student support. In the same speech he said:
"this income-related basis could include remission of fees and maintenance grants; it could include subsidies for the interest charges and bank loans arranged through the institution which might even go into the loans itself."
I am not certain whether the right hon. Gentleman is arguing for a full-blooded student loan approach, or for some sort of halfway house. It is unfortunate that he and the leader of the Liberal party are not in the House to answer for themselves and to clarify points of this sort. I should like to concentrate on schools.
Mr. Henderson: Was that the same speech in which the right hon. Gentleman advocated what is essentially a free enterprise economy between the universities in competing for students?
Mr. Pawsey: I can tell my hon. Friend that indeed it was. In 1976 the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) introduced what was described as the "great debate on education." Therefore, we can take it on his authority, and he was the Prime Minister at the time, that all was not well with the education system. That
54
has been recognised by Conservative Members in a series of measures introduced by the Government since we came into office in 1979. As was said previously, we now have the best ever pupil-teacher ratio and the highest ever level of per capita spending. As the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) said, that, admittedly, is as a result of falling rolls.
Almost the first act of the incoming Administration in 1979 was to repeal the Education Act 1976 which removed choice from local authorities, attacked grammar schools and sought to introduce comprehensive education. The author of the Education Act 1976 was Shirley Williams who was Secretary of State for Education in a Socialist Government. At that time she seemed to be rather more Socialist than Democrat. It is significant that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was part of that same Administration. Now the right hon. Gentleman argues for more parental choice. How does he reconcile that newly discovered position with the provisions of the Education Act 1976 which he then supported? It is indeed sad that the right hon. Gentleman is not in the House. I do not say that he is two-faced, but it seems that, once again, the alliance is facing two ways.
Despite the exaggerated rhetoric of Opposition Members, much has been done over the past seven years. Parents now have more choice in selecting schools, and teacher training has been overhauled to ensure that teachers receive a training more relevant to the classroom. On Thursday we debated the introduction of a new examination—the GCSE. It was demanded by teacher unions to replace the CSE and the GCE.
Despite the propaganda, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, no previous examination has been so thoroughly prepared. It is not preparation that is lacking but goodwill. The real problem is not lack of syllabuses, lack of training, lack of time or lack of funds, but a lack of goodwill, and that is the problem that we have to face. The reason for that lack of goodwill is not hard to find. Understandably, teachers are worried about pay and conditions, and teachers are to education what the engine is to the car.
We should not forget that my right hon. Friend has secured from the Treasury 1·25 billion of extra funding, not for schools or for books, but for teachers' pay. That money will be available to teachers over four years and when it is accepted will do much to restore teacher morale. However, the four-year time scale is too long and the financial benefit should be concentrated in a shorter period with a higher level of what the insurance companies call "front loading". Hand in hand with those improved and substantial benefits should go real appraisal. Not all teachers should be in the profession and we should make it easier for a small minority of teachers to leave.
Teachers hold the key to improved education and to higher standards, and it is of the utmost importance that we restore the morale of the teaching profession and make it abundantly clear to teachers that what they do is necessary, worth while and most important to society. No one would disagree that the overwhelming majority of teachers do a difficult job and do it well, and that a teacher's job is a great deal more than free periods and long holidays. A teacher's job is stressful and demanding, and, while there may be substantial job satisfaction, that in itself is not enough and a greater appreciation of the teacher's work is necessary. For too long they have been allowed to believe that theirs is almost a second-rate

55
profession that is unsung and unappreciated. That impression must be corrected as a prerequisite to any improvement in education.
The Education Bill that is currently in another place is proof of the importance that the Government attach to education. That Bill will reform governing bodies and allow a greater measure of parental involvement. That should be widely welcomed on both sides of the House and should also be welcomed by parents and members of the teaching profession. The Bill will do a great deal to improve standards and to improve the quality of education, because the majority of parents know best what is right for their own children. More parents on governing bodies will ensure that more time is spent on the core curriculum and less on peripheral subjects, such as peace studies. Parents will call for more discipline in schools and demand the teaching of subjects that are relevant to jobs and to work.
The Bill will require local education authorities to appraise the performance of the teaching force and will make further improvements to in-service training by the provision of special and specific grants for that purpose. All those measures underline the Government's commitment to education. I support the imaginative concept of Crown schools which was unfairly criticised by the Opposition. However, I should like to make one caveat by asking that they become centres for technical studies as well as for the more academic subjects. The Crown schools could be a way forward in concentrating technical and academic talent.
Mr. Beith: Did the hon. Gentleman not listen to the cautionary words by his hon. Friend the Minister of State who said that the argument about defending good grammar schools is largely dead and buried and that no one will bring back the old grammar schools?
Mr. Pawsey: It is nice to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the debate. We are not calling for the return of the old grammar schools. I will settle for the concept offered by my right hon. Friend of Crown schools, provided that they concentrate talent on either technical or academic subjects. Those schools will become centres of excellence and people will accept them as a useful and imaginative step. Some hon. Members have spoken about funding, but more money does not automatically mean better standards. The National Council for Educational Standards published a pamphlet today that deals with a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). That pamphlet shows that the Inner London education authority examination results are worse than the results in secondary modern schools. It says:
"Examination results for secondary school pupils in the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) are worse than for pupils at secondary modern schools".
It goes on to say:
MORE MONEY FOR WORSE RESULTS
ILEA pupils aged 11 are up to the national average. By 16, their exam results are 30% below the national average even though ILEA spends 40% more per pupil than most councils. On average, O-level passes per pupil in ILEA schools are about 40% below the average for pupils in all schools in England; about 25% below the average for pupils at comprehensive schools in socially deprived areas; about 15% below the average for pupils at secondary modern schools."
Those figures are an indictment of the high spending lobby and underline yet again that it is critical for funds to be used effectively.
56
Value for money is not just a pious hope; it is an absolute necessity. The problem is not so much the lack of funds as the lack of proper application of those funds. More money is not the answer. More money equals greater waste, to the disadvantage of the taxpayer and the children.
The Government want to provide a much wider measure of choice for parents and for children. That choice must not be between just the state sector and the private sector. We want to improve the quality and the standard of state education. That is where the overwhelming majority of children are educated. I know that the present Secretary of State for Education and Science is committed to that ideal. The judgment of history will be to his advantage. The alliance motion is ill-considered and biased and should be thrown out.
5.50 pm
Mr. Martin Flannery: If one believed the stuff to which we have just listened, it would indeed be a lyrical world. One could almost set parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) to music. The amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is she?"] She is probably with the Queen. It is hardly conceivable that the Government could include such bland, offensive effrontery in this amendment. It says that the Government
"are beginning to tackle the urgent need to raise and sustain educational standards at all levels of ability".
That need is all the more urgent after what has happened during the last six and a half years since this Government came to power.
The amendment then says that the Government are beginning
"to create a wider range of opportunities for young people".
How can the Government say that, after what they have done to the youth of this country? Nearly all of them are out of work. Furthermore, student grants have been cut so much that even those dead Benches rose to the attack last year and forced the Secretary of State for Education and Science to alter his plans.
The amendment also says that the Government are beginning
"to enable the education system to make its full and proper contribution to national life."
Ye Gods! When the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth referred to the National Council for Educational Standards, he was referring to the Black Paperites, who have launched on behalf of the Tory party the most dreadful offensive against state education that those of us who spent a lifetime in education have ever seen.
Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Flannery: No, I want to make my speech. I listened to the hon. Gentleman without intervening. He must sit down and be a good boy.
When I mix that amalgam in the Government's amendment with the arrogance of practically every sentence spoken by the Minister of State, it would be childish to expect us to treat it in a civilised way. In the opinion of the Opposition, education begins at birth and it continues until we die. However, there is no recognition of that fact on the Government Benches. The state

57
education service has never known such a sustained and brutal onslaught as it has suffered during the last six and a half years.
It is almost unbelievable that the Government say that they have carried out reforms. The Secretary of State will be remembered in the history of education as having deformed practically everything that has been done for education throughout the years. He has not reformed education. He has succeeded in uniting the teaching profession. It opposes his attack on education, and the struggle continues.
The Government should not believe that the struggle is at an end. Never before in the history of this country has a middle-class group of people been so determined to fight in defence of the education system. Never before has the struggle continued for a year and a half in Scotland, where a resounding victory was won because the Labour authorities stood side by side with the Educational Institute of Scotland.
Parents and children, students and lecturers, teachers and tutors do not know where they stand with this Government and with this Secretary of State. That is why I, who find it hard to say such things, wish, in the name of heaven, that he would go. I hope that he will take with him the rest of the Government, after what they have done to the education system.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science has managed to unify the teaching profession in a way that the Opposition could not do. There is a hiccup in the struggle, but hon. Members should not be fooled. This struggle, the longest in the history of the teaching profession, will continue.
Teachers' wages are pitifully inadequate. They get less after training for four years than a young policeman in uniform gets after three months. What kind of an attitude is that to adopt towards the teaching profession? [HON. MEMBERS: "You have got that wrong."] That is the reality. The teaching profession is embittered and angry. Never before has it been so embittered and angry, and this fact should be laid at the door of the Secretary of State.
The general certificate of secondary education is in jeopardy, due to this Secretary of State and this Government. Teachers have fought for years to unify the general certificate of education and the certificate of secondary education. For years they fought against this Government in an attempt to get rid of them. Finally, the Government capitulated, but then they dealt with the teaching profession in such a way as to rouse it to fight against what is happening to education. Therefore, the Government, not the teachers, are holding up the ambition of teachers and parents that the GCSE should be introduced.
Our schools are unprepared and unpainted, and in many areas they are falling down. Schools are closing not because of the lack of pupils but because they are in such a mess. When the Secretary of State came to Sheffield his only comment about those schools—he said it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not I—was that they were "crummy". Sheffield will never forgive him for that, never mind his Sheffield speech. He had rate-capped Sheffield. Sheffield could not provide proper schools for its children, but he had the nerve to condemn those schools.
I raised that point with the Secretary of State on more than one occasion during the Select Committee proceedings. He said that Sheffield should make up the difference. I pointed out to him that in the more salubrious
58
areas wealthy parents could provide a great deal of money for the schools and that therefore their capitation allowance is three times greater than that which is provided for schools to which the children of working people go. There is a great deal of unemployment in the areas surrounding those schools.
I asked the Secretary of State about unemployment. I told him that parents who are unemployed do not have money to give the schools. His answer once again—it was a recent answer—was that the local education authority should give them the money. But he has rate-capped Sheffield. He knows that the local education authority cannot make up the money. While, therefore, the children of wealthy parents get all the books and allowances that they need, the vast majority of our children are suffering because of this Government's actions.
The Government have introduced the ethos of the market place into our education system. Monetarism has been introduced into education, as though education can be bought and sold easily by one person at a time who has vouchers. The drive to privatise our schools continues.
Education has moved towards the centre of the political stage because the majority of the British people feel that it is under serious attack. They feel that the attack against state education is so brutal that they must enter the arena and defend an education system that has been built up patiently over hundreds of years. It is now a major electoral issue. At every meeting where we make speeches, or indeed where the Conservatives make speeches, education is now raised.
The situation is bedevilled and the crisis deepened by constant statements by almost anybody on the Tory Benches. The ideas which are put forward by Tory Members are like sparks coming from an ampere. Such ideas persist for a few days but are so backward that they are thrown out. However, no less a person than the Prime Minister brings the ideas back or, if she does not do so, the Minister does. The voucher system has been thrown out by everybody over and over again but, a year ago, the Prime Minister came back and said that she would still like a voucher system. The Minister finally had to admit that, although he liked the voucher system, it was impracticable. However, even after the Minister had said that, the Prime Minister returned once again and said that she would like a voucher system. People therefore realise that elitism is the main aim of the Tory party. The Tory party hates the profound success of our schools under comprehensive education.
Nearly 90 per cent. of our children are taking examinations which, some years ago, they had no chance of passing. The examination results of the vast majority of our children are better than they have ever been in the history of British education. I have heard the attacks on ILEA but the silly figures used mean nothing because ILEA covers an inner-city area with more problems than the general areas of cities. ILEA's starting point in the education of our children is a difficult one. ILEA needs special funds, as do the inner-city areas of the great cities.
What are some of the so-called ideas which have been sparked off by the Prime Minister and the Minister? They have put forward a totally unworkable and discredited voucher scheme. The chairman of the Tory party—a major figure in the advancement of mankind—wants Crown schools. I do not know what Crown schools are or what an uncrowned school is, and I wonder whether the

59
Tories can tell us. Of course they will not. A Crown school is a school which would be centrally funded to become part of excellence. The school, having received more funds than anyone else, could be something to be boasted about. It runs hand in hand with the idea of bringing back direct grant schools and introducing direct grant primary schools. What an idea! All these useless ideas mean nothing but the ethos of the market place. The ideas are so backward that they are unbelievable.
The Tories want to extend the assisted places scheme—another piece of elitism. The education of our children has been curbed by funds being cut, but some of the funds would be stolen from the state system to be given to the Government's nominees in the private system. Money would be taken from the already depleted exchequer of education and handed to people in the private sector who already have plenty of money.
The Government's only object seems to be to get rid of the state education system. They will not be allowed to do so because, standing guard over it, are not only parents who are Labour voters but parents who are Tory and Liberal voters. They all want the system of comprehensive education to continue. They recognise that it has its weaknesses but want them discussed in a proper democratic manner and want the system strengthened, instead of the nonsense introduced by the Government.
The Government's ideas have one thing in common—they are not merely destructive but aimed to strike a blow at the education system from which it will not recover. All these ideas hark back to the bad old days so beloved by the Tory leadership—the so-called Victorian values of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister loves Victorian values. She would love the teachers to return to payment by results from the register which was abolished at the beginning of the century. If she received payment by results from the Cabinet, they would all disappear tonight.
We have to struggle patiently, and fight hard, for good education. Of course, some teachers are not up to the mark, but some hon. Members, some dentists and some engineers are also not up to the mark. That is the reality of life. That cannot be ruled out of order.
The Government also want to pay teachers Victorian wages. They wish to pay as little as they can and yet talk about the quality of education and improvements in education. If money is not forthcoming for the education system, it is idle nonesense to talk of increasing the quality of education. The quality of education demands more money for teachers' wages, more money for books and money to paint the schools. More money is also needed for repairs and to build new schools. It is no good talking about posing money against the teachers. The two go hand in hand. If teachers are paid properly—and they are fighting to be paid properly—we shall not have recourse to Dotheboys hall and Mr. Squeers.
The Government do not want what we are fighting for. They pay for private education for their children. They are not concerned about their children because they are safely ensconced in places into which money is poured—money that is taken from working people.
A large section of the population now see the Government for precisely what they are. The polls show
60
that parents, and the vast majority of LEAs and political parties, will not tolerate what is happening to our education system.
When I heard of the new name coming in to take the place of the Secretary of state when he goes it sounded like the Hammer house of horror. It sounded appalling. I would be shocked beyond measure if the present Minister of State became the Secretary of State. I have heard some of the Minister's speeches and he would be far worse than the present Secretary of State, or indeed previous Secretaries of State. I hope that somewhere on the Conservative Benches there may be someone with some compassion for the children of our country but I doubt it.
The Secretary of State should go, and he should go now. He has wreaked havoc in the education system for long enough. He should not be allowed to do so for another year or 18 months. If the polls are right, I hope you lot go with him.
6.7 pm
Mr. David Madel: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has had a good blaze away at the Government and these Benches. I did not hear him say much about the teachers' pay dispute which has dominated the proceedings of the past 12 months, but I should like to say a few words about it.
I welcome the fact that ACAS, at long last, is involved in the dispute. Some of us advocated that ACAS should have been involved last June. At that time, ACAS was ready to intervene with a panel of experts to try to help. If the ACAS panel can steer a way out of the problems, ACAS must then become part of the future pay structure. That new approach will have to be institutionalised, because we cannot go back to the old Burnham system which led us to the present difficulties.
ACAS has said that, as well as the unions, individual teachers and groups of teachers can put their views to the panel. I hope the teachers will not simply rely on their union's point of view. The way is now clear for individual teachers—they said a lot to us as Back-Bench Conservatives about how their dispute should be solved—to put their views to the ACAS panel.
Management allowances should be built into the system of teachers' pay. This would pay them for non-teaching duties. The Government are keen to improve good practice on homework. The blunt truth is that, in many homes, it is impossible for children to do their homework—many should do their homework at school. That would inevitably require supervision and such management duties of teachers could be built into the pay which they would receive.
On 16 January 1986, in an article in The Times about management and improving quality, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State asked:
"'Does your firm positively encourage staff to go back to college to keep in front of the technologies".
The question that should be asked is, does a school positively encourage teachers to go into industry for a short time to find out more of what industry wants? If we could build into the system a policy whereby it is regular practice for teachers to have a sabbatical in industry it would be another way in which their pay could be improved.
With the fall in inflation, the way ought to be clear for ACAS to obtain a three-year deal on teachers' pay. We do not want an annual row. The present economic conditions

61
would enable us to move towards a three-year pay deal. The future of the education service desperately requires peace and stability in the teaching profession. I cannot think of any organisation better than ACAS to help steer the parties out of the present impasse.
The Government have a very useful legislative power in the Education (Grants and Awards) Act 1984 to strengthen the curriculum in specific subjects. I sometimes wish that the Government would draw more attention to the power that they have wisely taken. With the popularity of TVEI and with certain subjects becoming more popular, the Government may need to extend that power. There is an advantage in that for teachers, and they should seize it. Given the new specific subjects that are more popular, and the existing subjects, such as modern languages, that need to be strengthened, the extra money available through education support grants would have an implication for transfer of manpower. Teachers should not turn down that opportunity.
I share the hope of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the GCSE will start on schedule. With continuous assessment built into the new system and with the Government's correct emphasis on more practical work, there will be yet another opportunity for teachers. Numbers will have to increase to ensure that the GCSE functions properly. The practical side will also mean more staff. That, therefore, represents an opportunity for teachers, and carries with it expenditure implications that the Government are no doubt aware of. Incidentally, I commend the work of British School Technology in helping local education authorities to overcome staff shortages and to update their equipment and resources cost-effectively. It has been going only 18 months, but I am sure that the Government will continue to support that valuable work.
I turn to the partnership between Government, local education authorities and parents. Much is said about parental involvement but one must first have parental interest in what is going on. It should be the norm that the cost of running each school, with the salaries, books, equipment, heating, lighting and so on, is automatically made available to parents. They should not have to go and get the information. The local education authority should ensure that parents know exactly what is going on. The Government rightly say that they have done much through the Education Act 1980, and have given parents more choice. But that Act should be applied more enthusiastically. If it was, some schools would close because parents would vote with their feet. It still worries me that education authorities do not remind parents sufficiently strongly that under that Act there are choices and an appeal system. If parents were reminded more, some of the problems of falling rolls might be more easily overcome.
Parental interest will start to disappear if there are endless upheavals in the way that the education system is organised. We should have a firmer commitment to improving what we already have. Particular attention should be paid to the growing popularity of sixth-form colleges. That, of course, carries implications for school sixth forms. We must remember, too, the growing problem for schools of educating children when many more of them come from single-parent families. I cannot go into the detail now, but we all know the special problems that that brings.
The Government have pressed for higher standards and greater opportunities, and that carries with it expenditure
62
implications. It is not the other way round. Pressure for more spending comes because the very things that the Government believe in and are doing imply an inevitable increase in expenditure. For example, as standards in schools increase as the Government want, the expenditure implications for science subjects are inevitable. The Government rightly say that the unemployed should use the education service for retraining, but that carries a spending implication. The same is true of adult education.
In Saturday's edition of The Times I noticed two interesting statements. The first says:
"Ministers are expected to agree to give universities more money to prevent closures."
Many of us would heartily agree with that. The article continues:
"The Government is clearly worried about education spending. Mr. John MacGregor, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, told officials last week that education was now one of the top priorities for ministers and the Conservative Party. The clear implication is that it must not be cut further."
If the Government continue to get out of things that they should get out of—such as the gas, telephone and motor car industries—they will be free to concentrate on the very things that Governments do best, such as education.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been a good political friend to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the general Cabinet effort to keep state spending reasonable. But in 1986 there should be some reciprocity. Reciprocity from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be of great benefit to the education service.
6.16 pm
Mr. D. E. Thomas: The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) and I worked together during the last Parliament on the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, and I know of his commitment to education policy. I hope that the Government listened to his plea for the continuing centrality of public sector education provision. However, I have my doubts about that.
Those of us who have been involved in education and education policy were not surprised when the Minister of State took a text from the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). Those of us concerned with education policy were dismayed by that famous Ruskin speech. It was the beginning of the instrumentalist approach to education policy. It was the beginning of the narrowing of the curriculum base. It was the beginning of considering education in narrow economistic terms. It was the beginning of the end of the broad-based liberal, humanistic curriculum in our schools. Consequently, as happened so often under that Labour Government, the foundation stones of Thatcherism were laid. Indeed, some of the ideological bases of Thatcherism were laid down by that Government. I say that more in sorrow than in anger, looking at what has happened since.
In this short debate, it is essential to take account of the immediate issues facing us and of the industrial dispute going on in our schools. I hope to do that before the end of my remarks, but first I shall take up the Ruskin approach—if not the Ruskin content—of the Minister of State. We should question the Government's insistence on an employment-led curriculum. The Government argue that in a rapidly changing technological society we need a curriculum that enables pupils to adapt to it. But they also argue that the curriculum must be determined by

63
employers and by the needs of industry on a very short-term assessment of those needs. That is contradictory. Surely a relevant education for a rapidly changing society must be broad-based. The curriculum should emphasise not only the technical skills but the key social skills, as well as an understanding of the very complex nature of our society. That can be provided only through a broad-based curriculum in our schools and through continuing educational provision, for which we have already heard such a strong appeal.
That approach is very different from the reintroduction of the concept of the secondary modern school through MSC intervention in our schools and the TVEI programme, which apparently represent the Government's approach. An emphasis on enterprise culture might be welcomed. But such an emphasis must ensure that all kids understand it and understand that it is not something that involves de-skilling. Indeed, many of us fear that that will be the result of the Government's continuing intervention at the 14-plus level through the restoration of secondary modern education via the back door.
As we look at the Government's intervention we see the need to redress the balance to see relevance—again, one of the Government's key words—in terms of a social relevance, not in terms of blaming the education system for the failures of the British economy, as so many Government spokespersons seem to be doing. The idea that education is the cause of the failures of society is nothing new for those of us who have studied the sociology and history of education. Whenever there is social crisis, the education system is always attacked as the cause of—or at least for not being sufficiently active in solving—that particular crisis.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was a typical example of the castigating of education for the economic and social failures and crisis under his Government.
Mr. Chris Patten: Read it.
Mr. Thomas: I read it carefully and I have read analyses of it and I understand the role of the speech within the education policy of Labourism which was perpetrated by that right hon. Gentleman, and as the beginnings of the surrender of the Labour movement's education policy to Black Paper thinking. I hope that those days are over but there is a continuing argument over an education policy based upon notions of equality and broad curriculum, which we need to deploy. I know that the Minister does not like that because he wants to inherit the mantle of the Black Paperists but there are those of us in the House whose commitment to education is a commitment to a broad-based curriculum, not to an instrumental curriculum, who would accept many of the arguments about the need for an enterprise culture but who would regard that as being part of a broad-based curriculum, not a replacement for it.
In our education debates we need to reiterate the basic values of education policy which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) put over so forcibly. The approaches of the Schools Council and the "Practical Curriculum" document are still the most relevant—again, I know that is not acceptable to Conservative Members—with an emphasis upon the acquisition of knowledge, skills and practical abilities; the
64
development of qualities of mind, body, spirit, feeling and imagination; the appreciation of human achievement; the acquiring and understanding of social skills, values and beliefs; the preparation of pupils for adult life at home, at work, at leisure and at large as consumers and citizens; and finally, and most importantly, to develop a sense of self-respect and capacity to live as independent self-motivated adults and the ability to function as contributing members of co-operative groups. Those were the aims laid down in the "Practical Curriculum" and quoted in detail in the Warnock report. Those aims apply to the whole of our curriculum and should continue to apply. Those who seek to narrow the curriculum are de-skilling our pupils and narrowing their education and employment opportunities in later life.
When the captains of industry are asked what they need of education policy, that, in my experience, reveals at best an ill-informed approach and at worst a narrow view of the kind of people that they expect to come to them. There is a lack of understanding of the way in which a broad-based education curriculum can contribute to the training of the work force and the skilling of a broader society.
The Minister made the point that a fair and sensible deal for teachers was the key to resolving the present impasse in the education service. He must understand that what the teachers have been involved in, and the NUT in particular, has been an attempt to defend the professional integrity of teaching against the attack on it by the Government, not merely in their ideological attack on the curriculum, to which I have referred, but also in their attack on the professional integrity of teachers through the low pay, and their attack on the very notion of their ability as professionals, which is behind the assessment approach.
The assessment approach is not about good or bad teachers; it is about undermining the professionalism and independence of the teaching profession. So too is the Government's drive to centralise education. I remember well when I first came to the House the bleating from the shire counties against the abolition of the direct grant schools and the spreading of comprehensive education under the previous Labour Government. The policy of comprehensivisation was attacked by the shire counties because it was an intervention in local democracy; an interference with the rights of local authorities. Now we hear the Minister, in Cardiff of all places, making his famous "yob" speech in which he attacked the notion of a local education service and threatened local education authorities with a central state takeover. [HON MEMBERS: "Read it."] Of course I have read it. I read all his utterances avidly. That is typical of the Government's approach, as is their centralist assessment of teachers.
I want to express my anxiety, not just about the Government's approach to the exclusion of the NUT from the ACAS talks, but about the approach of the Labour-controlled authorities. Here again I am afraid that I must say that some of the Labourism which appeared in the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth at Ruskin still survives in some Labour-controlled education authorities. It is appalling that through possible collusion—I do not know through which channels—the Labour-led employers put pressure on ACAS to prevent the NUT from taking part in the current talks. Clearly, without the inclusion of that major trade union in the teaching profession there can be no settlement. That must be recognised by the Labour-controlled authorities, the

65
Government and ACAS. There must be open talks on an open agenda, including the NUT, if there is to be an end to the present dispute.
In reality the dispute continues. Many members of unions other than the NUT are equally alienated, although officially they are supposed to have resumed so-called normal duties, but the deal that ACAS offered in January did not change the low pay of the teaching profession. There was no attempt to bring about relative parity. As long as we have a level of pay that is inadequate given the emphasis we all place on education in our society, there will be no solution to the present dispute. There is more pressure on the teaching service now from all directions. There is more need for in-service training and the development of professional skills. Surely, at this time more than at any other, we need a recognition in the level of pay of the quality of service being provided for our society by teachers.
Therefore, I make a plea to the Labour-led authorities on the Burnham committee to ensure that the NUT is allowed to the table in the talks with ACAS.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As I understand it, the employers at a meeting today have made proposals for further talks with the NUT on that point.
Mr. Thomas: I am deeply pleased if that is the case and I hope that that reflects a change of heart on the part of the Labour-controlled education authorities.
The dispute that has brought about deep divisions within the teaching profession and the education service during the past one and a half years is a result of the attack on the education service by the Government. There has been a defence of that service by the teaching unions, and I want to pay tribute to the teachers who have defended it. They are defending not only their own professionalism, but the values of education and the sort of values that we need in our education service if we are to maintain a broad-based provision for future society.
6.30 pm
Mr. Alex Fletcher: This is the first occasion for some time that I have attended an education debate. There has been a clear contrast between the wholly unfounded accusations of the Opposition, especially the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), and the clear and precise answers and the resolution behind the Government's approach portrayed by my hon. Friend the Minister.
I fully support the amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Government are tackling the long-standing problems in our schools—the curricula, examinations, teacher training and motivation and methods of assessing the performance of teachers. The Minister and Conservative Members must repeat over and over again, to the country at large, the achievements of our Government in education.
I am tempted to talk about some of the achievements in our schools in Scotland, not least the introduction of the standard grade, which is not narrowing the syllabus or the examination possibilities but providing better choice for pupils in line with their ability. Every pupil in Scottish schools will, as part of a compulsory core curriculum, study arithmetic, English and science, and will be assessed according to his ability in each subject.
I wish today to talk especially about higher education and especially about student grants. I well understand the
66
Government's desire to bring the United Kingdom more into line with the systems in other countries. My generation depended almost entirely on parental support and part-time student jobs. Today, our grant system is one of the most generous in the world. However, the expectation of state financial support is also now at its highest in education, as it is in other areas. Most people expect grants to meet the full cost of university and college life. Others believe—and this constantly surprises me—that students should not have to find part-time jobs to make ends meet. With unemployment being so high, it is not difficult for students to claim that there are not many part-time jobs available. However, I believe that that depends on the area. For example, in Edinburgh there are many part-time jobs available for students.
Nevertheless, we cannot simply brush aside those high expectations or, indeed, the Government's obligations that many people, including Conservatives, believe we must continue to meet.
Because of the difficulties with student finance, I recently attended a meeting of the principals of the two universities and the various colleges in Edinburgh. The principals, whose opinions I greatly respect, earnestly believe that many of their students are suffering hardship. As a result of that meeting, I received a letter from the student accommodation service, which the principals had asked it to prepare, referring to student finances. There is not time for me to read much of it to the House, but one interesting part states:
"The Royal Bank of Scotland and the Bank of Scotland have indicated that up to 30 per cent. of their student account holders are overdrawn at any one time, and clearly with 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. being overdrawn at any one time the absolute number of students going into debt with the banks over the course of their university career is much greater."
The encouraging point is that many students are prepared to incur bank loans or overdrafts to enable them to meet their university obligations. But—and this is the view of the principals—other students, perhaps because of background or home life, do not have the capacity to take advantage of bank financing. The principals believe that the Government should provide a loan scheme to encourage those students, many of whom are suffering serious hardship, to top up their grants with loans.
The students are falling between two stools—the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Education and Science. I should like the DES to take on responsibility for all student finance with the DHSS coming out of the act. No matter how closely Departments work, true love departmentally in Whitehall is never so deep that the customers of the service are not likely to suffer to some extent as Departments quite naturally try to reduce their expenditure.
I plead with my right hon and hon. Friends to look again at student financing and to consider bringing forward a scheme, perhaps of mixed grants and loans, so that student finance can be put on a more sound footing than at present. I hope that we can look forward to the day when DHSS support will come out of the system altogether.
6.35 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: Before replying to the debate on behalf of the alliance, I wish to declare an interest as an adviser to the Association of University Teachers.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher) added a Scottish dimension to the debate.

67
Several of my Scottish hon. Friends have been present during the debate because, of course, the Secretary of State's baleful influence is not confined to England and Wales—it extends into Scotland both directly in relation to higher education and indirectly through the length of time that it took to reach a settlement in Scotland because of the pressures emanating from England and the attempts to hold off a settlement.
There have been a number of valuable and interesting contributions to the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) for his strong support of our criticisms. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is somewhat of a wolf in sheep's clothing—he purports to support the Government while all the time urging them to adopt more and more of the sort of Right-wing policies that in the past have been condemned by the Minister.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) made a characteristic and vigorous attack on the Government. I found it unusually difficult to find a point of disagreement with him. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) underlined the public expenditure needs of education, and made an appropriate reference to the need to spend the money wisely and sensibly. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas) spoke about the philosophical issues, and it would have been nice to have had more time to reflect upon them, but the debate has been, unfortunately, compressed.
A notable absence in the debate was a contribution from the Secretary of State, who has been present throughout. The right hon. Gentleman is never wanting in courtesy. It is extraordinary that he should have been silenced—I know not by whom. He has set aside time to be present at the debate, but has been stopped from saying anything in defence of himself. I cannot believe that that is his choice, as it would be too much out of character. He has been compelled to silence.
There was a wonderful picture in one of our newspapers showing the way in which he conducted himself during the last election. He attended election meetings, savouring the arguments as he always does, seizing the microphone and setting out among the audience asking them questions and engaging in debate. He was described as looking like a cross between Socrates and Des O'Connor. He would have relished that role today, but he now looks more like Diogenes with the barrel firmly nailed down as someone seeks to prevent him from playing any useful part in our proceedings.
Instead, today we had the contribution of the Minister of State who, interestingly, took as his text of the day not anything said by the Secretary of State but the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan). I think that he was a little frightened of taking anything from the Secretary of State as his text.
When the hon. Gentleman and I were co-operating on literary enterprises, especially the financially unprofitable ones, he said in a book about the Tory case:
"Education has been at the heart of the political and ideological debate in the last 15 or 20 years. There has been change and confusion, and there are many on the Left, and a few on the libertarian Right, who are keen to see another period of upheaval. This could not possibly be to the advantage of our education system."
68
There are no doubts about to whom he was referring, because he then spoke about
"those who are more representative of the Liberal than the Tory strain in modern Conservatism, like Sir Keith Joseph"
That is the type of posture that he has always cultivated.
At present, I think he sees himself hoping to emerge eventually as Secretary of State for Education rather as a sort of Juan Carlos when the generalissimo goes. Having been tutored under the former regime, he comes out with education as safe in his hands as democracy is in the hands of the estimable monarch, whom we look forward to greeting in this country later this week. But he will not be able to keep education safe in his hands. He is really rather like Baby Doc taking over from Papa Doc, already attaching himself, as he did in his Cardiff speech, to some of the more lunatic notions favoured on the Right of his own party, such as Crown schools and central control—the possibility of looking at what is wrong with the education system and taking over the parts that are not going well centrally.
One valuable group of the centrally provided part of the education system is Her Majesty's inspectors of education, but the Government have failed to respond to their steady criticisms of what under-financing is doing to key parts of the education system. I know of no evidence anywhere to suggest that the taking over by the Department of Education and Science of anything currently done by local government would result in any net benefit.
Since my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) concentrated on the schools issue, I will refer to higher education. A series of cuts in higher education began in 1981 when there was the famous trio of measures hitting Aston, Bradford and Salford. The cuts varied between 31 per cent. and 44 per cent. and hit at the very technological area of our higher education system which the Government had claimed to favour improving.
Universities generally have continued to face a 1½ per cent. cut per year in real terms in funding. The chairman of the University Grants Committee has pointed out that the cuts threaten the closure of three or four universities. I understand the trend of his argument. He does not want constant under-funding to result in a general lowering of standards; that is why the stark option of closure is raised. As the Secretary of State said about the proposals of the National Advisory Body, he may also say that in this case the statements are inaccurate—that they are rubbish. How else is the system to respond to the steady reduction in crucial funding? What has happened over recent years is that under-funding of the university sector has led to a slack in student numbers being taken up by the polytechnics, but at the price of a 25 per cent. worsening in the staff-student ratio and a 20 per cent. reduction in financing per student. The Council for National Academic Awards has warned that if this policy continues it will not be able to sustain at acceptable levels the quality of courses it evaluates.
Mr. Henderson rose—
Mr. Beith: I will not give way, as I am restricted in time and have given the Minister an undertaking of the time at which I shall sit down.
It is apparent from the NAB letter that two polytechnics will lose their engineering courses, with Wolverhampton losing all its courses and Sunderland losing its civil engineering course. Two polytechnics will lost their modern language programmes, an area in which we

69
desperately need a more systematically directed kind of teaching to meet the needs of exporting industries and other international areas. Several further education colleges will lose all their advanced work, and many mergers are being requested.
It is a very depressing picture, and at the same time an opportunity is being wasted. A 14 per cent. reduction in demand for higher education is predicted by 1996. An opportunity therefore existed to expand lifelong education and to widen the opportunity of people to get back into education through the higher education system, something which, I understand, industry very much wants. At the same time there has been the demoralising of university teachers, whose salaries are down by 24 per cent. from the 1979 level. The measures on overseas students have cut off from this country many students from the poorest countries who are most in need of our help.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) said in 1983 that he thought cuts affecting overseas students had gone too far, yet the situation has worsened. There is also the reduction in the real value of the grant for students. Travel allowances have been cut and the housing benefit and supplementary benefit have been reduced. In the present economic climate, no alternative is available to students to supplement their income, because jobs are simply not available.
The main charges against the Secretary of State are that he has failed to achieve even his own objectives, such as strengthening the numbers of good teachers and removing inadequate teachers from the system, and increasing the emphasis on technology and science. Other goals which the rest of us did not want but which the right hon. Gentleman wanted have also not been achieved, such as the loan system, except by the back door in that case by student overdrafts, a matter referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. There was also the case for increased parental contribution, on which the Secretary of State was defeated.
So he has not achieved his own objectives. He has failed to provide leadership. I often feel that he thinks he is or wishes he was the Chancellor. If the Chancellor does not impose sufficient cuts on his Budget, the right hon. Gentleman pleads for more cuts, rather than fighting for what the education system needs. He has entirely lost the confidence of all those involved in education, at the levels of higher education, further education, the schools, and the GCSE. The Government's amendment says that the Government are only beginning to address the issues involved, yet they have been in government for seven years.
One thing that can be said about the Secretary of State is that he has never been unwilling to recognise when he has been wrong. In one case, he even said that he had been something of a semi-Socialist because of his consent to levels of public expenditure. He admitted that he was wrong in the direction given on tower blocks and that scale of housing. He admitted that he was wrong over National Health Service reorganisation, when he produced the vast, cumbersome and undemocratic reorganisation that he has been dismantling ever since. It is now time that he admitted that he has been wrong on education. How long must we wait for this? How long must the education system linger under the difficulties that it now faces?
The right hon. Gentleman enjoys a great deal of respect and affection in this House, but it is for his qualities as a debater, polemicist and advancer of ideas, qualities that he
70
has not been allowed to demonstrate today. For those qualities, and not for qualities of leadership or for inspiring confidence in the education system, he is respected in this House. I do not seek to detract in any way from the respect in which he is held, but that is not respect for the special qualities presently required if our education system is to recover.
The hon. Member for Bath was very much out of touch with the real anger that exists about the present state of education. The Secretary of State must recognise that the system needs new confidence and leadership. It is a mark of wisdom to know when the time has come to hand over to someone else. I hope that the Secretary of State will show that wisdom and in the meantime I invite the House to reject the Government's complacent amendment and support our motion.
6.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said at the beginning of the debate, the Government welcome this short debate proposed by the alliance. Education is a major Government priority, and we are gratified to see the alliance following us on to this ground, as in so many other areas, albeit in a rather limping, wary and halting way. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), with his usual curious emphasis on materialism, accused my right hon. Friend of being a monetarist, but the hon. Member for Durham, North talks of nothing but money. Nothing illustrates so well the decline of interest by the Labour party in educational standards, as the Minister of State so rightly pointed out, as the speech of the hon. Member for Durham, North.
We then had the usual stuff about cuts in higher education, with no mention of the fact that the total number of people in higher education in this country is at a record high, with 80,000 more students now than when we came to office in 1979. No mention at all was made of the age participation index, yet no debate on this subject would be complete without such a reference. Both the API and the qualified participation index are at record levels; both have increased remarkably since the Government came to office. Not surprisingly, the hon. Member for Durham, North also tried to revive last week's dead hare about so-called cuts in polytechnics. We need say no more about that, because a similar hare was set running several months ago when it was said that there would be cuts of either 18,000 or 20,000—perhaps the exact figure does not matter. There are now to be cuts of 10,000. I make it clear that the Government have made no such proposals.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Walden: No, I shall not. I do not have enough time to allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
The National Advisory Body committee has not made any such recommendations to the Government.
Fortunately, as relief from all that, we had a typically incisive speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). My only complaint about his speech is that my hon. Friend failed to draw attention to the more entertaining aspects of the speech of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) in Stirling some time ago. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman referred to Professor Leibenstein, who

71
has developed something called an X-efficiency system. It seems to mean that higher education, as with other parts of education, should seek to do more with less. The right hon. Gentleman had to go as far as Minnesota and Arizona to find examples of that. I suggest that he examines the university and polytechnic system in Britain in the light of the Government's recent record. That system is managing to do much more with the same.
Mr. Mark Fisher: With fewer resources.
Mr. Walden: That is the only quibble that I have with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth.
I shall not dwell on the contribution of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). His was a voice from another age, and a rather rancid voice at that. There was all the stage talk about struggle, working people and the rest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel), in a typically thoughtful and constructive speech, talked about what he would like to see developed for homework and TVEI. I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget in his talk of teachers' management duties in respect of homework that there is a management duty on parents, which seems fundamental.
The thoughtful remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West on TVEI will be taken into account when we are considering extending the lessons of TVEI for all secondary schools. I noted his argument on the economics of education, which was vastly more sophisticated than any of those advanced by Opposition Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher) spoke about student grants in a reasoned contribution. He talked about the high expectations of students, and said that we should be encouraging realistic expectations rather than perpetuating the perhaps over-high expectations of the past. My hon. Friend quoted some evidence of hardship. I am always keen to see this evidence and I hope that he will write giving me the details. Everyone else is writing to me and there is no reason why my hon. Friend should not do so.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) rounded off the debate for the Liberal party. Having heard his summing up, I am not much wiser than I was at the beginning of the debate. The hon. Gentleman mentioned difficulties in respect of overseas students. I am sure that he has seen the recent figures, which make it clear that the fallback in the number of overseas students is being reversed in the most encouraging way. We are not engaged in a competitive debate on the value of having overseas students in Britain.
I shall make some general remarks about the state of education because much nonsense has been uttered during the debate. Unfortunately, we do not have time in these debates for a more considered discussion of the issues. Some of the latest nonsense concerns universities, and I wish to make the Government's position clear. I have read the speculative article to which some hon. Members have referred. Hon. Members will recall that, in its strategy document, the UGC said that there might be circumstances in which phasing out grant to a certain number of universities might be the least damaging way of solving
72
the problems of the university system. However, the UGC has not made any recommendations to that effect, let alone named individual institutions. The Government naturally keep the funding of universities under review. As is known, the UGC is currently studying how available funds should best be distributed.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Walden: No, I shall not. I do not have time to do so.
I assure the House that any questions affecting the future of universities will be given the closest possible attention by the Government in the light of all relevant circumstances.
Mr. Bennett rose—
Mr. Walden: I shall bring my remarks to an end with a few general observations on the education system. I hope that the whole House will recognise that education is in a state of creative ferment at all levels. It is natural that, at this historical moment, professors, teachers, students and sometimes, for reasons which Opposition Members will understand best of all, children can undergo a difficult period. Let us not forget that the opposite of ferment is stagnation and decline and that we cannot afford complacency in the education system any more than we can contemplate any continued complacency in our economy. In other words, we cannot have a country in which there are high expectations in welfare and low expectations in education.
Despite what some Opposition Members have said about standards, worry about low expectations recurs repeatedly in HMI reports, and that should worry all hon. Members of whatever party affiliation. As I am responsible more for higher education than for schools, I shall give the House some idea of how the problem might affect my sector of the education system.
British higher education is among the best in the world, but I am not sure that we can say the same for our schools, and that has not been said throughout the debate. The following question naturally arises: how long can British higher education remain the best in the world if we do not do something about education standards in our schools, which many Opposition Members as well as my hon. Friends must know are often inadequate? It seems that more regard and more praise should be given to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for initiating what will be seen in future as a historic series of reforms. There is a comprehensive policy of reform at every level of the education system.
Education must be made more relevant to business. At the same time it is most important that the humanities and the arts should continue to be valued in future as they have been in the past. I remind hon. Members that the Government's strategy to secure higher standards covers all subjects, whether they are arts or science subjects. It was put to me recently by an eminent member of a university that it is true that entry into a university science department can be usefully opened to arts graduates as well, so the point has added validity.
I wish to stress the coherence and thorough-going nature of the programme of reforms that has been initiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is designed to bring education closer to industry and to raise standards across the board. I contrast with that the

73
incoherence of the alliance's approach, which has been highlighted in the debate. The alliance wants access to higher education but at the same time it is busy closing grammar schools whenever it is able to do so. These schools would offer access to those most in need of it.
I invite the House to reject this rather shoddy and indecent motion.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 242.

Division No. 147]

[7 pm

AYES

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Hancock, Michael

Alton, David

Haynes, Frank

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Heffer, Eric S.

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Barnett, Guy

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Barron, Kevin

Howells, Geraint

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Hoyle, Douglas

Beith, A. J.

Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Bermingham, Gerald

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Bidwell, Sydney

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Blair, Anthony

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Boyes, Roland

Kennedy, Charles

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Kirkwood, Archy

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Leadbitter, Ted

Buchan, Norman

Leighton, Ronald

Caborn, Richard

Livsey, Richard

Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Campbell-Savours, Dale

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Cartwright, John

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Clarke, Thomas

McNamara, Kevin

Clay, Robert

McWilliam, John

Clelland, David Gordon

Madden, Max

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Marek, Dr John

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Corbett, Robin

Maynard, Miss Joan

Corbyn, Jeremy

Meacher, Michael

Craigen, J. M.

Meadowcroft, Michael

Crowther, Stan

Mikardo, Ian

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Cunningham, Dr John

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Dalyell, Tam

O'Brien, William

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

O'Neill, Martin

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Deakins, Eric

Park, George

Dixon, Donald

Patchett, Terry

Dobson, Frank

Pendry, Tom

Dormand, Jack

Pike, Peter

Douglas, Dick

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Dubs, Alfred

Prescott, John

Duffy, A. E. P.

Radice, Giles

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Randall, Stuart

Eadie, Alex

Raynsford, Nick

Eastham, Ken

Richardson, Ms Jo

Ewing, Harry

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Faulds, Andrew

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Robertson, George

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Rogers, Allan

Fisher, Mark

Rooker, J. W.

Flannery, Martin

Sedgemore, Brian

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Foster, Derek

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Foulkes, George

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

Freud, Clement

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Skinner, Dennis

Godman, Dr Norman

Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

Golding, John

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)

Gould, Bryan

Steel, Rt Hon David

Gourlay, Harry

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Stott, Roger

74

Straw, Jack

Weetch, Ken

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Wigley, Dafydd

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Winnick, David

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Tinn, James

Wainwright, R.

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wallace, James

Sir Russell Johnston and

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Mr. David Penhaligon.

Wareing, Robert

NOES

Adley, Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Aitken, Jonathan

Forman, Nigel

Alexander, Richard

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Amess, David

Freeman, Roger

Arnold, Tom

Fry, Peter

Ashby, David

Gale, Roger

Aspinwall, Jack

Galley, Roy

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Bellingham, Henry

Goodlad, Alastair

Best, Keith

Gorst, John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Gower, Sir Raymond

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Greenway, Harry

Blackburn, John

Gregory, Conal

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Griffiths, Sir Eldon

Bottomley, Peter

Grylls, Michael

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Harris, David

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Haselhurst, Alan

Bright, Graham

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Brinton, Tim

Hayes, J.

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Heddle, John

Browne, John

Henderson, Barry

Bruinvels, Peter

Hickmet, Richard

Bryan, Sir Paul

Hicks, Robert

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Buck, Sir Antony

Hind, Kenneth

Budgen, Nick

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Bulmer, Esmond

Holt, Richard

Burt, Alistair

Hordern, Sir Peter

Butcher, John

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Butterfill, John

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Jackson, Robert

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Cash, William

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Chapman, Sydney

Key, Robert

Chope, Christopher

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Churchill, W. S.

Knight, Greg (Derby N)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Knox, David

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Latham, Michael

Clegg, Sir Walter

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Cockeram, Eric

Lilley, Peter

Colvin, Michael

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Cranborne, Viscount

Lyell, Nicholas

Crouch, David

McCrindle, Robert

Currie, Mrs Edwina

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Dicks, Terry

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Dover, Den

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Dunn, Robert

Madel, David

Durant, Tony

Major, John

Dykes, Hugh

Malins, Humfrey

Eggar, Tim

Malone, Gerald

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Marlow, Antony

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Fallon, Michael

Mates, Michael

Farr, Sir John

Maude, Hon Francis

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Fletcher, Alexander

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

75

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Rathbone, Tim

Mellor, David

Renton, Tim

Merchant, Piers

Rhodes James, Robert

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Miscampbell, Norman

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Moate, Roger

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Monro, Sir Hector

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Roe, Mrs Marion

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Rowe, Andrew

Moynihan, Hon C.

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Mudd, David

Ryder, Richard

Neale, Gerrard

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Needham, Richard

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Nelson, Anthony

Sayeed, Jonathan

Neubert, Michael

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Newton, Tony

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Norris, Steven

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Onslow, Cranley

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Ottaway, Richard

Shersby, Michael

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Silvester, Fred

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Sims, Roger

Patten, J. (Oxf W & Abgdn)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Pattie, Geoffrey

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Pawsey, James

Speed, Keith

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Speller, Tony

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Spencer, Derek

Powell, William (Corby)

Squire, Robin

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Stanbrook, Ivor

Price, Sir David

Steen, Anthony

Proctor, K. Harvey

Stern, Michael

Raffan, Keith

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

76

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Sumberg, David

Walden, George

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Waller, Gary

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Walters, Dennis

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Watson, John

Temple-Morris, Peter

Watts, John

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Whitfield, John

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Whitney, Raymond

Thornton, Malcolm

Wolfson, Mark

Thurnham, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Woodcock, Michael

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Yeo, Tim

Tracey, Richard

Younger, Rt Hon George

Twinn, Dr Ian

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Tellers for the Noes:

Viggers, Peter

Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and

Waddington, David

Mr. Peter Lloyd.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the education policies being pursued by Her Majesty's Government, which are beginning to tackle the urgent need to raise and sustain educational standards at all levels of ability, to create a wider range of opportunities for young people, and to enable the educational system to make its full and proper contribution to national life.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [Lords]
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause

  BAN ON EXPORTS
  'No animals may be exported for the purposes of experimentation or related scientific procedures except with the specific approval of the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. Gale.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Roger Gale: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take New clause 2—Ban on imports—
  'No animals may be imported for the purpose of experimentation or related scientific procedures except with the approval of the Secretary of State.'.
  Mr. Gale: New clause 1 was tabled in my name. However, because of an error on the Amendment Paper it appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). He did not table this new clause and wishes that to be on record. The clause says that:
  "No animals may be exported for the purposes of experimentation or related scientific procedures except with the specific approval of the Secretary of State."
  It seeks to give animals exported for laboratory use the same or similar protections as those afforded under this excellent piece of legislation to animals that will in future be used in the United Kingdom until alternatives are found which obviate the necessity to use animals.
  The fundamental principles behind the Bill are that no unnecessary experiments of any kind should be carried out in the United Kingdom, good care should be taken of those animals which are used in laboratories for any purpose and, subject to the pain clause, any experimentation shall be terminated at a given point. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have said that, while we wish to see an end to animal experimentation, the majority of us, on both sides of the House, accept the reality that animals will be used in some experiments for the foreseeable future until alternatives are found through research. That being so, we have gone on to say that we believe that there is no morality in banning certain experiments simply to push them overseas where they will be carried out under less favourable conditions than in this country. To do that would not be an act of bravery, but an act of political cowardice.
  The Liberal and Social Democratic parties said in Committee that there have been certain experiments that they would like to obviate. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), who is in his place, made the same point on Second Reading. There was consensus throughout the Committee that, unless there are genuine alternatives, we would rather see experiments carried out in this country than anywhere else in the world simply because we believe that this legislation will afford the best possible protection for the foreseeable future. The legislation is flexible and it will, therefore, afford the best possible protection to the animals.
  78
  If there is no morality in seeking to push experimentation overseas by banning it here, the implication must be that we seek to offer the same protection to laboratory animals worldwide that we seek to offer in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I believe that to permit the export of animals where we have the power to prevent it—which may not be possible in every case—would be as immoral as driving the experimentation to other countries.
  There are those who would say that we should not permit the export of laboratory animals at all. We have control over the breeding laboratories in this country and we accept that animals have to be bred in those laboratories for use in this country. Why should we then permit the export of that product? If we are realistic, we must admit that there are certain cases in which, for the forseeable future, until alternatives become available, it will be necessary to permit the export of live animals. For example, there is the work overseas of the Medical Research Council—research into the effects of the tsetse fly and into river blindness and other tropical diseases. On occasion, that work requires the use of specially bred laboratory rats and mice. Are our own scientists working in the field in Africa to be placed at a disadvantage because we are unable or unwilling to allow them to use the animals that they would be able to use if they were carrying out the same research in the United Kingdom? I think not.
  There are also limited cases of parallel experimentation. A laboratory in France, for instance, may be carrying out research into disease in parallel with a university laboratory in this country. If the results of the two experiments are to be compatible, it may be necessary to use the same strain of animal. In that case, the animals must come from the same batch and the same laboratory. In those circumstances, there is again a clear case for permitting the export of animals.
  It is not only desirable but necessary that the Home Secretary should have the right and the power to control the export of animals. He should be able to require to see a project licence awarded by the committee, just as a project licence will have to be awarded in this country under the new legislation. Unless the Home Secretary is satisfied that the purposes for which the animals are to be used are reputable, and that they will be treated with satisfactory care on arrival, he should simply not grant an export licence.
  I had hoped that after I tabled my amendment the Government would table their own. I am acutely aware that that Back-Bench draftsmanship may leave something to be desired, and that what one seeks to achieve through a simple amendment may turn out to be legally impossible. Proposals made in the House sometimes conflict with international law. I hope that that is not so in this instance. If it is, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to make plain his support for the principle behind the amendment and his willingness, through additional regulations such as he has already framed in a number of other cases, to implement the spirit of the new clause, if not the letter.
  Mr. Michael Hancock: I echo the sentiments expressed by the hon Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), and hope that the Minister will accept the new clause. I am sure that he appreciates what the hon. Gentleman has said and what is expected of us by the people of this country. We hope that no animal will be

  79
  imported into, or exported from, this country to be used in an experiment which the Secretary of State is not satisfied will inflict no unnecessary pain. I hope that there will be no wholesale exportation and no loopholes in the legislation that might lead people to believe that money could be made out of the breeding of animals for export and experimentation. The sentiments in the new clauses should be universally accepted. I hope that the Minister will accept them and will make it clear in the Bill that the Secretary of State has control over both the import and the export of animals for experimentation. The new clauses have the support of the alliance.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: I strongly support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). Those who support the Bill and those who have reservations about it are in agreement about the breeding of animals and the licensing of premises from which animals for experimentation are acquired. If we control the breeding establishments used to produce animals used in experimentation, we must make sure that there are no loopholes whereby such animals can be imported from places where there are no licensing arrangements. Breeding establishments in this country can be controlled only if there is an effective control over the import of animals from elsewhere.
  All those who are not total anti-vivisectionists will agree that there is a necessity for a proper scientific trade in specific genetic strains to be sent especially for purposes of research into tropical diseases—to the Curie institute and other establishments. One of the major suppliers of such animals is Bantin and Kingman, a firm with a high reputation for producing extraordinarily carefully selected strains which are essential for research at the Curie institute and in many other places in Europe and elsewhere. The ability of that firm to supply the scientific world with research animals of the highest quality should not be impaired, but I do not believe for a moment that the Government's adherence to new clause 1 or new clause 2 would inhibit the proper trade in scientific research animals.
  There is one area about which I would be in doubt were it not for the new clauses. I ask the Minister to convince the House that, without the new clauses, there is any protection other than the Ministry of Agriculture regulations for animals in transit. The House has for many years sought to ensure that cattle, sheep, horses and other animals are adequately foddered and cared for when in transit across the Channel and into this country. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that, whether or not the new clauses are accepted, there is completely adequate control over the final destination of exported animals, the provenance of imported animals, and the conditions of transit.
  Hon. Members do not relish the trade in animals for experimentation. No one would wish a single rat, mouse or dog to be removed a thousand miles in order to be put to death in an experiment except under the most humane conditions. It is the deep desire of both sides of the House and the sentiment that lies behind new clauses 1 and 2 that imported and exported animals should be subject to the most rigorous control, whence they came, whither they go and how they are treated in transit. The Opposition are
  80
  suspicious of the Bill as it stands and will continue to be so unless such a guarantee of control can be built into the Bill.
  7.30 pm
  I have been thoroughly advised that when—as I hope—the Bill is enacted there may be a shortage of certain primates in this country for our breeding establishments. It may be necessary to curtail useful research into essential medical programmes in some important pharmaceutical and veterinary establishments as there may be a shortage of certain species of primates for such purposes. It may therefore be essential to import animals for that research to continue.
  In the realm of tropical medicine it may be that we have animals that could be exported for the benefit of mankind. These animals are important because of their genetic purity, which should not be interrupted and they could be exported to laboratories in other parts of the world. I do not believe that the general import-export licence system currently available is a sufficient safeguard. I therefore support new clause 1 and recommend it to the House. We require an additional safeguard and, unless the Minister can support such additional safeguards, I am reluctant to allow the Bill to proceed to Third Reading.
  I am satisfied that, although the import-export trade is not a major part of animal experimentation, it is one which gives significant cause for concern. We must be satisfied that it is not simply because of commercial interests—because a specific firm derives a certain percentage of its profits from such import-export trade—that we move these new clauses. We are moving the clauses because we believe that such trade should be closely regulated. Licensing should be under the ultimate control of the Secretary of State who should, as I have said, be able to control whither, whence and how animals are moved.
  The House should look carefully at the further progress of the Bill.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): This is an interesting topic and I appreciate the points that have been made from both sides of the House. It is especially interesting because, although, as the House will be aware, a tremendous amount of work ranging far beyond my Department went into the preparation of the Bill, it was not until a late stage in the Committee proceedings that some hon. Members expressed a desire to see the Bill directly applied to the control of the import and export of animals.
  That posed the Government difficulties as the normal procedures of consultation were not possible because of the time element involved. I hope that my comments tonight will offer reassurance on a range of points. I will make suggestions for further progress that I hope will be acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes).
  I cannot recommend the acceptance of either of the new clauses. However, I believe that I can meet the spirit of most of the points raised on these clauses. I would like to echo what the hon. Member for City of Durham said about the high standards of breeding establishments in Britain. Those high standards will be enhanced by one of the principal effects of the Bill which is to bring supplying establishments under control and fully integrated into the Bill.

  81
  It must be borne in mind, as the hon. Member for City of Durham implied, that the exportation of animals plays a significant part in the viability of some of the members of the Laboratory Animal Breeders Association from which we have received such helpful co-operation. It estimates that some 1 million animals—mainly rats and mice—are exported and that that earns some £2·5 million per annum. I mention that point to confirm that there is a considerable trade involved—and that is why it is proper that these points should have been raised tonight—and also to emphasise that it is crucial that there are breeding establishments which are capable of being regulated by the Secretary of State.
  No one would want to jeopardise the financial viability of these businesses. The only consequence of such action would be that one of the Bill's crucial pillars—the existence of breeding establishments which provide the overwhelming majority of animals used in British laboratories would be undermined and the regulation of such establishments would be impossible.
  There is one point about new clause 1 which I cannot answer satisfactorily. I hope, however, that I will be able to meet all the points raised on new clause 2. I believe that there are two main points in connection with new clause 1. Hon. Members were primarily concerned about the conditions under which animals are transported and the use to which animals are put when they arrive at their destination. There is already a considerable amount of legislation, in connection with the transport of animals. The Transit of Animals (General) Order 1973 is the main legislation, but I should also mention the Conveyance of Live Poultry Order 1973, the Transit of Animals (Road and Rail) Order 1975 and the Export of Animals (Protection) Order 1981. There are also two European Community directives on the subject—77/489 and 81/389. The first of those contains detailed requirements on all of the animals protected by the Bill. The latter amplifies these requirements for large farm animals and equidae which may be involved in the Bill but probably only to a limited degree. The hon. Member for City of Durham is an expert on such matters and knows more about this than I do.
  The regulations cover a multiplicity of details, including the feeding and watering of animals, loading and unloading and the design of accommodation. Over and above these statutory requirements, I understand that the exporting organisations make strenuous efforts to ensure that the animals which are destined for use in scientific or experimental work arrive in good condition. On that point, I believe that further information will inevitably be provided through the processes of the examination of breeding estalishments inherent in the Bill. It would be fitting, as part of imposing the controls under the Bill, that we give consideration to the adequacy of the orders presently governing the transportation of animals and specifically of small animals which form the bulk of exports. If there is a hiatus in the consideration of the redrafting of the rules, I should like, at an early stage, to consider the advice of the animal procedures committee.
  I stress that there is no question of a legislative opportunity to do that being lost if the Bill goes through unamended. Such proceedings could be carried out under an order-making power and that is relevant to the point about which the hon. Member for City of Durham sought assurances tonight.
  82
  I would like to face with the candour with which I have tried to debate the issue throughout the one difficulty which I cannot meet. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have a duty under the Act to satisfy himself that if animals are bound for the university of Cambridge—or indeed Oxford as I do not want to be pejorative about my old university—they are kept in the best conditions and are used only in the context of procedures that have been properly weighed and balanced under the Act and subject to a project licence that contains all the requirements of the Bill. If, however, they are being exported to the university of Paris or Brussels, with the best will in the world there is no way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can be satisfied as he would be in relation to an institution within the jurisdiction.
  I see no easy way around that problem beyond using the influence that we have to ensure that more countries ratify the Council of Europe convention and that there is more pressure within the European bodies for the detailed regulation of care and standards that we shall have set in process by the very act of passing this legislation in the United Kingdom. Once the animals leave our shores, it is very difficult for the Secretary of State realistically to exercise the kind of judgment that he can exercise in the United Kingdom. On transportation, however, I believe that what I have said today represents a considerable move in the direction that hon. Members wish.
  On new clause 2, I can give much more comprehensive undertakings. By virtue of the arrangements that we have carried into effect in the Bill, animals not purpose bred in a breeding establishment will either come to that establishment from elsewhere in the United Kingdom or from overseas or, under an exceptional procedure provided for in the Bill, in certain circumstances they will go direct to the registered place. I will deal with the latter point first as it is easiest to dispose of.
  For schedule 2 animals imported directly into a scientific procedure establishment, specific authority will be required through the project licence. Under clause 10(3) these animals must be obtained from a designated breeder or supplier unless the Secretary of State considers an exception to be justified and necessary for the purposes of the work in question. The more exotic animals are also covered by endangered species legislation. I am therefore satisfied that the provisions for specific authority in clause 10(3) will enable the Secretary of State not to grant permission if he is dissatisfied with the manner in which the animals are to be imported or has any doubt as to their provenance or quality or the way in which they have been handled.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: I presume that the Minister is referring to clause 10(3) (b) which states that the animal must be
  "bred at a designated breeding establishment or obtained from a designated supplying establishment."
  How do the Greeks designate establishments and what power has the Secretary of State over Greek breeding establishments?
  Mr. Mellor: I am sorry if I have not got the point across. I am dealing here only with the import of animals direct to a registered place, not to a breeding establishment. Schedule 2 animals must be obtained from a designated breeding establishment unless the Secretary of State is prepared to decree otherwise under the

  83
  conditions which amendment No. 9 will tighten up, so he will not grant permission if he is in any doubt about the manner in which the animals have been obtained or transported.
  When breeding establishments buy in animals, as from time to time they must, we can stop animals coming into those establishments if the conditions in which they are bred or transported adversely affect their welfare or if we think that they will be unsuitable for the research for which they are destined.
  The effect of what I have just said is that under the procedures for designating or approving establishments, if the Secretary of State is dissatisfied with regard to the provenance of animals or the manner in which arrangements have been made to import them—in the rare cases, as I suspect, in which the import of these animals is required—such dissatisfaction would be the basis for him to withhold consent for the premises to be registered under the Act. It would also be possible for the Secretary of State to make it a condition of permitting the premises to be registered that no animals are imported into the premises because information has come to him which leads him to think that he cannot be confident of the manner in which it is done.
  I believe, therefore, that the matters which are causing concern in relation to importation are dealt with under the existing arrangements and I give the undertaking that our powers will be so used.
  7.45 pm
  With regard to exportation, I believe that I can go a long way towards meeting the point in the manner that I have described. A principal reason why I cannot accept new clause 1 or new clause 2 is that, broadly stated as they are, I am advised that they would be in breach of Community law and liable subsequently to be struck down in the European Court. I should be reluctant to take that course when, due to the subtlety of the mechanism that we have applied elsewhere, I do not believe that we need to go that far.
  On that basis, I hope that hon. Members will not seek to press the new clauses.
  Mr. Gale: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I am reassured in part by what he has said, but as he was unable to offer reassurance on the other part of the issue it will not surprise him to know that I am not entirely reassured.
  Under clause 7(3), relating to the registration of breeding establishments, the Secretary of State has wide powers and can ask for very specific information. At the very least, I hope that my hon. Friend will now make plain for the record the extreme displeasure with which the Home Secretary would view any breeding establishment thought to be supplying laboratory animals for unsuitable purposes and that that might well be a consideration in the issue, renewal and revocation of licences.
  Mr. Mellor: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to say that that would be a material matter to be borne in mind by the Secretary of State when the issues are weighed up, as they must be, under the powers given by the House to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Gale: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

  APPLICATION TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
  'The provisions of this Act shall apply to projects, premises and personnel in the control of government departments'.
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Those who support the broad spectrum of the Bill and those who have grave reservations are aware that an area which causes some of the deepest public concern is that of experiments carried out under the direct control and auspices of Her Majesty's Government—the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the Ministry of Agriculture or whosoever it may be—and that unless the new clause is accepted an element of Crown immunity will inevitably be involved with this as with most legislation.
  I am fully aware that the long-established practice is that Government Departments, through good will, invite Government inspectors in at all times. I am satisfied, however, that the public would be more convinced of the Government's intentions concerning animal welfare if they set their own house in order and said, "We accept a legal responsibility not to do to any animal what we seek to prevent private laboratories doing."
  I cannot believe that the public will accept that controls which apply to private pharmaceutical, medical, university or research laboratories or to establishments used to train vets should not apply to the Government. Are we prepared to accept dual standards? If ever I had to debate a proposal concerning which there are dual standards, this is it. I regret that my colleagues are under a two-line Whip. This is a matter of conscience.
  We should not provide the Executive with a power which will be imposed differentially. It would be an obscenity of legislation to provide that laboratory animals at Porton Down should have less protection than animals at Cambridge university or the finest pharmaceutical laboratories. An enlightened legislature cannot want that. I accept, however, that current practice is that the Ministry of Defence, for example, allows inspectors in.
  I should like to draw attention to what the Minister said in Committee on 25 March. He said:
  "The Home Office is given the same access to Government establishments as to all other establishments. It would not expect Crown immunity to be invoked, if proceedings against any person working in those establishments were started."
  I accept without demur the good will and bona fides of the Minister and I find it difficult to conceive of a successor who would wish to renege on that. He continued:
  "It might be better if there were no Crown immunity, and if it were taken away by the Bill. I have no entitlement to agree to that. I am dealing with matters that are of significance to other Government Departments."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A: 25 March 1986, c. 617.]
  I do not ask the Minister to withdraw one jot or tittle.
  The current arrangements provide some protection but there is a lacuna, to say the least, in that a benefit to the public must be proven if an experiment is to receive a project licence. I am not satisfied that current arrangements take that into account. If the Ministry of Defence says that an experiment is in the interests of defence, the animals come second, but that parameter is missing from current arrangements. Nothing allows an external body to consider the public good and to balance that good against hurt to the animal.

  85
  The House is aware that a minority will find whatever is proposed unacceptable. There is little that we can do about that. I am trying to allay fears that it might not be thought that what is good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander. If the private sector is to be required to have project licences and the rest, it ill behoves the Government to say that they should not have to have such licences.
  New clause 3 would make relatively little difference to animal welfare in practice. I hate to put ideas into the Minister's mind, but I believe passionately that the Bill will be perceived to be flawed unless the new clause is added to it.
  Mr. Richard Livsey: New clause 3 plugs a massive loophole. Animal experimentation should not be given Crown immunity. Most people would not want the Government to be in such a privileged position. Experiments conducted at Porton Down, for example, should be done on the same basis as experiments elsewhere.
  I want to refer in particular to defence, warfare and wounding experiments. The Minister gave certain assurances in Committee about these matters, but the whole subject should be allowed to come out into the open. I hope that we live in an open and free society, not a closed one. We shall therefore support new clause 3 and hope that the Minister wil accept it.
  8 pm
  Mr. Mellor: Crown immunity is one of the oldest parts of the British constitution. It was even around when Lloyd George was responsible for our affairs, and I do not recall that Liberal Governments at that time objected to it. I do not resile from a word of what I said. For myself, I would sweep it away just like that, but I doubt whether that is the basis on which we should do so, given that this is an ad hoc argument on one aspect of a large subject.
  My concern is with the practicalities of the issue. In practical terms, Crown immunity makes not a jot or tittle's worth of difference to the practical enforcement of the law. It never has, and I assure the House that it certainly will not in any of our plans. I feel sure that successor Governments will feel precisely the same.
  As it happens, it was an interesting exercise for my officials to count the number of premises entitled to claim Crown immunity. We had to count them, because we never thought about it before. We apply the law to premises and do not think that some may be different from others simply because some can claim Crown immunity whereas others cannot. Indeed, I asked my officials to trawl through the records, and they discovered that there is not one instance of any establishment under any Government seeking to invoke Crown immunity.
  As much trouble has been taken to get the figures, I am sure that the House will be riveted by them. Of the 447 places registered with the Home Office under the 1876 Act, 124 would be entitled to claim Crown immunity—48 Government establishments, 20 public health laboratories and 56 NHS hospitals and associated research facilities. But none of them do, and I have had clear indications from colleagues since this matter was raised in Committee that no Department has it in mind to claim Crown immunity and that all Departments will abide by the power of the Home Office to inspect and direct what goes on in all these facilities, as is the case with the other 323 that cannot claim immunity.
  86
  Porton Down is subject to particularly rigorous scrutiny. The inspection of Porton Down is a personal responsibility of the chief inspector himself. In fact, there is only one apocalyptic reason for the maintenance of Crown immunity, and that is in relation to Porton Down and perhaps one or two other facilities. It is just conceivable in our wildest and most depressive moments that we can think of such an emergency in which work would have to be done that could not be fitted within the Bill and that the invocation of Crown immunity in those wholly exceptional and most unlikely circumstances could be envisaged. For that reason, I suspect that my colleagues are reluctant to contemplate the removal of Crown immunity.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I anticipate that the Minister is just about to sit down and that he will say that he accepts the new clause. Before he does so, will he say whether the Animal Procedures Committee will be able to see the details of the project licence from any of the premises that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned?
  Mr. Mellor: I hope that we shall be passing an amendment later which makes it clear that the Animal Procedures Committee will be self-regulating and can determine what work it wishes to do. The purpose of creating an independent Animal Procedures Committee is that if the committee as a whole wills a particular investigation, it should be able to look at any part of the regulations under the Bill.
  There may be a case for looking at Crown immunity across the board, but that is for others greater than myself to say. It is not for me to embark on this matter on an ad hoc basis. The real assurance to which the House is entitled—I hope that it has already got both barrels from me—is that the Bill will be enforced in respect of all registered places, whether they are run by the Government or anyone else, without fear or favour and without any exception between any of them on anything other than proper grounds set out in the Bill.
  It is for only one purely residual reason that I ask the House to do what even Lloyd George was content with—to retain Crown immunity. It would be exceptional if we sought to remove it tonight. On the basis of the assurances that have been received, I hope that, with their customary wisdom and moderation, the Opposition will not press the matter to a vote.
  Mr. Hancock: What the Minister has said leads us all to believe that he should accept the proposal to try to break the mould in relation to Crown immunity. We must start somewhere—why not with a Bill that will give us the first chance in more than 100 years to make any significant changes to animal welfare rights?
  An integral part is to remove any ambiguity between the private and public sectors in relation to experiments. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) made the point eloquently when he exposed the difference in public perception about what the Bill will achieve—a tightening up of the regulations on the one hand but cloak-and-dagger stuff from the Government on the other.
  More than 103,000 experiments—by far the largest number in the country—were carried out last year by various arms of the Government. The Minister referred to 124 establishments. I wonder how easy it will be for hon.

  87
  Members to get specific details of the experiments that are being carried out? Will there be a relish to answer specific questions?
  Sir Dudley Smith rose—
  Mr. Hancock: I am about to conclude, and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt have his chance to intervene.
  The removal of Crown immunity in this one area is a golden opportunity for the Government to show some real enlightenment over animal experiments. It is the one area above all else in which there is widespread public concern about the way in which experiments are conducted in the Ministry of Defence and Government establishments. It is the one area in which such experiments are not readily available to public scrutiny, and I doubt whether they will be in the future, despite the Minister's assurances.
  Sir Dudley Smith: I suppose that I had better declare my interest in being involved in the industries affected, just as I declared it on Second Reading and in Committee.
  To the best of my knowledge, over many years, the standards operating in Government establishments have been of the highest quality. There have been complaints from time to time, but I do not think that there have been complaints about Governments. I may be wrong, and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) looks surprised. Government establishments operate at the highest level. While I agree that Crown immunity is puzzling, it has operated for a long time. There appear to be good and adequate reasons for it. If we make an exception in this case, that will surely open up the possibility of changing Crown immunity in many other avenues of legislation. In those circumstances, we would be wise to take the Minister's advice.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am troubled by the debate, because I think that the time to have another look at Crown immunity is now with us. I accept the Minister's conclusion that it would be a distortion of legislation to address this major constitutional issue—which requires a lot of thought—solely on the basis of this Bill. However, I understand the points made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes).
  I wish to make a couple of logical points. I have never quite understood how the House can bring itself to trust a Secretary of State—as it must, and as it will do under the Bill—to ensure the welfare of laboratory animals, and say that it does not trust him to look after animals in those institutions for which he is specifically responsible. There is a logical fallacy in what is proposed. Either one trusts the Secretary of State to look after the animals and enforce the provisions of the Bill, or one does not.
  I listened carefully to my hon. Friend and found that his assurances went a long way. The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) does not seem to have listened to a word that the Minister said. I noted that the Animal Procedures Committee will be a powerful body, because my hon. Friend said that if it wishes to enter any of the Government experimental institutions it can do so. That is a precedent, because I do not know of a quango that has the power of access to military establishments. I am sure my hon. Friend was on sound ground when he gave the House that assurance. I have a lot of sympathy with the
  88
  views expressed and with the view of my hon. Friend about Crown immunity. The time has come for it to be examined, but this is not the occasion upon which to do that.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: I listened with great interest to the speech by the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) but I remain unconvinced. The arguments of the Under-Secretary and of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) come up against the difficulty that it is not the same Secretary of State. The Secretary of State for Defence may authorise a procedure and the Secretary of State for the Home Department may not query that without the say-so of the Secretary of State for Defence.
  Sir Eldon Griffiths: Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that, in law, "Secretary of State" is a collective term, and for the purposes of enforcement of the statute, one Secretary of State means all Secretaries of State.
  Mr. Hughes: I will gladly give way to the Minister if he wishes to assure the House of that.
  In law can the Secretary of State give permission for something that he has prohibited? That seems an extraordinary position, because, like Pooh-Bah, with one hat the Secretary of State can allow an experiment to take place at Porton Down and with another hat can turn a blind eye to it because with that hat he can apply Crown immunity. That is absurd. The Under-Secretary of State was almost intellectually limbo dancing, with the bar set rather low. He does not believe there is a case for maintaining Crown immunity in animal experiments, other than that it should be included in the more general rule. That does not apply to hospital kitchens. The Minister says it should be done seriatim but generally, yet within the last five days his own Government have introduced a Bill to remove Crown immunity from hospital kitchens. I see no reason why it should not be done on a general basis.
  Mr. Mellor: I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The provision about hospital kitchens was to deal with a specific point where it was thought that hospital prosecutions were not being brought because the prosecuting authorities believed that Crown immunity either could be or perhaps was invoked. I have not been properly briefed on this. I want the House to be clear. My basic defence is that I and all my predecessors have always been sure that the 1876 Act is applied in all registered places, whether Government or other establishments, where work is carried on. That will continue. The problem is not at all similar to the case that the DHSS has to contend with.
  Mr. Hughes: There is, where the nature of the problems produces differences. The Minister argued as a point of principle that Crown immunity should not be removed seriatim but should be done on a broad scale. The Bill published by the Government last week about the application of Crown immunity in the Health Service scuppered that argument. Out of 447 establishments, 124 are legally excluded from the provisions of this Bill. That is over a quarter of all establishments. Unless this clause is accepted, those establishments will be excluded. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for new clause 3.
  Question put, That the clauses be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 176.

  Division No. 148]

  [8.15 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

  Alton, David

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Barnett, Guy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Barron, Kevin

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Leighton, Ronald

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Livsey, Richard

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Bidwell, Sydney

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Boyes, Roland

  McNamara, Kevin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McTaggart, Robert

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  McWilliam, John

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Madden, Max

  Buchan, Norman

  Marek, Dr John

  Caborn, Richard

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Clarke, Thomas

  Mikardo, Ian

  Clay, Robert

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  O'Brien, William

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Corbett, Robin

  Park, George

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Patchett, Terry

  Dalyell, Tam

  Penhaligon, David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Pike, Peter

  Deakins, Eric

  Randall, Stuart

  Dixon, Donald

  Raynsford, Nick

  Dormand, Jack

  Redmond, Martin

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Eadie, Alex

  Robertson, George

  Eastham, Ken

  Rogers, Allan

  Ewing, Harry

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Faulds, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Fisher, Mark

  Skinner, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Foster, Derek

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Foulkes, George

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Tinn, James

  Golding, John

  Wainwright, R.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Wallace, James

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Hancock, Michael

  Wareing, Robert

  Haynes, Frank

  Weetch, Ken

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Home Robertson, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Howells, Geraint

  Mr. Ron Davies and

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Mr. Ray Powell.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Alexander, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Amess, David

  Brinton, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Arnold, Tom

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Ashby, David

  Browne, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Budgen, Nick

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Butcher, John

  Bellingham, Henry

  Butterfill, John

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Blackburn, John

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Cash, William

  Bottomley, Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Chope, Christopher

  90

  Churchill, W. S.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Colvin, Michael

  Pawsey, James

  Crouch, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Dicks, Terry

  Pollock, Alexander

  Dover, Den

  Portillo, Michael

  Dunn, Robert

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Durant, Tony

  Powley, John

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Price, Sir David

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Fallon, Michael

  Raffan, Keith

  Farr, Sir John

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Rathbone, Tim

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Forman, Nigel

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Freeman, Roger

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Fry, Peter

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Gale, Roger

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Rowe, Andrew

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Gow, Ian

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gregory, Conal

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Silvester, Fred

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Sims, Roger

  Hayes, J.

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Heddle, John

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Speed, Keith

  Hind, Kenneth

  Speller, Tony

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Spencer, Derek

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Squire, Robin

  Jackson, Robert

  Steen, Anthony

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Stern, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lang, Ian

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Latham, Michael

  Sumberg, David

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Lilley, Peter

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Lord, Michael

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Thornton, Malcolm

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Tracey, Richard

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Madel, David

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Major, John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Malins, Humfrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Marlow, Antony

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Walden, George

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Waller, Gary

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Warren, Kenneth

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Watson, John

  Mellor, David

  Watts, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Whitfield, John

  Moate, Roger

  Whitney, Raymond

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Wood, Timothy

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Woodcock, Michael

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Yeo, Tim

  Neale, Gerrard

  Needham, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Norris, Steven

  Mr. Gerld Malone.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

  PROTECTED ANIMALS
  Mr. Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, at end insert
  'and invertebrates of the phylum mollusca, class cephalopoda'.
  This group includes the octopus family. It is scientifically known as an intelligent group of animals that are experimented upon and that, perhaps, suffer from experimentation. The amendment is in line with the draft EEC directive.
  During the Committee proceedings the Minister said that he had an open mind on the subject. These animals have a complex nervous system. Apparently there is no objection by Ministers or officials in the Home Office to an amendment of this kind that covers these animals. The Minister said that he would seek more information on the matter. The amendment applies to octopi and to the giant squid that are used for neuro-physiological experiments. Therefore, I ask the Minister to consider including in the Bill this class of animals.
  Mr. Mellor: As I explained in Committee, if and when the Animal Procedures Committee advises me to do so, I shall consider the matter, but not before.
  Mr. Livsey: I accept what the Minister said, but when he has heard from the Animal Procedures Committee I hope that there will be a statement on the subject.
  Mr. Peter Fry: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the danger is that this sovereign Parliament that is supposed to be deciding what the law should be is deferring a number of decisions to an advisory committee? The hon. Gentleman moved this amendment in Committee, and some of my hon. Friends and I supported him. I am trying to support him again this evening. Does he accept that decisions on the details of the law are the responsibility not of an advisory committee but of this House?
  Mr. Livsey: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) has made a good point. I have listened to what the Minister has said and I have not got a closed mind on the matter. I hope more evidence will be forthcoming.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Mellor: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), may I say that we are in no sense asking the House to allow some advisory committee to take decisions for us. It is a difficult technical question. We do not know the capacity of the species to feel pain. With the greatest respect, a debate between my hon. Friend and myself about the matter would not be worthwhile as it would not be a well informed debate. There is no shame in the House admitting that we are not experts. We have made arrangements for experts to advise us.
  Successive Governments have done this and it started with the Littlewood committee. The present Government have twice asked the advisory committee to look at the point and both times it has answered in the negative. I do not think that I would be justified in throwing that advice back in the committee's face. For that reason I made it clear in Committee—I wish to amplify that in reply to my hon. Friend—that I remain of the view that when a specialist body, established by statute to consider these matters, offers positive advice—I suspect that this
  92
  would apply to anyone who comes after me—I would want to accept such advice. Until that time it would be prejudice on my part, one way or the other, if I decided on a whim that I did not think a case had been made out. There is no technical basis for saying that.
  Mr. Corbett: The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) is correct. The House is charged with the duty of making legislation but against that—I do not wish to trespass on later debates—we attach great store by the powers and the functions of the Animal Procedures Committee. The Minister and the Secretary of State have put together a body of people whom we all hope will be able to carry out well the functions which, under the Bill, will rest with them.
  I am not proposing that we duck out of this but it is right to avoid—we are prone to do this in the House sometimes—rushing headlong into a very technical area. We sympathise with the point being made, but I believe it would be right to leave this matter to the advice of the Animal Procedures Committee. In due course, if the Minister feels that the case has been made, one of the advantages of the Bill is that changes can be made by order. Such changes are subject to debate and decision in the House. In this case I believe that is the right way to proceed.
  Mr. Fry: In response to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), may I say that I am not attacking the advisory committee, or the excellent people who are its members. Perhaps, alas, there is insufficient definition in the Bill as to what the committee should be doing and what its powers are. I am in favour of giving people a fair degree of latitude but nevertheless the responsibility, the buck, stops here in the House and later it will stop with the Secretary of State.
  I am perturbed by a matter raised by the Minister in a letter to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) dated 18 April in which he said:
  "There is no doubt in my mind that some of the cephalopods are highly organised and behaviourally sophisticated creatures, but there has yet been no adequate demonstration of their capacity to experience pain or other forms of suffering, in the way that we understand these concepts in respect of vertebrates."
  I am making a plea on behalf of creatures about which we are insufficiently aware. It does seem very tenuous to justify any kind of experiment on the grounds that we do not know the pain that that particular creature will suffer. That point should be stressed during this debate.
  I sincerely hope that the advisory committee will look at this matter. I hope that one of the first things it will do will be to instigate proper research so that the answer to the question of how much pain the creature will suffer—a relevant question—is resolved as soon as possible.
  Sir Gerard Vaughan: Both the octopus and the squid have highly developed, complicated nervous systems. For that reason they are frequently studied, especially regarding problems of neurophysiology.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) was right to table the amendment. However, the Minister is equally right in saying that it is a technical problem which ought to be considered by the Animal Procedures Committee. The strength of the Bill lies in the committee, which will be independent scientifically to study these problems. The general view in the House is that we should avoid unnecessary experimentation.
  Mr. Livsey: I agree matter. As a result of what to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

  PERSONAL LICENCES
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 39, leave out 'qualifications' and insert
  `biological or other relevant qualifications and of the'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
  Mr. Mellor: This is the first of a series of Government amendments which deal with commitments and undertakings that I gave in Committee.
  The aim of the amendment is to put on the face of the Bill a clear suggestion that the most essentially relevant qualification for those who will hold personal licences is a scientific biological one. However, it makes it clear that other qualifications may be relevant and that we should be cautious of suggesting that there are two classes of people—those with biological qualifications and those with other qualifications—and that the latter group is in a lower position than the former.
  There would be difficulties if we sought to establish two orders of qualification. A person may have a qualification in biochemistry. However, a degree in biochemistry can be obtained without any contact with animals. Therefore, does the possession of that biological qualification make that person better qualified than someone without that so-called biological qualification?
  Those who discovered DNA did not have biological qualifications and nor did the Curies. We are concerned not with someone's specific qualifications but with their skills. The project licensing system does not consider qualifications which a number of people obtained 20 years ago. That is not greatly relevant in a judgment of their abilities. I am proud to be a BA honours graduate of Cambridge university. However, that is not the primary qualification on which I am judged as a Member of this House.
  Personal licensees are allowed to carry out only tasks for which they are deemed suitable and competent. The project licensing system ensures that only work which is approved may be carried out. That is why I hope that the House will accept that the clarification that I undertook to give is contained in amendment No. 3.
  The other amendments seek to go further than this debate, but perhaps I may be allowed a pre-emptive bite. They do not advance the difficult judgment that has to be made concerning the experience of the individual when it falls for him to be assessed.
  To try to establish classes of qualification based on the assumption that a biological qualification is either always necessary or somehow better than any other is invalid. Each question has to be tested against the individual's merit. We provide the system in project licensing where that can best be done.
  Mr. Fry: I think that we can dispose of this matter fairly quickly. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, in Committee some of us were troubled because certain experiments were carried out by people without any knowledge of biology, despite the fact that such
  94
  knowledge was necessary. We cited the example of physicists irradiating animals to death, and I know that my hon. Friend disapproves of that as much as I do.
  Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that, if some biological understanding is necessary, there should be supervision by a competent biologist? If he cannot put that on the face of the Bill, will he agree to include it in the Department's guidelines?
  Mr. Mellor: Under the personal licensing system no one will be licensed to carry out something that he cannot do. One of the prime ways of discovering whether he can do it is to see what qualifications he has. Under the project licensing system a range of people might need to work on a complicated project. The important thing is to ensure that where the project goes wider than the individual's speciality there is someone who can take an overview, who is appropriately qualified by virtue of his experience or paper qualifications, and who is entrusted with that work. It is key to the project licensing system that that sort of judgment should be made. There would be no purpose in having the system if we were not confident that that could be done. If it was not done, the whole system would be pointless.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

  PROJECT LICENCES
  Mr. Livsey: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, line 33 at end insert—
  `(3A) A project licence shall not be granted unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the possible use of non-animal techniques has been thoroughly considered and found not to be practicable.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
  No. 12, in page 4, line 34, at end insert—
  `(3A) A project licence shall not be granted unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the possible use of non-animal techniques has been thoroughly considered and found not to be practicable.'.
  No. 13, in page 4, line 38, at end insert
  `He shall consider also whether non-animal techniques can be used to reduce the number of animals used in the programme and what techniques can be used to reduce any animal suffering entailed in the programme.'.
  Government amendment No. 15.
  Mr. Livsey: The amendment seeks to ensure that non-animal techniques are thoroughly considered, and that they are included in the spirit of the Bill. The Minister has stated that under the project licence application system this will naturally be done. But he agreed with the spirit of the amendment in Committee, and said that he would table an amendment to that effect. He has done so in Government amendment No. 15.
  The amendments are stated in the Home Office guidelines, but it is felt that the matter is of such importance that it should be written into the Bill. The Government have continually stressed that that is the aim of the Bill, so why not include it? Some foreign laws contain similar provisions. I refer, for example, to the German animal welfare Act. The amendment would give animal welfarists much more legal power to ensure that the number of animal experiments is reduced. It would place

  95
  the burden on the researcher to prove that alternatives were not available, as opposed to relying on the Government inspectors.
  The amendment stresses commitment through pressure, and would help to prevent unnecessary animal experimentation when it was economically better than pursuing a non-animal alternative. This is particularly true in the case of rats. Many scientists feel that non-animal techniques sometimes provide better results, such as in tissue cultures. Ciba Geigy estimates that out of 3,000 chemical compound tests, only 20 show enough therapeutic activity and low enough toxicity, on the basis of animal tests, to be tested on human volunteers. Of those 20, only one ever becomes a prescription drug. That is a 5 per cent. success rate.
  That alone seems cause enough to pursue alternative methods. For example, we could consider computers to replace living animals. There seems to be tremendous scope for such work to be done. The problem with the Minister's amendment is that it places responsibility on the individual to ensure that he has given
  adequate consideration to the feasibility"
  of pursuing options not involving the use of "protected animals". First, what is adequate consideration? Secondly, and more importantly, how does one define "feasibility"? Does it mean that economically it is not feasible to pursue an alternative because a research project is not sufficiently funded?
  8.45 pm
  Sir Dudley Smith: I support the Government's amendment, which my hon. Friend the Minister promised us in Committee. It is very useful. The House and the public wish to move as quickly as possible towards experiments that do not involve the use of animals. I very much subscribe to that view. However, although I am not a scientist I am advised that the number of experiments that could be done without animals in some types of medical research is very limited. Work is going on to try to find a solution, and we hope that it will prove successful. One day—perhaps not in our time—there will be no need to use animals in experiments, but until that happy day we shall have to continue with such experiments in the interest of man's humanity to man.
  In case anyone has any dubiety about the use of animals by pharmaceutical companies I shall repeat what I said in Committee. My evidence, and that of many others, points to the fact that those who handle the animals do so very carefully and feelingly. They do not particularly like having to use animals for experiments. At the most basic level, it is quite expensive to use animals in experiments, and if cheaper ways of experimenting could be found it would be very useful.
  Unfortunately, some people do not want to understand what goes on, but others cannot understand what goes on. No one has his mind closed to the prospect of getting rid of animals in experimentation. However, in the interests of mankind, it would be dangerous not to have a fully-fledged system in operation that is at least as effective as the present system.
  Sir Gerard Vaughan: It is a sad fact that those working on the AIDS virus, which looks like causing such a terrible disease, tried desperately hard not to use
  96
  animals. They looked at all sorts of animals, but at present the only animals that the AIDS virus can be developed in is the monkey. Most of us do not want to see monkeys used, but there is no alternative.
  Sir Dudley Smith: My hon. Friend speaks with all the authority of a medically qualified man. I had heard that rumour, and am glad to have his confirmation.
  Opponents of the Bill may say that AIDS is a disease that man has inflicted on himself. However, that does not help the thousands of people who have it, are likely to get it, or who become infected with it in some unusual way, other than the ways that have been explained to us.
  Mankind would fail in its duty if it did not try to find a cure for that dreaded disease and did not carry out experiments with the object of conquering it. I shall not weary the House with a long list of dread diseases in years gone by. Many of us would have died in childhood if there had not been animal experimentation. But the advances of modern medicine have eliminated many of those diseases. That could not have been achieved without animal experimentation. The House and the public would do well to bear in mind the very relevant comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan).
  Mr. Corbett: One of the things that needs saying in this debate, perhaps not for the last time, is that it must be hoped that the Bill will set a climate which will cause those applying particularly for project licences to think twice or maybe three times about what they are proposing to do. Indeed, the only way in which the Bill can work, never mind the machinery which it puts in place, is if that is the starting point for the consideration, let alone the application, of those project licences.
  Everyone who has taken part in the debates on the Bill has argued that its ambition must be to try to ensure that fewer animals are used in fewer experiments. That has been one of the major criticisms of people outside who have said that nowhere does the Bill say that that should be one of its major aims.
  Clause 5 lays down the grounds on which experiments can be carried out, but nowhere in the Bill, except by inference, and in the guidance notes, does the Bill lay down that project licence applicants should be able to demonstrate that they have considered, and for reasons which they can demonstrate have said do not apply, non-animal alternatives to what they are proposing.
  The Minister will acknowledge and understand that there was strong pressure on Second Reading and in Committee for that to be written on the face of the Bill where it could be seen by everyone rather than tucked away in the notes of guidance which are not so easily available. Against that background, I am glad that the Government have responded to that pressure with amendment No. 15, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will welcome and support it.
  Mr. Fry: I thank my hon. Friend for amendment No. 15 which, as he appreciates, is in response to the amendment that I moved in Committee which was supported on both sides. I shall say no more on amendment No. 12, but I should like my hon. Friend to say a few words on amendment No. 13. He will note that that goes a little further than merely talking about alternatives. It goes into the question of whether techniques can be used

  97
  to reduce the number of animals used in a programme and also what techniques can be used to reduce any animal suffering.
  In Committee we had a short debate on what is known as refining projects and one reason for my tabling this amendment was to draw attention again to the need for those who are going to apply for licences to be aware that there are possibilities of refining experiments, about which they are not always aware. It is the obligation of the inspectorate, in particular, to draw to the attention of those who are applying for licences where such refined experiments can take place. I hope that my hon. Friend will note that point.
  Mr. Hancock: My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) questioned the words "feasibility" and "adequate consideration" in the Government amendment. Will the Minister dwell on those points and explore the possibilities? Does that mean that it may not be feasible in the time available to obtain the necessary components to create a non-animal alternative to the testing of an animal so that an animal is then used for the sake of convenience? May it not be feasible to obtain a computer result, which may be more accurate, because the researcher does not have access to such a computer? Could it be that adequate consideration may have been given to looking for one but that it could not be obtained because commercial expertise was jealously guarded by another manufacturer who carried out experiments of that nature? Has the Minister explored the possibilities of when his discretion will be used, bearing in mind the words "adequate consideration", the alternatives, the cost involved and so on? Those are important points.
  I appreciate that the Minister has gone some way to meeting the points raised in Committee and again this evening, but those two questions need to be answered.
  Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to most of those who have spoken for recognising that the Government's amendment is worth while. Certainly its aim is to put on the face of the Bill one of the crucial elements—but only one—in the judgment that has to be made about a project licence, and that is whether there is an alternative.
  In defence of the amendment I should say that it is slightly more radical than others because it specifies not non-animal alternatives, but alternatives that do not involve the use of protected animals. That means that, if using man is a viable alternative, a protected animal may not be used.
  Interestingly, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) neatly exposes the Morton's fork which one always faces in such arrangements. The great argument against putting a matter such as this on the face of the Bill is that, far from adding clarity, it reduces it because statutory words have to be weighed in a manner in which clear explanations in guidelines would not have to be weighed. That is one reason why I am all for rejecting putting things such as the pain condition in the statute. They are much better in guidelines, where the practical effect is the same.
  Self-praise is no recommendation, but there are few who have shown their devotion to alternatives more than I, so of course I am pleased to embrace the amendment. But the hon. Gentleman, having been one of those who asked for it, now asks what feasibility means. All I can say
  98
  is that the aim of the parliamentary draftsman has been to put into the Bill—I believe that he has succeeded—what we have always said we were setting out to do, and that is that no project licence should be granted if there is an alternative method that would involve the use of a non-sensate alternative or, in appropriate cases, animals that are not protected under the Bill, which might be man or invertebrates. I hope that that is what feasibility means. The Parliamentary draftsman assures me that it does and I hope that he is right. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South will, I hope, not mind me saying that he is more likely to be right than the hon. Gentleman on the evidence that we have had so far.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the words of caution about putting too many things on the face of the statute when we come to consider proposals to do more of that later. It is worth while asserting on the face of the Bill our commitment to alternatives, and that is what we are doing.
  The Government's amendment is framed so as to place the burden on the applicant to satisfy the Secretary of State. It is not for the Secretary of State to satisfy the applicant about anything. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Secretary of State that he should be granted a project licence. If the Secretary of State is not satisfied that, on the evidence presented by the applicant, he has made out a good case for the use of protected animals, that consent will be withheld.
  The reduction in the number of animals used and the reduction of suffering is at the heart of the Bill. The project licence will be geared to make judgments, first, about the type of animals that might be used. Obviously, if a rat can be used, no one will be given permission to use a primate, very much along the the lines described by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Sir G. Vaughan), a propos the work that he says is going on in AIDS. Secondly, permission will only be given to use the minimum number necessary and tremendous scope has been found to reduce the number of animals already in, for example, some toxicity tests where unnecessarily large batches were used; we shall not permit that.
  Currently, there is an upper limit on suffering—the pain clause—and everything is all right provided that it does not violate that pain clause. A major step forward in the Bill is the provision that, as part of the balance that must be struck between the purposes of the procedure and the severity of the procedure on the animal, only a limited number of procedures will be allowed to approach the old pain condition and the others will be scaled down to lower categories. That is just part of the Government's approach to this matter.
  9 pm
  I hope that hon. Members will not want to proceed with amendment No. 7, but will accept Government amendment No. 15. When an amendment is available that has been drafted by parliamentary counsel, it might be for the benefit of the House to accept it rather than the other amendment. I am grateful for the indication that that appears to be acceptable to the House.
  Mr. Livsey: Amendment No. 15 is a great improvement on the previous position and I accept the spirit in which it has been explained by the Minister. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 15, in page 4, line 38, at end insert—
  '(4A) The Secretary of State shall not grant a project licence unless he is satisfied that the applicant has given adequate consideration to the feasibility of achieving the purpose of the programme to be specified in the licence by means not involving the use of protected animals.'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 9

  CONSULTATION
  Mr. Fry: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 7, line 31, leave out from 'one' to end of line 34 and insert
  'or more of the insepctors appointed under this Act, who shall consult an independent assessor or assessors. The inspectors may, in addition, consult the Animal Procedures Committee established by this Act.'.
  This amendment has been tabled on behalf of the RSPCA and raises a very important issue. I do not think that anyone doubts the intentions of my hon. Friend the Minister or the efficiency of the Home Office inspectorate. However, there is concern in certain quarters, especially in view of the existing number of licences, that the inspectors will have a very heavy work load.
  In Committee, my hon. Friend said that several thousand licences already existed, and presumably they will have to be checked before they are renewed. One point that concerns both me and the RSPCA is whether there are sufficient inspectors, whether they can cover especially severe experiments and whether, even with all their wisdom and experience, they are always sufficiently experienced to deal with every kind of application.
  I ask that because research becomes ever more sophisticated. Some of us believe that the inspectorate needs a backstop—not that under the Bill they should be allowed to consult other inspectors, but that they should actually be encouraged to do so because the other inspectors, in turn, could consult an independent assessor or assessors.
  I strongly believe that, if the Bill is to be successful, it will require a great deal from the Home Office inspectors. They will have a real responsibility to ensure that the Bill achieves its main objective, which is to reduce animal pain and suffering. Therefore, they will require the maximum assistance.
  I accept that to ask the advisory committee to look at all the applications probably means that it will be bogged down in paper work. As we have already said, there are many matters for that body, and new thinking is a particular direction in which we hope it will move. I accept the Government's argument, both in another place and in Committee, that the advisory committee is not the body to be responsible in this instance. However, I believe that it could and should be consulted, and it is important that it is in a position to be consulted.
  In putting forward the amendment, the RSPCA suggested that the inspectorate, at an early opportunity after enactment of the Bill, should set up an expert panel spanning a broad range of disciplines, and including a statistician. It should be set up in consultation with the Animal Procedures Committee and be available for consultation on the possible refinement of project licence applications. Members of the panel should be consulted in a large proportion of cases, and on most of the cases involving substantial severity.
  100
  I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will clearly spell out the way in which he envisages the inspectorate being able to cope. I hope, too, that he will inform the House how he views the task of the inspectorate, especially in reviewing the very large number of existing licences and on the question of how future licences will be reviewed so that—I say this with all sincerity—because of the amount of work that the inspectorate will have and, perhaps, because of a lack of knowledge, there will be no suspicion of any rubber-stamping of future licence applications.
  Mr. Corbett: I know that the Minister will have spotted one important point relating to the amendment. It is true, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, that, increasingly, research is becoming more and more sophisticated and refined, and I welcome that. It is rather like looking at the situation as though it were a funnel. It is to be hoped that we are at the narrow end rather than the wide end. In other words, we expect research, where possible, to be more specifically targeted and precise.
  I mean to cast no reflection at all on the confidence or integrity of individual inspectors or the inspectorate as a whole. I know that an ambition of the enlarged inspectorate is to develop individual skills, but I point out that they will be busy men and, I hope, women. Having regard to what I have said about the refinement of research in the area—and I hope that the Minister can reassure us on this point—it may be expecting too much, in the case of some of the narrowly targeted project applications to which I have referred, that on every occasion inspectors will have the required knowledge.
  Common sense clearly dictates that, when an individual inspector does not have the knowledge, he should be entirely free to consult his colleagues. Occasionally, it could happen that among his colleagues a certain piece of specialised knowledge and experience is missing. Again, logically, I expect that there will be no let or hindrance in those circumstances to prevent an inspector—and the number of cases of this type are likely to be fewer than the fingers on one hand—from contacting recognised experts in the field and taking such advice as is offered. If that happens, it will be in the spirit of this amendment.
  Mr. Mellor: As always, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has been most helpful, and what he says is right. I point out to the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) that the measure contains a transitional arrangement so that over the years everyone with an existing licence will be brought within the framework of the legislation, and the project licensing system will become a twin pillar with the personal licensing system, which is the only one of the two systems that presently exists. We recognise that a greater strain will be imposed on the inspectorate, and that is why, as I have said, we are in the process of recruiting three more officers to increase the number from 15 to 18, with another three in the pipeline and possibly more, if required.
  Each officer has to be a doctor or veterinarian. It is hoped that, as well as being able, by virtue of their expertise, to deal with their own duties in a region, within the inspectorate, there will be individual expertise, so that inspectors might consult each other. It is important to create an atmosphere in which no one suggests that other links are in this chain because we are not confident about

  101
  one link, but that it is understood that they are all there to try to ensure that the sophisticated judgment that has to be made on each application can be made and that, however complicated the project might be, a proper and expert, not prejudiced, judgment can be made.
  That is why it has always been part of the conception of the Bill, as I have argued throughout, that, where there is any doubt or difficulty, we should be capable of referring matters to assessors who are themselves experts in particular fields. We also desire that the Animal Procedures Committee should have among its membership expert and qualified people who are able to join with their colleagues in ensuring that responsibilities are discharged properly and to do what the advisory committee already does, which is to consider for the Secretary of State especially difficult applications. We do not want the committee to be overburdened with difficult work. But at present it is there to do what the Secretary of State asks it to do. If the House accepts a later amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the new Animal Procedures Committee will determine what it should do. That will be a further safeguard.
  Most applications will be able to be dealt with by the inspectorate. The inspector will act alone, consult the deputy and chief inspectors, or consult the expert within the inspectorate. The inspector should feel that it is a sign of strength of the arrangements that when he needs an assessor he is able to refer to one, and not an admission of failure on his part. If the Animal Procedures Committee or anyone else were to feel that judgments were being made too often without assessors, it would be open to the APC or to others to come to that conclusion.
  I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingbrough not to pursue the argument that the inspector must consult an assessor on every application. We are anxious that resources should not be tied up in ensuring that the unnecessary is done. Many applications will be straightforward and an experienced inspector will be able to decide them himself. I suspect that only a minority will be of such complexity that the inspectors will need to go outside their own ranks. The spirit that we wish to engender is that inspectors will consult whenever they feel doubt, and that is the way that we approach the task.
  It may be of interest to the House to know that the scientific adviser to the RSPCA, who is a member of the advisory committee and who will be appointed to the APC, came to see me the other day. I said that part of the start of the relationship between the new APC and the inspectorate will be the establishment of an early meeting so that each body can get together to talk about these issues and how they should work together. These matters can best be dealt with in the spirit of co-operation rather than compulsion.
  This has been a useful and helpful debate and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough is sufficiently reassured not to pursue the amendment.
  Mr. Fry rose—
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us finish this debate.
  Mr. Fry: I have listened most carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister and I accept the assurances that he has given. The proof of what he has said, however, will not
  102
  be known until the Bill becomes an Act and has been in operation for some time. I am sure that Members of this place and of organisations such as the RSPCA will be watching carefully to ensure that what he has had to say comes into effect. I accept my hon. Friend's good intentions and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask the House to forgive me for inserting a point of order on a different subject, but it is one that calls for a statement this evening, on information that has come from the Fairford base in Gloucestershire. On 14 April, at column 579, I raised with the House the need last month for a statement to be made on what was happening in relation to Libya. At 11.15 pm that night I was telephoned by the same sources, which I am prepared to give to the authorities of the House, and told that they were greatly concerned that air tankers had taken off in most unusual circumstances from Fairford. That was last Monday, before the strike against Libya.
  The same sources have just telephoned to say that they believe that the United States Government this evening have announced that together with European allies, and possibly Canadians, a major exercise is being announced called Operation Elderforest. This involves 100 F111s and in-flight refuelling facilities taking part in an exercise in conjunction with American naval forces off the coast of Libya. This will involve the American carrier force. As last Monday's sources turned out to be too tragically accurate, this Monday may I ask, through the usual channels, whether it will be possible to have a Government statement on these sinister developments?
  Mr. Nicholas Soames: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard this evening on the six o'clock news that the United States Government had rightly announced that tomorrow a number of their fighter aircraft would be used in a major NATO exercise from this country. So that people would not be alarmed, following recent events, the United States Government had seen fit to announce that this exercise would take place. They did not want people near the bases to be disturbed by the takeoff of the aircraft.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for Crawley (Mr. Soames) realise that this is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to the usual channels. They are represented in the Chamber, and no doubt will have heard the hon. Member's comments.
  Mr. Dalyell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, we shall pursue the matter through the usual channels. Regardless of any announcement, I believe that the news from Fairford means that hon. Members should be able to have an input into these events rather than hold an inquest afterwards.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand what the hon. Member says, but this is not a matter for the Chair. My job is to ensure that we proceed with the business of the day, and we must now do so.

Clause 10

  CONDITIONS
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Fry: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 8, line 16, at end insert—
  '(b) the Secretary of State shall consider granting exceptions to this condition only in very limited circumstances. In all such cases he shall notify the Animal Procedures Committee.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 20.
  Mr. Fry: I am prepared to accept Government amendment No. 20 because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has done his best to honour the obligations he gave in Committee. This is an important matter. There is widespread concern, especially about the possible fate of cats and dogs that might be used in research establishments. Today, the Committee for Information on Animal Research rightly pointed out that the Bill insisted that dogs and cats must be bred at and obtained from a designated breeding establishment. It stated that there was no provision which made it an offence to supply rather than use animals which had not been purpose-bred. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will answer that point in speaking to Government amendment No. 20.
  Mr. Mellor: I shall deal with the last point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) in a later debate, because it does not arise in relation to Government amendment No. 20. I shall think about his point.
  Government amendment No. 20 is in response to the concern in Committee that appropriately rigorous conditions should be attached to the use of man's companion animals. I believe that this makes clear the limited extent to which exceptions are permitted in the use of animals from breeding establishments. I hope especially that it gives further weight to the clear prohibition on the face of the Bill and in arrangements made under it against the use of pets in laboratories.
  Mr. Fry: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 20, in page 8, line 21, at end insert
  'but no exception shall be made from the condition required by paragraph (a) above unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that no animal suitable for the purpose of the programme specified in the licence can be obtained in accordance with that condition.'—[Mr. Mellor.]
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 8, line 40, at end insert—
  '(5A) The conditions of a certificate issued under section 6 or 7 above shall include conditions requiring the holder of the certificate—

  (a) to secure that a person competent to kill animals in the manner specified by conditions imposed in accordance with subsection (5) above will be available to do so; and

  (b) to keep records as respects the source and disposal of and otherwise relating to the animals kept at the establishment for experimental or other scientific purposes or, as the case may be, bred or kept for breeding there or kept there for the purposes of being supplied for use in regulated procedures.'.

  This is a significant new amendment which relates to important issues which were debated in Committee. As the
  104
  House will see, there are two limbs to the new subsection (5A) to clause 10. The first deals with euthanasia and the second with rigorous record keeping.
  On the first matter, subsection (5) of clause 10 already requires establishments to use only approved methods when killing surplus animals or animals which have been bred at or bought for breeding or supplying establishments but not supplied for use in laboratories. The new requirement obliges the establishment to ensure that there is available a person competent to kill animals in the requisite manner—either using a method appropriate under schedule 1 or another method approved by the Secretary of State for use at the establishment concerned. Therefore, there is a tightening up.
  Finally, on the second matter—this relates to some of the discussions we had on new clause 2—it is plainly crucial that the representatives of the Secretary of State should have access to the clearest records that indicate where animals came from and where they have gone to. This amendment spells that out even more forcefully in the Bill. On that basis, I commend amendment No. 21 to the House.
  Sir Dudley Smith: I shall take only a few moments. I should like to support my hon. Friend on this amendment. Perhaps, at the same time, I can tell my hon. Friend the Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant), who is attending the Council of Europe in Strasbourg—where I should also be—knew that I would be here and I promised that I would endeavour to raise an issue for him.
  My hon. Friend tells me that the amendment just moved by the Minister, and the provisions of the Bill generally under this section, impose an extra financial burden on the teaching of mammalian physiology, which is essential in the training of doctors and veterinary surgeons, at St. Catherine's college in Cambridge, which is in his constituency. He tells me that that department may be forced to close as a result. Would my hon. Friend the Minister please bear this problem in mind, especially in any future negotiations with the Treasury, because it is important? It is a good example of a department which is doing its work excellently and carefully and which will fully respond to the provisions of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12

  RIGHT TO MAKE REPRESENTATIONS
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 9, line 31 after 'scientific', insert 'or other appropriate'.
  Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 23, in page 9, line 33 after 'scientific', insert 'or animal welfare'.
  Mr. Mellor: After some discussion in Committee, it was suggested that we should mention that there would be other appropriate qualifications. It was specified in the original amendment in Committee that animal welfare qualifications were the appropriate ones. The difficulty is one of definition, of knowing what animal welfare qualifications mean as a concept in the Bill. For that reason, having taken advice from draftsmen, "or other appropriate" is suggested. That would embrace animal welfare expertise as being of increasing significance, in

  105
  my judgment, in meeting the demands placed upon research establishments by the new statutory arrangements.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: I am grateful for what the Minister has said. Clearly, there was a difficulty that those with wholly proper animal welfare qualifications appeared, as the Bill was originally drafted, to be excluded. If the Minister can assure the House, as I believe his comments did, that the words "or other appropriate" mean people without university standard qualifications but with good experience and proper qualifications to do the job, I would not wish to proceed with our amendment and I would support the Government.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

  SUSPENSION IN CASES OF URGENCY
  Mr. Mark Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 10, line 6, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
  We discussed in Committee the curious position that, where the Secretary of State was satisfied of the urgent necessity that the welfare of a protected animal required a cessation order to be placed, he might, or could, or shall, or may, act. There was a lengthy discussion about semantics. I have just received over the grapevine some information which is not available to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall therefore simply move the amendment.
  Mr. Mellor: We had some fun in Committee because "may" sometimes means "may" but sometimes means "shall". "Shall" normally means "shall". On this occasion I am advised by the draftsman that "may" means "shall", but if "may" means "shall", it seems better to use the word "shall". I therefore accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

  RE-USE OF PROTECTED ANIMALS
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 10, line 28, leave out 'any' and insert 'a particular'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 28 and 29.
  Mr. Mellor: This is another semantic amendment, but it is a useful one. It is intended to deal with the difficulties caused in our discussions by the concept of
  "a series of regulated procedures for any purpose".
  Some people, including myself, have found the phrase difficult to interpret. I have been anxious for some clarification.
  Our difficulty in drafting the Bill has been that, in moving from the concept of an experiment to the concept of a regulated procedure, we have had to try to define a project of work that would normally have been termed an experiment. The phrase
  "a series of regulated procedures for any purpose"
  is aimed at that. Perhaps, however, it gives the impression of a series without end. That would be quite wrong. It is not what we intend. To remedy that, we propose to insert the words "a particular" in place of the word "any" in clauses 14 and 15, so that the phrase will read
  "a series of regulated procedures for a particular purpose",
  106
  tying it down to the one purpose for which a project licence is granted. I commend those minor but helpful amendments to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Corbett: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 10, line 30, at end insert
  `and (c) has been subjected to procedures involving substantial severity'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 27, in page 10, line 38, leave out from 'animal' to end of line 41.
  Mr. Corbett: The House will recall that, when we debated this matter in Committee, there was a narrow vote—9 to 7—in favour of amending the Bill to permit reuse. I am sure that the House is grateful for a chance to give a view on this important matter. It was the most substantial alteration made to the Bill in Committee, and one that I personally regret. I accept the argument on reuse where the animal is under general anaesthetic throughout the further procedures, and not allowed to recover consciousness.
  I wish that I had thought more clearly about this matter earlier. In my view, the whole clause is built on the wrong premise. It is not, in my view, the anaesthetic that is the vital point, but the severity of the initial procedure. Amendment No. 26 seeks to exclude animals experimented on at a considerable degree of severity. I believe that where that has happened it would be wrong to make an animal go through it all again.
  Every animal's suffering is its own. Those of us who reluctantly accept the present need for experiment believe that one substantially severe procedure under anaesthetic is enough. That animal should then be allowed to recover—as some do—or to die with as much dignity as has been left to it.
  One of the main arguments about re-use is that re-use under the terms of the Bill and under the qualifications in the guidance notes can save the lives of some animals. In other words, permitting re-use can stop even a single substantially severe procedure on animals that might otherwise be used. The supporters of that argument claim that about 5,000 animals a year—dogs, cats, and primates—might be saved; only "might be saved", because no one can be sure. With the rising cost of laboratory animals, some might argue that re-use may come down to a question of money.
  9.30 pm
  I can see the benefits of re-use especially for university research departments and, to a lesser extent, for some of the major commerical interests. I must say, however, that I do not believe that consideration of the costs of experiments in terms of the costs of the animals put through these procedures should be a consideration. It is not the proper responsibility of the House to put those concerns above the proper interests of the welfare of animals used in laboratories.
  This is a matter above all else of morality and ethics.
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Humbug.
  Mr. Corbett: The hon. and learned Member says, "Humbug." I am only sorry, if my memory serves me correctly, that the hon. Gentleman was not present for the

  107
  Second Reading debate or during the Committee stages. Now that he is present, I hope that he will pay the House the courtesy of listening.
  This is a matter of morality and ethics. I therefore conclude that the Standing Committee was wrong and the House should reverse the decision taken in Committee and come down in favour of the animals. Most of us find experiments abhorrent but acknowledge the need for them in the search for cures and treatment for diseases such as muscular dystrophy, senile dementia, AIDS or the ten or more most common forms of cancer. I believe that one contribution at a level of substantial severity by an animal is sufficient. I will therefore vote for the amendment in the Lobby tonight.
  Mr. Gale: We covered this ground carefully during the Committee stages of the Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) knows that I respect his concern for the welfare of animals. He in turn, I believe, respects my concern. This is the one issue above all others upon which the Committee was divided across party lines. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, he took no side whatsoever in the Division on this matter in Committee, and that was a rare thing for him to do. The hon. Member for Erdington will recall that it was his hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) who originally moved the amendment.
  In the Standing Committee I quoted from my speech on Second Reading:
  "Mobilisation said, in its literature following the publication of the supplementary White Paper: 'After strong representation from animal rights groups the Government now proposes to forbid the re-use of animals … however, the issue of re-use may well re-surface because of strong pro-vivisection interests'."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 March 1986; c. 194.]
  As it did in Committee, so again. The issue has not resurfaced because of strong pro-vivisection interests; it has resurfaced in the interests of animal welfare. The hon. Member for Erdington and I are faced with the dilemma of deciding whether in our opinion—and this is in no way a party political issue—the permission by the Secretary of State under specified circumstances for the reuse of some animals will obviate the use of others. It is the considered opinion of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments—the all-party group which I have the privilege to chair—that that will be the case.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned 5,000 animals. I do not think that any of us would claim that as many as that are likely to be saved if the clause remains as drafted. I suggest, however, that if, by the re-use of fully anaesthetised animals, the life of one animal can be saved, we shall have achieved yet again what we seek to achieve throughout the Bill—first the diminution and then the total elimination of animal experimentation. If the matter is to be pressed to a Division, I strongly urge the House to accept the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Kilbride in Committee and to leave the clause as it now stands.
  Mr. Fry: We discussed this in great detail in Committee. I made this point then and I make it again today. If clause 14 were taken in isolation, I would entirely agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington
  108
  (Mr. Corbett) and join him in the Lobby, but we must look at the Bill in its entirety. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider clause 15, which provides:
  "Where a protected animal—

  (a) has been subjected to a series of regulated procedures for any purpose; and

  (b) at the conclusion of the series is suffering or likely to suffer adverse effects,

  the person who applied those procedures, or the last of them. shall cause the animal to be immediately killed".
  Either that means that any animal suffering severely is to be put down at the end of the procedures or it does not. As I understand it, it means that the animal will be killed. Therefore, although I agree with the sentiments of the hon. Gentleman, I believe that his amendment is unnecessary because his worries are taken care of by clause 15. I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of wasting the time of the House because this is an important issue, but I put that point to him in the hope that he will feel a little happier about the views of those of us who do not agree with him on the amendment.
  Sir Dudley Smith: As was recognised in Committee, this is understandably an emotional subject, especially for people outside, and there is abhorrence at the idea of animals being brought back and subjected to what would almost certainly be a kind of torture, but we must look at the matter with a certain amount of scientific clarity to determine whether we have got it right.
  The European convention, which we have signed, allows further experiments to take place on the same animal provided that it is subject to general anaesthesia throughout, from which it is not allowed to recover. Any animal anaesthetised for a procedure which is terminal, which means that it is to die, will not experience any suffering or distress.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), I feel that it is more humane to reduce the number of animals used through this limited provision for re-use than to continue using more and more animals—provided that there is the very strong stipulation that the animal is fully anaesthetised and experiences no suffering whatever. I appreciate that this is repulsive to many people and it is unpalatable to those of us who are concerned with these matters, but it seems to me to be a contribution of sorts to reducing the number of animals used in experiments—with the guarantee that the animal concerned will not suffer as a result of future and unrelated procedures.
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I have considerable sympathy with the amendment and with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), I hope that the elimination of the use of animals for experimental purposes is gradually approaching. It is certainly a goal for which all humane people should aim. I wonder whether it is legitmate to argue that, by permitting the re-use of animals, we are preventing the use of more animals, as has been suggested. I wonder how many animals would be saved from first use if re-use were permitted.
  Sir Dudley Smith: The number is small and nobody would suggest otherwise, but it is a contribution in the right direction.
  Mr. Greenway: There is something to be said for my hon. Friend's argument. It is a fine ethical and humane

  109
  point that, if an animal has been subjected to major experimentation once, it should be allowed to go free. I rather go along with that view. I wonder how reasonable it is to use an animal, bring it back to full vigour and then use it again. That seems somewhat deplorable.
  Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend suggests that an animal, once used, should be allowed to go free. I am sorry that he was not present when we discussed this matter extremely carefully in Committee. There is no question of the animals being allowed to go free. Beagles, for example, might be allowed to be found domestic homes, but there are far too many cats and dogs being put down each day in the Battersea home for there to be any reasonable prospect of these animals being set free.
  Mr. Greenway: There might be times when animals can be released into their natural habitat or into domestic use, but I was speaking figuratively. Repeated use of an animal for experiments will diminish its resilience, however well it is brought back to health. I am not happy about that. I have considerable sympathy with the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Erdington.
  Mr. Livsey: It should be enough for an animal to be subjected to substantial severity once. It is undesirable that it should be used again. Amendment No. 26 is extremely humane. Animals that have been subjected to substantial pain should not be allowed to endure more suffering.
  Mr. Mellor: I am grateful to those who have spoken. I shall try to emulate their brevity as this matter was considered fully in one of the most absorbing Committee debates in which I have been privileged to take part.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) understands that there is a technical flaw in amendment No 26, which means that he will not pursue it. We are really discussing amendment No. 27, which is the proposal to return the Bill to the state in which it came from the Lords by taking out the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Miller).
  This is not a party issue. Indeed, a most interesting pattern of voting was established in Committee. I abstained for the perfectly honourable reason that I could see both sides of the argument, having held both views during the previous few months. I originally took the view, and the White Paper proposed, that there were significant savings to be made, especially among animals about which we are most troubled—man's companions, cats, dogs and primates—if, under careful arrangements and with proper safeguards, we permitted re-use. It seemed arbitrary that re-use was not permitted. It seemed that the only consequence of the ban on re-use when an animal had been under a general anaesthetic was that more cats, dogs and monkeys would have to be used. None of us want that and that is why the White Paper recommended a change in the law.
  A barrage of complaints were received about that view. The Government's views were travestied by one or two campaigning organisations which suggested that we were anxious to remove protections, whereas our only wish was to minimise the number of animals being used humanely in experiments. It therefore seemed to me to be wrong that this proposal—significant though it was—should put into jeopardy the credibility of a Bill of such significance as the one that we are now discussing. For that reason, this proposal was not pursued in the second White Paper or in
  110
  the Bill as published, and, despite considerable reservations expressed by a number of members of the other place, that was the basis on which the Bill arrived in this House.
  9.45 pm
  We had a debate in Committee and strong feelings were expressed based on a most cogent set of arguments advanced by FRAME. It posed the dilemma that the Bill unamended would make it possible for two healthy dogs to be given terminal anaesthesia in the same laboratory on the same day, the first because it had been previously used in a procedure that had required anaesthesia, and the second only for the reason that it would be illegal to carry out an experiment on the first dog in the interval between loss of consciousness and death. As a result, two dogs would die when only one need have done so. That argument carried the day in Committee, and that is the argument that is now being put to the House.
  I thought it appropriate to play no part in the vote in Committee for the reasons that I have explained. But I believe that the Committee took a clear decision after careful debate. I see the force of the reasons why the Committee took that decision, and I commend that decision to the House, although I shall understand if other hon. Members feel the other way.
  The key to the determination of the House might lie in the last matter that I wish to raise. Much will turn on the basis on which the rules are laid down as to when re-use is needed. Everyone on whichever side of the argument agrees that re-use must be permitted only under very stringent conditions. Even if the stringency of those conditions means that re-use is prohibited in some cases, that must be right because the concept of pin cushion mice or rats that have bits chopped off them day after day is unappealing. Although that lies in the realm of satire, we must be absolutely certain that it does not take place.
  I bound myself in Committee to be sure that the Secretary of State would prepare rigorous guidelines for re-use. Those guidelines are now being finally determined. When they are, they will be put to the Animal Procedures Committee for its advice and they will then be put to the House and be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
  It might assist the House if I read out the guidelines as presently drafted so that those who are concerned about this matter might see just how carefully and cautiously the Secretary of State proposes to exercise the discretion that the Committee has given him. The draft guidelines state:
  "The Home Secretary's consent is required before anybody can use again for a different purpose an animal which has previously been used in a series of procedures for some other purpose and during that series has been given a general anaesthetic from which it has been allowed to recover consciousness. The animal must not, at the end of the first series of procedures, be suffering or likely to suffer adverse effects. If re-use is permitted, the animal must be under general anaesthesia throughout the further procedures and not allowed to recover consciousness. All the subsequent procedures must be performed under general anaesthesia. Preparatory procedures, under local anaesthesia or without anaesthetic, are not allowed. A project licence applicant or project licence holder who wishes to apply for consent to the re-use of an animal in these circumstances should apply to the inspector. The inspector will consider all the factors that appear to him relevant before deciding whether or not to recommend to the Home Secretary that the application should be allowed.
  Any re-use will be permitted only if the animal has not suffered severe or lasting harm and is in a good state of general health, as certified by a veterinary surgeon.

  111
  Avoidance of the use of further animals will be the sole criterion for permitting such re-use, and economic grounds or the convenience of licensees will not be allowable reasons.
  The Home Secretary will not allow any animal to be kept for an excessive time (normally more than 48 hours) between first and terminal use.
  Although permission may sometimes exceptionally be given for an animal to be moved from one scientific procedure establishment to another for re-use under terminal anaesthesia, under no circumstances would any such animal ever be allowed to be returned to a supplying establishment for re-distribution or re-sale."
  I hope that it has been helpful for the House to hear how seriously the Home Secretary takes the balanced judgment arrived at in Committee. On that basis, I hope that the House will feel able to keep faith with the decision of the Committee. On whatever side of the question hon. Members decide, I hope that they will understand that, although this is a narrow but significant point, the highest standards of welfare will be applied in operating this section of the Bill just as they will be applied in operating all other sections.
  Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he dealt with this matter, although he will acknowledge that I am disappointed about his conclusions, especially in view of the narrow vote in Committee. It is unfortunate that we have neither more time nor more hon. Members wishing to debate what is for all hon. Members present and for many people outside the House a substantial issue. I understand and accept what the Minister read from the notes of guidance. To some extent, those notes meet some of our anxieties.
  No hon. Member who has spoken in this short debate has claimed that the saving of animal life will be anything but small. That is the best guess that any hon. Member can make on either side of the argument. That is why I said, when I moved the amendment, that for me, and perhaps for other hon. Members, this essentially comes down to a moral and ethical judgment. It is not a matter of the anaesthetic and the fact that the animal does not recover from it. When an animal has been deeply anaesthetic and has gone through an experiment at a substantial level, what else do we have a right to expect that animal to do? In a nutshell, that is the reason why I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to go into the Lobbies and vote for amendment No. 27.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed, No. 27 in page 10, line 38, leave out from 'animal' to end of line 41.—[Mr. Corbett.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 109, Noes 188.

  Division No. 149]

  [9.53 pm

  AYES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Alton, David

  Buchan, Norman

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Caborn, Richard

  Barnett, Guy

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Clarke, Thomas

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clay, Robert

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clelland, David Gordon

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)

  Boyes, Roland

  Corbett, Robin

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  112

  Dalyell, Tam

  McNamara, Kevin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Deakins, Eric

  McWilliam, John

  Dixon, Donald

  Madden, Max

  Dobson, Frank

  Marek, Dr John

  Dormand, Jack

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Eadie, Alex

  Mikardo, Ian

  Eastham, Ken

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Ewing, Harry

  O'Brien, William

  Faulds, Andrew

  O'Neill, Martin

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Park, George

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Patchett, Terry

  Fisher, Mark

  Pike, Peter

  Flannery, Martin

  Randall, Stuart

  Foster, Derek

  Raynsford, Nick

  Foulkes, George

  Redmond, Martin

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Freud, Clement

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Robertson, George

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Rogers, Allan

  Golding, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Gourlay, Harry

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Hancock, Michael

  Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Skinner, Dennis

  Haynes, Frank

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Home Robertson, John

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Howells, Geraint

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

  Tinn, James

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Wallace, James

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Wareing, Robert

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Weetch, Ken

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Leighton, Ronald

  Livsey, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Mr. Ray Powell and

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Mr. Ron Davies.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Churchill, W. S.

  Alexander, Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Amess, David

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Ancram, Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Arnold, Tom

  Colvin, Michael

  Ashby, David

  Crouch, David

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Dicks, Terry

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Dover, Den

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Dunn, Robert

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Durant, Tony

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Eggar, Tim

  Bellingham, Henry

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Blackburn, John

  Fallon, Michael

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Farr, Sir John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Forman, Nigel

  Bright, Graham

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Brinton, Tim

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Freeman, Roger

  Browne, John

  Fry, Peter

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Gale, Roger

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Budgen, Nick

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Gow, Ian

  Burt, Alistair

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Butcher, John

  Gregory, Conal

  Butterfill, John

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Cash, William

  Hayes, J.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney

  Chope, Christopher

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  113

  Heddle, John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Hind, Kenneth

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Holt, Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Jackson, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Key, Robert

  Rowe, Andrew

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lang, Ian

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Latham, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Silvester, Fred

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Sims, Roger

  Lord, Michael

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Speed, Keith

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Speller, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Spencer, Derek

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Squire, Robin

  Madel, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Major, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stern, Michael

  Marlow, Antony

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Sumberg, David

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mellor, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Moate, Roger

  Thurnham, Peter

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Tracey, Richard

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Neale, Gerrard

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Needham, Richard

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Newton, Tony

  Viggers, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wainwright, R.

  Norris, Steven

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Onslow, Cranley

  Walden, George

  Ottaway, Richard

  Waller, Gary

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Watson, John

  Pawsey, James

  Watts, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Whitfield, John

  Pollock, Alexander

  Whitney, Raymond

  Portillo, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Powley, John

  Wood, Timothy

  Price, Sir David

  Yeo, Tim

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Raffan, Keith

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Rathbone, Tim

  Mr. Gerald Malone.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [Lords], the Statute Law Repeals Bill [Lords] and the Ways and Means Motion may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
  10.6 pm
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may know that about an hour ago I raised on a point of order the need for a Government statement on an exercise involving tanker aircraft and F-111s. After the most
  114
  constructive discussions that I have had with the Opposition Chief Whip and the shadow defence spokesman, am I to assume that the Government are not volunteering any statement tonight? Is that the position?
  Mr. Speaker: I have no knowledge of a Government statement or of the incident that the hon. Gentleman has referred to.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
Clause 14
  RE-USE OF PROTECTED ANIMALS
  Amendment made: No. 28, in page 11, line 3, leave out `any' and insert 'a particular'.—[Mr. Mellor]
Clause 15

  KILLING ANIMALS AT CONCLUSION OF REGULATED PROCEDURES
  Amendments made: No. 29, in page 11, line 13, leave out 'any' and insert 'a particular'.
  No. 30, in page 11, line 19 leave out 'his personal licence' and insert
  `the personal licence of the person by whom the animal is killed'.—[Mr. Mellor.]

Clause 20

  FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 31 in page 13, line 32, leave out from 'as' to end of line 33 and insert
  'the Committee may determine or as may be referred to the Committee by the Secretary of State'.
  This is a significant amendment. It has always been our wish that the Animal Procedures Committee should be an independent body consisting of eminent people who are capable of offering advice to the Secretary of State, of their own volition taking action on aspects of the workings of the measure so as to be satisfied that it is working smoothly, and making reports on its deliberations to the House and to the wider public. It is crucial to that concept that the Animal Procedures Committee should not merely be invoked when the Secretary of State so wishes but should be able to initiate consideration of any matter that the Committee, acting together, believes is appropriate for it to look at. That is why the amendment states what it does, in particular using the word "determine" in the context of the committee's deliberations.
  Mr. Corbett: I welcome what the Minister has just said, and the amendment, because it properly responds to the strong points made by many hon. Members in Committee and myself on the need to demonstrate and to specify that the Animal Procedures Committee is not the creature of the Secretary of State or the Home Office. The role and work of the Animal Procedures Committee, as we discussed earlier, is at the heart of the Bill. It is the Rolls-Royce version of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, because the Animal Procedures Committee has statutory parenthood and so a more independent life.

  115
  We have sought to establish that the Animal Procedures Committee could speak without waiting to be spoken to. In other words, it could off its own bat decide to offer advice to the Secretary of State without waiting for him to ask for it. That is an important point.
  The amendment should now lay at rest the charge from some here and many outside that the Animal Procedures Committee is a toothless wonder; a body of yes men and women on the end of a fairly short leash. The amendment makes it clear that that is not so. The Animal Procedures Committee has an independent life and can be expected to make such use of that independence in terms of comment and advice as it sees fit.
  Critics outside have said that the range of relations among experimenters is too cosy. The Animal Procedures Committee can, in that context, act as an irritant and speak out independently on matters of concern to it without waiting to be asked. I hope that the House will welcome the amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: We come now to amendment No. 32, with which it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
  Mr. Hancock: In view of the point made at the end of the Committee stage on this amendment and the other two amendments tabled with it, there is no purpose in delaying the House. Therefore, I shall not move amendment No. 32.
  Mr. Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will note that amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34 come from different parts of the House. By not moving amendment No. 32, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) has left no opportunity for the House to discuss amendment No. 34 in my name or amendment No. 33.
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to speak on his amendment?
  Mr. Fry: Indeed.
  Mr. Speaker: In that case, it would be for the convenience of the House if I allowed the hon. Gentleman to move amendment No. 34.
  Mr. Fry: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 13, line 33, at end insert—
  `(1A) It shall be the duty of the Animal Procedures Committee to review, retrospectively, all licences granted in the category of substantial severity, and from time to time, to advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to the reduction of animal suffering in animal experiments and the reduction of animal use.'.
  I do not intend to detain the House for long, but the RSPCA considers this to be a matter of considerable importance. It is in no way criticising the membership of the Animal Procedures Committee, but it is concerned about the fact that it needs to have the instruction that it shall from time to time go into the question of those licences that are granted in the category of substantial severity.
  It is believed that the committee, as the Minister has laid out, has a great responsibility, but I want to return to the point that I made earlier. Yes, we do have to give it the widest discretion, but it is important that the Bill
  116
  should spell out the kind of duties that we expect it to perform. After all, that is the responsibility of this House and it is why we are here tonight.
  10.15 pm
  The Committee will comprise eminent persons with all sorts of experience, some from the animal lobby and some concerned not so much with animal welfare as with research. There will be a need to look at all licences granted in the substantial severity category, and I want an assurance that the closest consideration will be given to the question how the committee will be provided with sufficient information to make the decision—
  Sir Dudley Smith: I have a certain amount of sympathy with what my hon. Friend is saying. However, does he agree that those on the committee will be men and women of the highest distinction and, inevitably, busy people? Can we really expect them to become bogged down in reviews and approvals of licences when the expert inspectors will have already done their work?
  Of course, there will be instances when it may be necessary to consult the committee, but people may shy away from serving on it if they think that they will be bogged down in the routine of checking licence applications.
  Mr. Fry: I understand what my hon. Fiend is saying but refer him to an earlier amendment relating to the inspectorate. I do not in any way doubt the efficiency of the inspectorate, nor do I deny that the membership of the committee will comprise people of the highest calibre. I have been trying to explain that, with the large number of existing licences and the need for revision—especially those in the substantial severity category—even with the best will in the world 18 inspectors will have their work cut out.
  I moved the amendment because I believe that there should be a clear injunction upon the committee to have an overall responsibility for licences in the substantial severity category—
  Mr. Corbett: As I said two or three times in Committee, having established the committee and having confirmed its independence, we should be careful of the circumstances in which we lay specific duties on it—especially in view of the message that we received from the womb of that body yet to be born, that it would not carry out its duties over its shoulder, as it were.
  Mr. Fry: I accept that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not think that I intend to press the amendment to a vote. I believe that it is important that we should put on record what we expect of the committee.
  There is a genuine fear that unless we do that, because the committee will have a great deal to do and many responsibilities, it may not embark upon what I consider to be a fundamental part of what should be its work.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to move the amendment. I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say.
  Mr. Mellor: As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) knows, it will be for the committee to determine what it wants to consider, and it will be perfectly free to do that. After all, that is what we have always wanted. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, we must not seek to rein in the committee and specify what it should

  117
  consider if it is our wish that it should be a properly independent watchdog committee that can report to the public on how the Act is working.
  However, the Secretary of State will want to ask it to look back at the question of the substantial severity banding and how discretion has been exercised. In pursuing that investigation, the committee will be entitled to ask for such information as it wishes from the Home Office, or, indeed, anyone else. We shall, of course, give full co-operation. In my judgment, we now have a basis on which the Animal Procedures Committee can undertake its work responding to requests for advice from the Secretary of State and determining itself what other matters it wishes to examine. It has a duty on it, under clause 20(2), which provides:
  "In its consideration of any matter the Committee shall have regard both to the legitimate requirements of science and industry and to the protection of animals against avoidable suffering and unnecessary use in scientific procedures."
  That is the balance it must help us to strike and plainly the issues set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough are crucial to achieving that goal. My hon. Friend made clear that he was raising the matter at the behest of the RSPCA and that the RSPCA had no quarrel with the committee. I should think not, since the scientific and legal advisers to the RSPCA are on the committee.
  Mr. Fry: As I am satisfied by my hon. Friend's reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21

  GUIDANCE CODES OF PRACTICE AND STATISTICS
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amemdment No. 36, in page 14, line 14, at end insert—
  '(2A) The Secretary of State shall consult the Animal Procedures Committee before publishing or altering any information under subsection (1) above or issuing, approving, altering or approving any alteration in any code issued or approved under subsection (2) above.'.
  The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the Animal Procedures Committee is fully involved in the crucial work that has to be done on the codes that will contain so much of the day-to-day learning under the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25

  POWERS OF ENTRY
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 16, line 32, leave out 'necessary by force' and insert
  `need be by such force as is reasonably necessary'.
  It was pointed out that, in enforcing the Bill, it would be inappropriate if a nuclear weapon were used to blow a hole in the door of a laboratory so that an inspector could see what was going on behind that door. It was suggested that we include reference to such force as is reasonably necessary. I have been advised by the draftsmen that this intention is inherent in the provision but, if inserting these words will bring peace between the warring parties, why not put them in?
  Amendment agreed to.
  Order for Third Reading read
  10.23 pm
  Mr. Mellor: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third Time.
  I commend the Bill which, in proceeding through the House, has received clear and careful thought from a range of hon. Members on all sides. A necessary job has been done. Although the Bill came here after being carefully considered in the other place, manifestly further improvements could be made and have been made in Committee and during the course of tonight's Report stage.
  This is an historic Bill. It is 110 years since the law on animal experiments was last changed. Tonight we are exchanging a hansom cab for a Rolls-Royce. The Bill makes many changes which will be for the benefit of sound experiment and animal welfare. Some of the changes, to which I shall refer, will have a far reaching effect. The project licensing system for the first time gives the Secretary of State and those who advise him the capability of determining whether or not certain work should be carried out and, if so, on what conditions. That committee will run in parallel, as the twin pillar of regulation, with the personal licensing system that exists under the 1876 Act. For the first time, breeding establishments are brought under control, so that the framework of control extends throughout the life of the laboratory animal, and we nail once and for all the worry people have had that their pet could end up on the vivisector's slab. Similarly within the laboratory we provide for the first time for continuous care for the animal while it is in the laboratory.
  For the first time, a named individual is made personally responsible in law just as under the precedent of other legislation relating to safety at work one person has the obligation to ensure that the law is fulfilled. We have widened materially the number of procedures that are regulated by the Bill. It is an anomaly that scientific procedures such as the passaging of tumours or the preparation of anti-sera were not included in the 1876 Act because they were concepts unknown to the Victorians. We have made provision for a wider range of animals to be offered protection by the Bill, some of them in the womb.
  We have taken advantage of the growth in knowledge that there has been in crucial areas such as alternatives to ensure that animals will be used only when it is necessary to do so. When it is necessary to use animals, that will be done only in accordance with the highest standards, and these standards will be higher than anything that prevails anywhere else in the world. To establish that, we have provided that there should be three severity bands, severity being a much wider concept than the old concept of pain. Only a limited number of permitted procedures will be allowed to go to the upper pain limit that is the standard limit under the 1876 Act.
  There has been a decline of about 2 million in the number of procedures carried out on animals over the past decade. The Bill, by the sophistication of the machinery which it provides for analysing each and every project, offers a mechanism whereby there will be a further reduction in the number of animal experiments achieved. We can achieve that reduction while at the same time making it clear that we all long for the day when there will be no further need for animals to be used in medical experiments. Unfortunately, that day is a long way off, and we must accept that if we are to make the advances

  119
  that we want in the conquest of disease, in understanding more about the mechanisms of the body and the central nervous system than we know now and in ensuring product safety, animal experiments will be required in the present state of our development.
  It is clear—this is the crucial advantage of the Bill—that this measure has growth potential. It does not seek to freeze onto the statute book the standards of 1986. In 1980, 1975 and 1970 the number of animal experiments taking place was very much more than the present level. The state of human knowledge meant that some procedures had to be carried out then that are not necessary now, and some procedures will not be necessary in four, five or 10 years time that are necessary now. The important criteria set out in the Bill can change as circumstances change. Best practice will be made standard practice through the proper imposition of the arrangements in the Bill.
  It will not be left to the man in Whitehall to decide these matters. Independent assessors and the Animal Procedures Committee—the representatives of both categories will be drawn from outside Government—will be making judgments and full reports will be made public with any changes in the important codes and guidelines being subject to the negative procedure in the House so that the House can always have debates on any matters that arise. Reports will be able to be made annually by the APC.
  I have been the Minister who has had the privilege of undertaking the preparation of the Bill over the past three years. It has been possible to do that against the background of what is often seen as the unthinking and extremist element. There are many who have been devoted to the cause of striking the balance in the right place both inside and outside Whitehall. In bringing forward the Bill I have been served by a devoted group of civil servants and members of the animal inspectorate, who have done all the work that has been seen in the Bill as it has passed through the House. The exercise has not been conducted behind closed doors in the Home Office. We have made our views public consistently over the past three years and we have not hesitated to change our minds when that has been appropriate.
  I pay tribute to all the organisations that have assisted us from the research side, including the Research Defence Society, the Chemical Industries Association Ltd., the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry, the Royal Society and many others. All these organisations have helped in the preparation of the Bill.
  I should like to thank personally the moderate animal welfarists in the British Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation. I should like to thank especially Lord Houghton and Clive Hollands, because no one has done more for animal welfare than they. I should like also to thank FRAME and its devoted leadership, Michael Balls, and the parliamentary group led by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). Without their support, a great deal of the refinement of the legislation would not have been possible.
  Last, but not least, I thank the Opposition Front Bench. I do not want to embarrass them, but I must say that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is well known for his devotion to animal welfare. He is not a man who believes in shouting slogans when the practical
  120
  business of legislating is to be done. He is not prepared to allow the best to be the enemy of the good. If the Bill works—I believe that it will—it will be due as much to the hon. Gentleman's efforts as to those of the rest of us.
  The Bill is a great step forward in animal welfare, but it does nothing to threaten the vital medical research and other work that have done so much to make our society as safe as it is.
  10.30 pm
  Mr. Corbett: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his generous remarks. I know that he will understand when I say, and mean, that, in every sense of the expression, the Bill has very much been a joint effort both in the House and, especially before the legislation came before us, outside the House. We have made the legislation better than it was initially.
  We have enshrined the independence of the Animal Procedures Committee, which lies at the heart of better efforts to oversee justifiable animal experiments. We have agreed to write on the face of the Bill a requirement that a project licence shall not be granted unless the applicant can demonstrate that adequate consideration has been given to the use of non-animal alternatives. We have had pledges from the Under-Secretary of State on training and cash for it in terms of the Home Office inspectorate and the provision of the necessary support staff for that inspectorate.
  We have improved the Bill in other smaller ways without acrimony and in line with the sensible consensus reached by the three organisations which in many senses can claim direct parenthood of the Bill—the British Veterinary Association, the Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation and the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. We owe them a debt, especially when, regrettably, consensus is no longer a national ambition.
  The Bill is a beginning and not an end, and I know that the Under-Secretary of State will accept that. We look to the Bill's provisions to achieve fewer experiments involving fewer animals. We look to the Bill to encourage better efforts to do away with tests, such as the LD50 and Draize, and research on beauty preparations which raise so much public anger. They are proper expectations. Everyone concerned with the implementation of the Bill, from the personal project licensees through to the members of the Animal Procedures Committee, should know and remember this: in many senses they and we are on trial.
  Some steps still need to be taken. Dr. David Britt of the department of veterinary parasitology in Liverpool has said—I warmly support him—that what matters most is not legislation but
  "a heightened awareness by experimenters of the responsibilities associated with the use of animals and increased sensitivity to their needs and their capacity to suffer."
  I commend Dr. Britt's suggestion to set up on a voluntary basis local institution-based animal research review committees made up of experienced researchers and those concerned with animal welfare.
  The role of those committees would be to examine all welfare and ethical aspects of proposed projects before they were submitted for approval.
  One view of those engaged in this type of research is that the best way to undertake their activities is to adopt a low profile behind Murdoch-like electronic protection. Dr. Britt makes the point that aloofness and conservatism

  121
  in the scientific community may not be unrelated to the use of illegal, and, yes, sometimes violent, methods by the more militant animal rights campaigners. He calls for the research review committees to start a dialogue between scientists and the community. He says:
  "Lay input might encourage scientists to be more reflective in their management and us of animals in experimental procedures.
  He then recounts the experiences of such committees in Sweden and North America.
  I hope that those words will commend themselves to the Minister so that, if there is a response, he may encourage a trial with such committees and if necessary offer help with administrative costs.
  I hope also that major companies with research laboratories, and universities, may now volunteer for such experiments. I believe that only by being more open, and demonstrating the concern for animal welfare that they claim, can scientists start to achieve a better understanding of what they are about and better understand and respond to the widespread concern about what now goes on behind their fortified walls.
  I want also to make a plea to those concerned with animal welfare. I believe that the Bill has narrowed the ground between the wings of a disparate movement. There have been many divisions, and that has not been in the interests of animal welfare. Lord Houghton and Clive Hollands in particular have done much for a long time to try to bring people together. I hope that all those in the movement who want to see an improvement in the welfare of animals used for experiments will use the Bill as an opportunity to meet. I hope that they will discuss the Bill and perhaps agree about how they can constructively give it a chance to work. The Bill needs critical friends rather than critical enemies.
  We shall all look to the Minister in particular to ensure that the training needed by the Home Office inspectors in the various specialties is provided and adequately funded. We shall hold the Minister to pledges that the inspectorate will have sufficient support staff adequately to carry out the field activities as well as the load of paperwork.
  I remind the Minister that our expectations for increased research into the use of non-animal alternatives cannot be fulfilled against the background of successive and long-term cuts in Government funding for basic research. It has been calculated that since 1980 the buying power of research funding has fallen by between £70 million and £280 million at 1982–83 prices.
  Charities now provide about £90 million a year towards research, but that funding must at best be short-term and ad hoc. No charity can guarantee that next year it will be able to provide the funds that it has provided this year. Long-term research is about people. It is about being able to guarantee to people that one has sufficient funding to cover a project lasting for three, four or five years.
  We also need better and more work on the refinement of the design of the experiments, and better systems to ensure that those taking part in them have proper and relevant qualifications and the competence to be licence-holders. There is a great hole in the training of those at present involved.
  The one thing that I regret about our work on the Bill has been the shabby, shoddy, yah-boo politics of the Liberals and the Social Democrats. The Liberals and Social Democrats have repeatedly told us on other occasions that they are above such things.
  122
  An inaccurate, misleading and disgraceful leaflet was issued on behalf of Liberal Members, claiming:
  "This Bill will almost certainly leave animals in a worse position than before."
  At no time during the passage of the Bill have they sought to justify that idiot claim. The leaflet added:
  "Liberals are determined to oppose this Bill."
  Let us see whether they have done that. The replacement Member of the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), attended seven out of nine Committee sittings; and I do not criticise him for that. However, he was not present to oppose the Liberals and SDP Members when they opposed the Second Reading of the Bill. When we discussed the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) to ban tobacco experiments, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor did not say a word. When we had a debate about beauty cosmetic testing, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor did not make a speech. Instead he made four interventions varying in length between 16 and 59 words. I genuinely congratulate the hon. Member on his brevity; no doubt he was hoping to succeed more by stealth than by full frontal assault.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) made all sorts of wild accusations on Second Reading and deservedly received criticisms from both sides of the House, and he did not make his scheduled appearance in Committee. Doubtless he did not appear because of the embarrassment felt by his right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth. Devonport (Dr. Owen) who, as a qualified general practitioner, must have taken part in and accepted the need for some animal experiments.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South said on Second Reading:
  "I want to see experiments and the health of everyone improved."
  However, he did not say under what conditions or how many experiments he wished to see. He claimed that the Bill
  "does little to protect laboratory animals, to reduce animal experimentation or to promote alternative methods of experimentation."—[Official Report, 17 February 1986: Vol. 92, c. 103, 105.]
  He was wrong on that count then and he is wrong now.
  I should like to offer this quotation to the the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South and his hon. Friends to consider:
  "No matter how strongly the law may be drawn, and no matter how rigidly it may be enforced, at the interface of the scientist and his subject, only the attitudes of the scientist are important. A heightened awareness by experimenters of the responsibilities associated with the use of animals and increased sensitivity to their needs and their capacity to suffer will achieve much more for laboratory welfare than new legislative measures …"
  Those are the words of Dr. David Britt of the department of veterinary parasitology at the Liverpool school of tropical medicine. There is more honesty in that view and a better prospect of achieving our ambitions than the crude attempt of the Liberals and the Social Democrats on the basis of their misleading and inaccurate accusations to try to polish up a few votes at the next general election.
  It is no wonder that in the remarkable document issued in the name of Liberal hon. Members—
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Read it.
  Mr. Corbett: I will read it. The document states:
  "It is impossible to explain in detail the Liberal policy and action on animals."
  Mr. Mellor: I would like to remind the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) about that remarkable document. Did the hon. Gentleman also know that that document caused Dr. Balls of FRAME to write and inquire how the Liberal party could produce such a document? He wanted to know where it would be possible to explain the Liberal policy in detail. He wrote to the leader of the Liberal party on 10 March but has not yet been favoured with a reply.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I remind the House that we are discussing the Third Reading of the Bill and that remarks should be related to the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Corbett: No doubt at some stage we will learn of the reply of the leader of the Liberal party to that important letter.
  I conclude by saying that I hope that the Bill and the Animal Procedures Committee which stands alongside it, will achieve better results than the Farm Animal Welfare Council. The House got it wrong. Battery cages are still used. Indeed, the EEC proposes to reduce the amount of cage space for each bird. Sow stalls and veal crates are also still used. Nobody can claim that the welfare codes, which are supposed to help, have achieved what they should have achieved. I hope that the Minister will not forget that, and that he will determine that, at least in his area of responsibility, he will do better. I know that he wants to do better.
  I should like to thank the Minister publicly for his open-mindedness and willingness to listen at all stages of the Bill. He has lost nothing through that, although, for reasons that he will understand, I shall not be able to speak for him in Putney in the next general election campaign.
  We gave the Bill a critical welcome. Not all of those criticisms have been met, but I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to give the Bill a fair wind against the background of it leaving us good scope to check and challenge what happens in its name. We intend to do just that, so that we can move at best speed to fewer experiments on fewer animals.
  10.45 pm
  Sir Dudley Smith: I should like to echo what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said about the cheap opportunism of the so-called alliance in this matter. He said that we had some extraordinary comments on Second Reading and some none-too-helpful ones in Committee. There are now rumours that it will vote against Third Reading. I hope that that is wrong. If not, I do not know how it has the face to do so.
  The alliance's attitude contrasts strongly with the highly responsible one shown by the official Opposition. It is all too easy, with a Bill of this sensitivity, to try to make political capital out of it. The Opposition resisted that temptation and behaved most honourably. We had an excellent Committee because party lines were crossed and helpful suggestions were made. The Opposition should be congratulated on how they conducted their case.
  What Liberals have said and what the document that has been referred to says is claptrap. The Bill takes Britain ahead of any other country in Europe in the protection of animals in experiments. That is a notable achievement of which all who have contributed should be proud. I have been in this place for many years and I cannot remember
  124
  any legislation which was so intimately identified with a Minister, let alone a junior Minister. He has pursued the matter with the utmost diligence and vigilance, got groups together and talked to them. This is very much his baby. He has pushed the Bill through the House and is to be congratulated on his success. His is a remarkable achievement, and I hope that those in authority will take due note of that fact.
  Not least of my hon. Friend's achievements was his getting the moderate animal organisations together. I should like to pay tribute to them for their helpful comments and responsible attitude. They contrasted sharply with the irresponsible organisations, which are fortunately small in number. They do more harm than good for their cause in their extreme efforts to convince the Government that we are all ogres and torture animals just for the sake of it.
  Now, only essential experiments will be allowed. I believe that the number will continue to decline, aided and abetted by the Bill. We have heard that numbers are already on the decrease. All who have participated in discussions on the Bill want animal experiments to be replaced completely in the longer term. We realise that they cannot be replaced at the moment. As I have said before, many of us will probably not live to see animals replaced in experiments. But one day that will come about, and this is a definite move in that direction. That is why we should be pleased to have had support from organisations whose main aim is to ensure that animal experimentation should eventually be totally replaced.
  This is an emotional and sensitive subject. It pays to have sensible and valuable discussion as well as detailed consideration. It is not a matter for vote grubbing—it is one for the human conscience. Anything that can be done to save life and curb suffering—provided that it can be done properly, carefully and with respect for the animal—deserves encouragement. This is common to all mankind. A person can suffer ills—sometimes terrible ones—and may need treatment, and his life may be extended if he gets the right sort of treatment. It is our duty to society to ensure that the best possible treatment is available to all our people. That is what the Bill does, and it does so responsibly, having regard to the genuine anxieties of many people who feel that perhaps there have been too many animal experiments in the past.
  The Bill has my best blessings for the future. It is not perfect and will perhaps be improved in the months and years to come. But, as the hon. Member for Erdington said, it is a definite start, and it will proceed from there. In those circumstances, it is right that every hon. Member, irrespective of party, should back it tonight.
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Livsey: The alliance believes that the Third Reading should be rejected, and we propose to put the Bill to the vote. It was wrong for the Front Benches to suggest that we would do so simply to indulge in emotional politics. In my view they were trying to make hay out of the situation—
  Mr. Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Livsey: Certainly not. I have only just begun my speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give me a chance to get going.
  We all agree that the Minister has been sympathetic to the subject of animal welfare, and I would not dream of

  125
  attacking him on that score. The Bill sets up the Animal Procedures Committee and project licensing, both of which are good and I commend the work that has been done. In fact, I commed the work of the Committee and the conscientiousness with which it carried out its task. The only point I want to make is that the Bill does not go far enough.
  Mr. Fry: In those circumstances, why have the hon. Gentleman and his SDP colleague been tumbling over themselves all night to withdraw the amendments that they tabled?
  Mr. Livsey: It would be foolish not to admit that there has been some generosity in accepting amendments. I do not challenge that. But the Bill does not include reference to the LD50 and Draize tests, which were defeated in Committee. It is not strong enough on cosmetics and tobacco testing, and does not clarify the situation on warfare experiments. We have also had a long discussion on Crown immunity. In our view, all these mattes should have been included in the Bill.
  Obviously, there are good points about the measure, but it does not go far enough. As a protest, we intend to vote against it.
  Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in its 1979 election manifesto the Liberal party made no mention at all of animal welfare. The so-called joint manifesto of the Liberal-SDP alliance in 1983 backed the idea of a standing commission on animal welfare and said:
  "This would keep under constant and rigorous examination"—
  it sounds like the Minister—
  "all issues of animal welfare including experimentation on live animals".
  If the hon. Member and his party feel so strongly about the Draize eye test and LD50 and cosmetic tests, why did they not move amendments at the Committee stage and, more important, why were those explicit commitments not put in their manifesto for the last election?
  Mr. Livsey: The hon. Gentleman is holding up a single piece of paper. We had a manifesto for the 1979 election and many members of my party, certainly on our agricultural panel, have been campaigning hard for animal rights for a long time. The criticism of the hon. Gentleman is unfair. The Bill is inadequate and we will vote against the Third Reading.
  10.55 pm
  Mr. Gale: I did not intend to speak on Third Reading, but having heard the sanctimonious cant from the Opposition—[Interruption]—from the opportunist Opposition, perhaps a little more needs to go on the record. I have the honour to chair the all party- parliamentary Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments. That is a genuine all-party group and I think it has the largest support of any of the Back Bench groups. It believes fervently that animal welfare is not a party political issue. The Committee stage of this Bill was refined, because in the main the debate was not party political.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) is unable to be present. He is on parliamentary business overseas. In our views on animal welfare, he and I are diametrically opposed, but the views he expressed in Committee were sincerely held and my hon. Friends would endorse that. That is in sharp and colourful contrast
  126
  to the few opportunist remarks by the representative of the alliance who finally managed to take his place on the Committee, having replaced the hon. Gentleman who spoke on Second Reading and then gave up.
  It would be quite wrong for me, on behalf of the all-party group, not to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the enormous amount of personal courage he has shown during the years he has worked on the Bill to bring it to its Third Reading.
  I and all those who support FRAME believe that this is a non-party-political Bill that represents the true work of all those interested in animal welfare. It is perhaps significant that the animal rights movement has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the alliance that has, hocus pocus, put out animal rights leaflets supporting entirely the mobilisation of its demands, but that none of that work has gone into the genuine animal welfare representation that is in the Bill. By a huge majority the Bill will now get its Third Reading, whatever the opportunist opposition may do. The Bill has taken vast steps for animal welfare and will continue to do so for many years.
  10.59 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief open because I did not take part in the Second Reading debate or in the debate on Report. There is a degree of misplaced unanimity in the House. Those who have consistently opposed the abuse of animals in experiments should ask themselves whether the Bill will make much difference or, whether within a few years we shall have to debate the issue again. We may have to debate it again because all the abuses of animals in experiments in respect of cosmetics, tobacco, war and all the other abuses will still be happening. It has been said to me that this Bill regulates everything but bans nothing. That is true, and it is also true that the large number of vested interests which make a great deal of money from the results of animal experiments in a number of fields are prepared to live with the Bill. That indicates that the Bill has serious shortcomings. It does not achieve what many of those who are campaigning for animal rights wish it to achieve.
  The Bill is the result of intensive campaigning by animal welfare lobbyists all over the country. The Government have sought to con them into believing that the Bill will meet their legitimate and justified fears about animal abuse in this country. They have not been conned. They are opposed to the Bill and they will continue to oppose it because it does not achieve what they wish it to achieve.
  There is also a very large number of people, many of whom have sent letters and petitions and taken part in demonstrations in favour of animal welfare, who will not welcome the Bill because they genuinely believe that it will not achieve what it ought to achieve. They will continue to campaign for animal rights and for another Bill to replace not only the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 but the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.
  We have been debating the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill, which is inadequate but with which many of the vested interests will be able to live, but future legislation should look seriously at the abuse of farm animals and their treatment and at the food cycle that is the consequence of intensive agriculture and intensive feeding. It should also look seriously at the treatment of wild animals and the need, once and for all, to ban blood

  127
  sports, the most barbaric of all animal abuses. This issue is very much on the agenda. It is not pushed off it by the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that has nothing to do with the contents of the Bill. He must confine himself to its contents and to its Third Reading.
  Mr. Corbyn: I appreciate that I must confine myself to the contents of the Bill, but I am merely pointing out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, its shortcomings.
  In his Third Reading speech the Minister said that the hansom cab had been replaced by the Rolls-Royce. Wealthy people aspire to and use the Rolls-Royce. The poor have suffered for a very long time from having to use the hansom cab. I do not believe that the Bill achieves any great improvement in animal welfare.
  11.2 pm
  Mr. Fry: One of the problems about legislating for animal welfare is that the attitude of the British public is ambivalent towards it. Of course it wants animal experiments to be reduced or even ended but it also wants an end to the many scourges that affect the human race. There is a genuine dilemma. The British public, just like the alliance, does not have legislative responsibility. That is the Government's responsibility, and that is what they have done in this Bill.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State drew the analogy between a hansom cab and a Rolls-Royce. How successful it will be and how far the Rolls-Royce will go depends not only on the driver but on the skill of those who maintain it. I want to enter two caveats about the Bill. Those who support the Bill decided that they would rely upon the advisory committee experts and the inspectors without including in statutory form the need for any other kind of technical advice. I remind my hon. Friend that the advisory committee on animal experiments said in its 1981 report that it believed that there was a strong need for experts to be available as referees when permission for animal experiments was requested. The Bill will have to be taken on trust to a certain extent.
  Despite the ability of the inspectors and the eminence of the advisory committee, the range of knowledge which is required is so enormous that that small group of people cannot possess the necessary expertise. The support I have given to my hon. Friend the Minister relies on his assurances that the inspectorate and the advisory committee will seek advice when they need it. The long term success of the Bill depends upon that.
  My hon. Friend has taken steps in the Bill to protect dogs and cats. The Minister may remember that I asked what happened to those people who illegally supplied dogs and cats to research establishments. From conversations with Home Office officials I understand that there is nothing to stop someone collecting a stray, looking after it and then selling it to a laboratory. The bill may not be able to deal with that but I am sure that the public are worried about it. It is all very well to penalise the research establishments which take the dogs, but those who sell them should also be punished.
  Despite such caveats I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend on piloting the Bill and obtaining such a wide degree of agreement from both sides of the House. That
  128
  is no mean achievement for any Minister. Some years ago, I tried to pilot a private Member's Bill through the House on this subject. I had the Minister's support and that is why he now has my support.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) that the Minister has displayed an ability to listen and to accept amendments and, when they were not right, to come forward with his own amendments. I think the Bill deserves a Third Reading. The Minister would be the first to admit that the Bill has still to be proved. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) is correct when he says that we do not know how it will develop and it must be closely watched in the future.
  It is a step forward. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said that there are many good things in the Bill, but why is the hon. Member voting against those good things? Why would he vote to prevent the implementation of those good things? The answer is that for all the hon. Gentleman's fine words he is more interested in votes than animals. I do not think that is true of the bulk of the hon. Members. I have great pleasure in supporting the Third Reading.
  Mr. Hancock: When we debated this issue on Second Reading I said that, for the first time in over a hundred years, the House would attempt to improve the lot of animals. On Second Reading and again tonight, the Minister legimately said that people from all sides of the animals welfare campaign had been brought together to try to get that ambition realised and that major step forward was achieved.
  Regrettably, on Second Reading and again tonight, more in sorrow than anything else, I find myself unable to believe that the major step forward has taken place. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) gave the reasons why those major ambitions, held by many people, have not been realised.
  Experiments may still continue to test cosmetics and tobacco—the LD50 test and the Draize eye test. Because of this it is legitimate for any Member of the House to continue to oppose legislation, even at this late stage. Surely we have a legitimate right to oppose something which we do not believe has fulfilled the ambitions that many of us wanted to see realised. I am amazed that so many Conservative Members should refer to speeches made in Committee. Regrettably, I could not serve on that Committee—[Interruption.]—as I was already serving on a Committee that sat on 27 occasions, during which the only speeches made by Conservative Members came from Ministers. We were discussing a major plank of Government policy. Before Conservative Members start quoting remarks made in Committee, they should ensure that their own house is in order. It was arrogant, and it showed a cynical disregard of an hon. Member's right to express a certain viewpoint to deride an hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Mellor rose—
  Mr. Hancock: I shall speak for only another 30 seconds.
  Mr. Mellor rose—
  Mr. Hancock: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Mellor: I can appreciate the hon. Gentleman's embarrassment in giving way, but he should understand

  129
  why he is being derided. He is being derided not for opposing the Bill but for his empty-headed opportunism in merely quoting against the Bill half-mouthed propaganda about alcohol and tobacco without ever putting forward a viable alternative to our proposals. The hon. Gentleman is being derided for the total absence of any coherent thought on the part of the alliance parties. They are merely trying to gain empty populist advantage out of the issue.
  Mr. Hancock: The House has gained little from the Minister's attempt to push home his already foul point. On Second Reading I spoke for more than 20 minutes, making many of the points that the alliance wanted to be included in the Bill. However, the Minister chose not to explain why the Government did not support their inclusion.
  If the Minister is so sure that the Liberals and the SDP are supported by the majority of people in the country why on earth are the majority of hon. Members disregarding their voice? Perhaps only the alliance party represents the public's view. It is most regrettable that the Opposition spokesman has not pursued our line. Similarly it is amazing that the Minister has failed to respond to the public clamour for more ambition and drive to be associated with the Bill.
  We shall vote against the Bill, because the ambitions that many people had for animal welfare rights have not been fulfilled. I wanted the Bill to do more, and I am sure that is the view of my colleagues. I am not in the least embarrassed by my stance, as it is wholly honourable.
  11.12 pm
  Mr. Roland Boyes: On Second Reading, I spoke at some length, explaining why I could not support the Bill. Since then it has been in Committee, but the changes that I wanted have not been made. As a result, I am still unable to support the Bill.
  The Bill still allows animals to be used for experiments connected with warfare. That is the most obscene, unacceptable and obnoxious use of animals. Animals are tortured pitilessly in the interest of discovering how best human beings can kill each other. Last time I spoke, I cited several examples of the pain suffered by animals. However, I shall cite one other, that I did not use then. A document which I shall come to shortly refers to experiments using tear gas and says:
  "The peripheral sensory irritant … was tested on the eyes of conscious rabbits at Porton Down: effects included 'diffuse redness of lids with moderate swelling of the lids', 'swollen tissues encroaching over periphery of cornea'; and in some cases 'gross opacification of the cornea with deformity and/or ulceration'."
  Not many hon. Members will have experienced tear gas, but we have seen the consequences of it and it does not take much to imagine the suffering that those animals experienced during that experiment.
  I am pleased to say this evening that I understand that on Thursday last week the Federal Republic of Germany outlawed animal experiments for warfare purposes. What a great step forward. If only the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends could have told us this evening that exactly the same would happen in the United Kingdom. Why is not it happening here? No doubt we shall be told that warfare experiments, particularly chemical experiments, are carried out at Porton Down to learn about defence, when in actual fact they are carried out to learn about offence.
  130
  As hon. Members well know, it was recently agreed in the United States that a new generation of chemical weapons should be built and developed, with the consent and agreement of the NATO allies. One would hope that the Government would disagree with those developments but after the events of the past week and the ease with which the President of the United States obtained the consent of the Prime Minister of this nation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he must confine himself to the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Boyes: Exactly. That demonstrates that the chance of any opposition is small.
  To experiment on animals for the sake of humans who want to go to war is unacceptable. I can do no more than to quote the words of Dr. Robert Sharpe in a document on warfare experiments published by an active organisation called Mobilisation for Laboratory Animals. He wrote:
  "The suffering which human beings inflict upon each other during the course of war is the responsibility of the human species alone, and there can be no justification for the pain inflicted upon other animals to test ways of harming and destroying ourselves."
  If mankind were to destroy himself, that would be the responsibility of mankind. It has nothing whatever to do with animals.
  Let me conclude by paying tribute to the many organisations that have provided much research and good material to enable us to study the consequences of warfare experiments. The number of letters that I have received on that matter show that their efforts are being well rewarded because more and more people are becoming aware of the obscenity of what happens at Porton Down. Recent opinion polls show that eight in 10 people are against the use of animals for warfare experiments and a whole nation in Germany is now against it.
  Donald Barnes, a distinguished United States scientist, once said:
  "The more I look back I see their greatest fear is in people finding out how the animals are treated and thereby initiating steps to correct that."
  Another organisation has recently been spawned to help in the struggle to inform people about how animals are used for warfare purposes. Peace and Animal Welfare, whose general secretary is Mrs. Kitching, is now informing tens of thousands of people of the obscenity that is being carried out in the name of the British people. Many of us oppose the use of animals for those experiments.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) dwelt on the analogy of the hansom cab and the Rolls-Royce used by the Minister. Rolls-Royce are developed for the rich and powerful, just as the Bill has been designed for the rich and powerful to protect their commercial interests. But more than that, the Bill is in the interests of the crazed pain-inflictors, who operate under the guise of scientists working in the chamber of horrors called Porton Down and any other laboratories in Britain. I shall never support such Bills in the House unless they outlaw the use of animals for warfare experiments.
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Mark Hughes: I regret the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) from our deliberations tonight. Although he aggravates at times, he has an honesty of purpose and a discreet charm—which occasionally escapes him—and is a delightful person.

  131
  My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) referred to the use of animals in warfare experiments. He assumed that, in Committee, his hon. Friends let that bit pass by default—
  Mr. Boyes: No.
  Mr. Hughes: Oh yes, that is what my hon. Friend said to the House. I trust that he has read column 88 of the Official Report of Standing Committee A of 6 March, when hon. Members on both Labour and Conservative Benches extensively discussed the use of animals in warfare experiments, with no unanimity across parties and a distinction across both sides.
  On that occasion the Minister said:
  "It would not be in breach of an assurance given in this House, but unlawful if any Home Secretary, while the Bill remains on the statute book, granted a project licence for that purpose."
  That purpose was the use of animals in weapon experimentation. He continued:
  "I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman"—
  my hon. Friend for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller)—
  "for providing an opportunity for me to say that. It can never be a permitted purpose, and any Secretary of State who purported to make it so without amending the Bill would be in breach of the law."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 6 March 1986; c. 88.]
  Yet my hon. Friends are now saying that we have failed the House and the country and that by permitting the continuation of the use of animals in warfare experiments are in error as to law. There is no error as to intent because there is no one in this House who would want to continue those experiments without control. My hon. Friends are saying that this Bill, now at its Third Reading stage, fails to protect animals against such experiments. I am saying that those of us who are their Labour colleagues fought and won assurances in Committee on that matter. They may not ultimately accept them, but on a matter of judgment the majority of their colleagues in Committee accepted them.
  My hon. Friends are perfectly entitled to vote against Third Reading on a difference of opinion, but let them not for one moment think that we said that we want those experiments to continue. We will not have that. i will not have it said of myself or my hon. Friends that we want to continue those experiments without control. We were assured that no Secretary of State would ever allow that to be a permittd purpose within the context of the Bill. Earlier this evening we debated and, on my request, forced a Division on the question that Crown immunity should be lifted. Without the lifting of that immunity an impetus to fear remains, and I regret that the Government could not accept that argument.
  The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) was present at more Committee meetings than I was. Both of us suffered family bereavements, and I do not blame him for being absent occasionally. In Committee, a finely balanced argument was well rehearsed on the question of a total ban on LD50, Draize, cosmetic and tobacco experiments. Again, an honourable difference of opinion was the result. It therefore does not lie with one party or another in this House to make a political point; it is fraudulent for any party to do so. I hope that, as a newer Member of the House, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor will accept that it does neither him nor his party any good to say that only their members held certain views
  132
  and voted a particular way. In my 15 years here that is not how animal welfare matters have been dealt with, and they will not be dealt with in that way in future.
  Mr. Livsey: I never made that point in my speech.
  We have objected to the Bill for objective reasons and said what they are. The hon. Gentleman mentioned LD50, the Draize test and other matters to which we objected. We are not making party political points.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for that, but regrettably many of the interventions of his hon. Friends appeared to imply that anyone who rejected the LD50 or Draize tests was a Liberal supporter. That has never been the position. The hon. Member should not underestimate the sincerity of hon. Members who have found faults with the Bill but who believe that so great is the advance that it makes overall that it is worth accepting a few blemishes. I should prefer to have had the Crown immunity removed and a few other alterations made. I do not believe that banning specific tests and procedures was the right provision. The idea was to give the Secretary of State a power to say that unless a procedure was justified it would not be allowed. That is the core of the Bill, and on that basis I shall wish it a fair wind and vote for the Third reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 26.

  Division 150]

  [11.28 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Amess, David

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Ancram, Michael

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Ashby, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Hayes, J.

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Hind, Kenneth

  Blackburn, John

  Holt, Richard

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Key, Robert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Bright, Graham

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Brinton, Tim

  Lang, Ian

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Latham, Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Lilley, Peter

  Budgen, Nick

  Lord, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Butcher, John

  McCrindle, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Chapman, Sydney

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Chope, Christopher

  Madel, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Major, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  Crouch, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Marlow, Antony

  Dover, Den

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Dunn, Robert

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Durant, Tony

  Mellor, David

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Merchant, Piers

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Fallon, Michael

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Mitchell, David (Hants NW)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Moate, Roger

  Forman, Nigel

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Freeman, Roger

  Needham, Richard

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Newton, Tony

  Fry, Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Gale, Roger

  Norris, Steven

  133

  Ottaway, Richard

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Speller, Tony

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Spencer, Derek

  Pawsey, James

  Squire, Robin

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Pollock, Alexander

  Stern, Michael

  Portillo, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Powley, John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Sumberg, David

  Raffan, Keith

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Tracey, Richard

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Trippier, David

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Viggers, Peter

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Walden, George

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Waller, Gary

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Watson, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Watts, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Whitfield, John

  134

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wood, Timothy

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Yeo, Tim

  Mr. Peter Lloyd.

  NOES

  Alton, David

  McWilliam, John

  Boyes, Roland

  Madden, Max

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Clay, Robert

  O'Neill, Martin

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Pike, Peter

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Robertson, George

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dixon, Donald

  Wallace, James

  Hancock, Michael

  Weetch, Ken

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Livsey, Richard

  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft and

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Mr. Geraint Howells.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

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

  Libya
  11.39 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the evening, I twice raised the need for a Government statement. The facts as given in the past 10 minutes by Cruise Watch are that in the air there are 52 F-111s out of Mildenhall, 48 F- Ills out of Upper Heyford, 72 tank busters from RAF Bentwaters and the bulk of the American tanker fleet from Fairford. If we are to believe that this is simply Exercise Elderforest it seems at best to be insensitive to a mindboggling degree. There should at least be a statement to the people in the vicinity of those are bases on what is happening. Will there be a reconsideration, even at this late hour, and will a Minister give the House a few explanations about the facts?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The hon. Member knows that Ministers' statements to the House are not a matter for me.
  Mr. Roland Boyes: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member raising a different point of order?
  Mr. Boyes: Surely, we should consider the consequences last week, when a member of the Opposition Front Bench tabled a private notice question and asked for a statement, which Mr. Speaker in his wisdom turned down. I do not criticise Mr. Speaker, but we know what happened that day when the House was not informed about the F-111s being in the air. Exactly the same situation is occurring. Action has been threatened by the President of the United States—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that, however serious the issues, a Government statement is not a matter for me. I have not been told that a statement will be made.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. One cannot raise a point of order further to bogus points of order.
  Mr. Corbyn: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you advise us by what means these serious matters can be brought to the attention of the House and of the public?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those on the Government Front Bench have heard what has been said. It is not a matter for the Chair.

  Statute Law Repeals Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.42 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill arises from a report of the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Law Commision for Scotland. In pursuance of their function to reduce the number of separate enactments and generally to simplify and modernise the law, the commissioners produced their 12th report in November 1985. They recommended that 135 Acts should be repealed in their entirety and that redundant provisions should be removed from 240 other Acts. The Bill would put those recommendations into effect and bring the total since 1969 to 2,300 enactments.
  The Law Commission and the Joint Committee have performed work for which we should all be grateful. It is necessary from time to time to bring forward a measure to clear redundant material from the statute book. This is not a glamorous task but is necessary to the continuous process of legislation.
  11.43 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Brown: I thank the Solicitor-General for his introduction and endorse his comments about the commissions' valuable work. Normally, when we discuss consolidated legislation late at night, we deal with matters which, in all candour, are as dull as ditchwater. This is not consolidated legislation, although it has been through the same procedure. It removes old and time-served statutes from the law. The notes on the Bill make entertaining reading. They contain a fund of material for speeches, but I shall not draw upon it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Maude.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 58 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed without amendment.

  Social Security Bill [Ways and Means]
  11.45 pm
  The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging to income tax under Schedule E of payments of statutory maternity pay under that Act or, in Northern Ireland, any corresponding provision contained in an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
  I shall speak very briefly, but I understand that the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) may wish to make some points, and I shall of course reply to them to the best of my ability.
  In December the Government published a consultation paper proposing the replacement of most of the present state maternity allowance scheme with a scheme to be called statutory maternity allowance, modelled on the lines of the statutory sick pay scheme. Following the outcome of the consultation on that document, I last week gave details of a revised proposal for a scheme to be called statutory maternity pay, which would bring together much of the present state maternity allowance scheme with the present maternity pay scheme, operated by the Department of Employment, within a single more integrated scheme to assist women giving up employment in order to have babies.
  An integral element in both schemes is to make the maternity allowance taxable, in line with general Government policy that income replacement benefits should generally be subject to tax in the same way as other income. That is already the case for such things as retirement and most widows' pensions. The present Government has introduced changes which make most unemployment and supplementary benefit for the unemployed taxable. Statutory sick pay has made the great bulk of sick pay taxable in the case of short term sickness, replacing much of the previous state benefit scheme.
  Maternity pay is already taxable. The statutory maternity pay scheme, incorporating much of the present state maternity allowance scheme, will make that part of what is currently maternity allowance taxable, in line with our general policy.
  The case for making such benefits taxable is clear both in logic and equity. I think that it is widely accepted on both sides of the House. The basic proposition is that people who have the same annual income, regardless of whether it is all from earnings or partly from earnings and partly from benefit, should pay the same amount of tax. That is what the proposed scheme, and the taxability of benefits under the proposed scheme, will enable us to achieve in this case in the same way as in a number of other cases.
  The details of the new scheme have now been laid out in new clauses tabled to the present Social Security Bill. They will no doubt be the subject of a measure of debate in Standing Committee when we reach new clauses next week. The present resolution paves the way for an important aspect of the proposals, namely the taxability. I commend it to the House.
  11.48 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: The first point that I should like to make is that the Minister said that the proposals had been announced last week. I am not
  138
  sure on which day the announcement was made, because the press release is not dated, but it was on Thursday that the matter came to my attention. He said that a new clause had been prepared. However, so far as I am aware—and I checked a little earlier this evening—it is not on the amendment paper. We are therefore debating a paving proposal for a proposition that is not before us. Some of my questions might therefore have been unnecessary if the proposal had been before us.
  I shall confine my remarks within the context of the proposal to make statutory maternity pay taxable and to the reasons for the order. As it is to be taxable, I should like the Minister to comment on the rate at which it is proposed to be paid. As I understand it, in 1980 the maternity allowance was cut by 5 per cent. in lieu, the Government said, of taxation that was to be brought in subsequently. Will the Minister tell us what would be needed to restore the present payments in real terms by that 5 per cent. so that we may have a degree of comparison between what is proposed and what might otherwise have existed?
  I believe that in 1981 strong assurances were given—and the Equal Opportunities Commission has drawn attention to this—by the Government, that the proposed changes would introduce a system of benefit which would reflect 100 per cent. of normal pay. The reason for making it 90 per cent. of normal pay was that an earnings-related supplement to maternity allowance would make up the difference. In the comments on the consultation document, the EOC and other organisations have drawn the Government's attention to the fact that these assurances were explicitly given and repeated, and yet it appears from the proposals that it is still intended that the new scheme should be 90 per cent., not 100 per cent. of normal pay. What will the losses be in keeping the figure at 90 per cent.?
  The proposed rate of payment seems to be the one that corresponds to the lowest rate of statutory sick pay and is only some 85p more than the existing payment. That hardly seems to be enough to make up for the fact that the proposed sum will be subject to tax and national insurance.
  One point about which I should like clarification—as I cannot carry the figures in my head any longer as they have become rather more complicated—is whether the sum is lower than the normal rate at which national insurance contributions would be charged. Therefore, in a sense, if national insurance contributions are to be charged on that sum, that would be exceptional.
  I should also like the Minister to give us more up to date information about the number of losers who are expected and about the amount that the Government expect to save. Under the original scheme, although some 5,000 to 10,000 women were said to be gainers, it was envisaged that some 75,000 to 85,000 would be losers. Has that figure been improved or is it worse? The amount saved has been estimated to be about £34 million to £39 million, and I should like to know the Minister's estimates of the present savings.
  The Opposition support the contention of the EOC among others, that if there are savings they should go to improve the level of maternity benefit overall, rather than merely going as savings to the Government. That is especially important because there is still clear evidence that there are likely to be twice as many still-births among the poorest families. There is much more likelihood of early death among the poorest families, and it is therefore essential that there should be adequate provision for those

  139
  families during pregnancy. In 1984 a hospital survey showed that for diet alone to be adequate—and we recognise that there may be limitations on direct comparisons—the amount needed then was some £13·87. An updated figure on that basis would be about £14·70. That is a substantial chunk out of the money that is intended, in theory at least, to meet all maternity needs.
  There are other criticisms of the proposal. As the Minister will be aware, we are deeply worried about mistakes that are known to be made in payments of statutory sick pay and the extent to which people in small firms do not receive maternity pay, even under the present system. Most of those comments might better be made when we have the new clause.
  The questions that I have asked arise out of the taxable nature of the proposal, and I would welcome the Minister's response.
  11.54 pm
  Mr. Newton: I understand that the new clauses have been tabled tonight and will therefore be on tomorrow's Order Paper. I understand that it would have been helpful if the hon. Lady had been able to see them before tonight's debate, I hope that she will understand that we have modified the proposals quite considerably in response to the consultation, especially in trying to bring together the existing maternity pay scheme and the formerly proposed statutory maternity allowance scheme. That has inevitably meant a good deal of work, and it was not possible to table the clauses last week.
  We made the statement on Thursday, as the hon. Lady said, and put a copy in the mail for all members of the Standing Committee, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) will know, so that they should have as much notice as possible, even without the clauses, of the general lines of our intentions. I hope that that will have been thought sensible and reasonable.
  I should like to answer the hon. Lady's questions in fairly broad terms and write to her if I have any of the details wrong. My recollection is that restoration of the 5 per cent. abatement in the rate of the existing maternity allowance introduced in 1980 or 1981 would cost about £8 million and that the amount of money involved in the 90 per cent. versus 100 per cent. of maternity pay, given that current expenditure on maternity pay is about £70 million, must be about £6 or £7 million. If I have inadvertently misled the hon. Lady—the figures are taken from my memory rather than from my brief—I shall write to her.
  The hon. Lady mentioned the suggestion that the flat rate of statutory maternity pay would be the same as the current lower rate of statutory sick pay, which is £31·60 per week, and suggested that that was only 85p different from the rate of sickness benefit. The current rate of sickness benefit is £29·15 per week, and the difference is £2·45. If I am inadvertently misleading the hon. Lady, I shall write to her. Perhaps she is comparing the current rate of statutory sick pay with the rate of state sickness benefit and therefore of state maternity allowance, which will come into effect in July.
  I have compared the present rate of statutory sick pay, payable from the beginning of this month, with the current rate of maternity allowance, which has been payable since November. There is a good deal of room for confusion as matters change during the year because of the rather silly
  140
  fact that statutory sick pay upratings take place in April whereas all other social security benefit upratings take place in November. Not least of the advantages of the proposals that we have tabled for aligning the tax and benefit years is the fact that that type of anomaly will be removed and, from 1987, everything will go up in April.
  In any event, the hon. Lady's comparison does not tell us very much, whether 85p or £2·45, because it ignores the Government's basic proposition that all of these benefits ought to be taxable in fairness to those who derive the same amount on income over a year in ways which do not include an element of social security benefit. That is the basic fact to which I would cleave in putting forward this proposal.
  Anyone with a weekly income of only £31·60 would not pay national insurance contributions as that is more than £6·40 a week below the current lower earnings limit. It is also in the nature of events that a woman receiving statutory maternity pay would not necessarily be receiving any other income from her employer that would bring her within the national insurance net. If by some chance she was—and it would be possible in relation to occupational sick pay—it would rank for national insurance contributions if she was above the lower earnings limit.
  From that it follows that anyone receiving the higher rate of what will be statutory maternity pay—the six weeks of earnings-related benefit corresponding to the existing maternity pay scheme—will be likely to attract national insurance contributions in respect of those payments as they are likely to be a significantly above the lower earnings limit.
  Our present estimate is that about 94,000 women who would have qualified for maternity allowance under the present rules will not qualify for either SMP or the state maternity allowance in 1987–88. These are almost entirely women who were not working when their pregnancies began. In other words, they are people for whom maternity allowance was never designed. It was designed for those in work at the time in order to enable them to give up work in the interests of their own health and that of their babies. Those considerations clearly do not apply to someone who is not working, even when the pregnancy begins. Part of our worry about the present scheme, and one of our reasons for wishing to change it, is that it is poorly targetted in terms of the basic aims that it was expected to fulfil.
  Against that figure—and this picks up the hon. Lady's point about ploughing money back into the scheme—about 20,000 women who do not qualify for the present maternity allowance will be brought in—not necessarily to the statutory maternity pay scheme but to the residual state maternity allowance scheme—by the introduction of the recent work test that we are proposing in respect of residual state maternity allowance.
  They will be gainers, as will two groups to which the House will, I think, attach some importance. We shall enable what are known as opted-out married women to receive statutory maternity pay. At present they cannot get state maternity allowance, because by definition they have decided not to pay full-rate national insurance contributions, and that excludes them from short-term benefit.
  A smaller group, which I know has the sympathy of the House, will also be brought within the changes that we are proposing. As the House knows, there has been some

  141
  controversy in recent months about the fact that pregnant widows cannot get maternity allowance because it counts as an overlapping benefit with widows' allowance. We propose to remove that overlapping benefit provision to enable pregnant widows to receive statutory maternity pay. That small but sympathy-demanding group will also be assisted by our proposals.
  The financial calculations are somewhat complex—as I am sure the hon. Lady knows from some of the discussions we had last year about the extension of statutory sick pay—because of the way in which various items crop up in different bits of the account. It is estimated that the flat-rate element of statutory maternity pay will account for payments by employers of about £112 million, and that is apart from payments of the earnings-related element equivalent to the present maternity pay scheme. It is also estimated that DHSS expenditure on maternity allowance will be reduced by £124 million.
  There will be offsetting expenditure of £19 million on extra sickness benefits and supplementary benefit payments. The hon. Lady will see from those figures that there is a modest increase in the amount paid out. Against that there is the taxation issue. I do not think that the hon. Lady asked about this, but perhaps I should tell her that we expect the tax yield from SMP as a whole will be about £30 million. Of that, about £15 million is, as it were, the equivalent of existing taxation because maternity pay is already taxable. That means that the net increase in tax revenue, the amount corresponding to the introduction of taxation on the maternity allowance part of the maternity pay scheme, is around E 15 million. I hope that that is reasonably clear to the hon. Lady, but if in seeking to respond as willingly as I have to her questions I have in any way issued a misleading statistic I shall see that she receives a correction.
  Mrs. Beckett: I shall be able to read the Minister's words in the Official Report, but it would be helpful if he could set out the financial calculations. Although I tried to follow with care the figures he gave, I find it a little hard to see how 94,000 women, or a net figure of 75,000 women, can fail to qualify for benefit altogether, although the Minister argues that there is little in the way of financial savings. I should like him to look at that rather more carefully.
  My second point is one that I should have asked the Minister first time round and I forgot. It is not entirely clear to me from the press release, but I have taken it from the way that it reads, that the original intention with the
  142
  statutory maternity allowance and the separate maternity pay scheme was that one might be deductible from the other. That proposal caused a great deal of anxiety during consultation, but I now assume that it will disappear because the schemes are amalgamated. Am I correct in that assumption?
  Mr. Newton: There may be some misunderstanding. It has always been the case that where maternity allowance was payable, maternity pay made up the difference to reach the 90 per cent. total. If that were not done, somebody could get more in maternity pay and maternity allowance than she would be getting by way of normal pay if she were at work. Clearly, that is neither satisfactory nor sensible.
  We certainly do not envisage that there should be payment of a flat rate equivalent to the present maternity allowance. To make it clearer, take as an example the £31·60 figure. On top of that there would be a payment of 90 per cent. of normal earnings. During the six weeks there would be 90 per cent. of normal earnings and for those qualified for the 90 per cent. over the six weeks, there would be 12 weeks at the flat rate of £31·60. There would not be six weeks during which both the 90 per cent. and £31·60 were payable together at the same time. That is for the same reason as not paying maternity allowance and maternity pay as separate figures.
  Mrs. Beckett: As I recall and as I understood from the documentation that I have available—obviously not as extensive as that available to the Minister—the point being made was that people who were not receiving maternity allowance might nevertheless be deemed to be receiving it and would suffer a loss. A number of people responded to that danger during the consultation process and it is not clear whether or not it has disappeared.
  Mr. Newton: The technical restraint on the debate is the taxability of the proposed scheme. The hon. Lady is going into some fairly fine detail, and it might be better if I were to undertake to communicate with her at a later stage rather than to detain the House longer tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging to income tax under Schedule E of payments of statutory maternity pay under that Act or, in Northern Ireland, any corresponding provision contained in an Order in Council under the Northern Ireland Act 1974.

  SAFETY AT SEA BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Safety at Sea Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown under the Act and any increase attributable to the Act in the sums so payable under any other Act;

  (b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Churchill be discharged from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) and Mr. William Benyon be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

  Oxford Polytechnic
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
  12.10 am
  Mr. Steve Norris: Oxford is well known for its university which, over seven centuries, has established a worldwide reputation. Oxford is less well known for its polytechnic, which has not had the advantage of being in business for seven centuries but which is, nevertheless, fast making a name for itself.
  I have the privilege of representing the constituency in which Oxford polytechnic is located and I should like tonight to draw attention to its achievements as well as to some of the problems that confront it. In so doing I wish to pay tribute to, and to thank Dr. Clive Booth, the director of Oxford polytechnic, who has prepared for me a most excellent brief for this evening. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science will appreciate that his Department's loss is clearly Oxford polytechnic's great gain.
  Oxford illustrates as well as anywhere the complementary roles of a great university and a thriving polytechic. The polytechnic has many special features not to be found in most universities. These include the opportunity to study at a wide range of levels from below degree to postgraduate, to study part-time as well as full-time, and in many applied and vocational subjects, some of which—such as architecture, catering management and planning—are not available in the university.
  The polytechnic has a unique and highly popular modular course in which students can combine subjects from similar or widely differing fields. It has very strong links with the local community and industry. Like all polytechnics, it is accountable through many external academic and professional bodies for the quality of its work, and their reports speak highly of its achievements. The polytechnic's students are significantly above average in their success in obtaining employment after graduation.
  Oxford polytechnic is a shining example, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, of academic efficiency. Its expenditure per student in 1984–85 was 8 per cent. below the average polytechnic and 24 per cent. below the highest spenders. Let me emphasise that these figures, which were produced by the polytechnic finance officers group, are adjusted to allow for differences in the mix of subjects studies, so they are genuinely comparable figures.
  Not only is the polytechnic spending well below the average but it has achieved, in advance, the targets for student-to-staff ratios that are set by the National Advisory Body on the advice of Her Majesty's inspectors. It has achieved these levels of efficiency by exercising stringent economies and by teaching students in larger and larger groups.
  But these economies have also had a measurable effect on student performance. Oxford polytechnic will shortly be publishing a research study which shows that over the period 1980 to 1985 student achievement, as measured in the termly examinations, fell steadily. This was in spite of an increase in the quality of the student body as measured by their general certificate of education advanced level grades. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that this is a matter not for congratulation but for deep concern,

  145
  specifically because the fall in achievement correlates with increasing class size and the relationship is highly significant in statistical terms.
  The evidence reinforces that recently assembled by the Council for National Academic Awards, based on hundreds of course courses in the public sector. In its report on resources and standards, a copy of which has been sent to my hon. Friend, the council registered its concern. The standards of courses approved by the CNAA are required by the council's charter to be comparable with university standards. The CNAA's function is thus to offer public reassurance about the quality of public sector courses. But this CNAA report makes sombre reading. I do not have time to quote extensively from it but the council do point to the many problems caused by the sharp reductions in the available resources per student in recent years. The council concludes:
  "The Council believes that serious consequences will follow if there is a further decline in the unit of resource; and secondly, if action is not taken in the longer term to raise the unit of resource and capital equipment allocations to levels that will sustain quality."
  Oxford polytechnic, in common with others, continues to face a deteriorating situation. I shall deal with Oxford polytechnic's 1986–87 budget problems. These have arisen because it is self-evident that the Government's expenditure plans have made inadequate allowance for inflation and the way inflation affects academic institutions.
  The expenditure required simply to maintain the existing courses exceeded income by some £300,000. The governing body has had to consider savings which demonstrate the difficulty of finding economies in a polytechnic which is already poorly funded. The proposed savings included the early retirement of academic staff even though the polytechnic has already achieved the staffing levels recommended by HMI and has lost 40 academic staff within the last two years. A reduction in non-academic staff levels has been considered and yet this level is already below average. Another consideration was a reduction in library opening hours. However, because of past economies in the teaching staff, students have to rely increasingly on private study. To reduce to the already ungenerous library opening hours will hit those students hard.
  Another saving which is being considered is a reduction in industry visits and field work. That would be on top of the savings made in 1975 and 1979. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science who is to reply will appreciate the difficulty of running vocational and applied courses without adequate industry visits and field work. It is self-evident.
  These are some of the economies under consideration but they make it clear that the cuts strike at the heart of student education. Oxford polytechnic has the sympathetic assistance of the county council. I am glad to say that the council has agreed to meet some of this year's deficit and, as a result, the worst cuts will be avoided. It cannot be right that a higher education institution of national importance should depend on the willingness of local ratepayers to top up its budget.
  Oxfordshire county council, given its own circumstances, has understandably had a policy of not topping-up Oxford polytechnic, although it has come to the rescue on occasions and the polytechnic is grateful for that. However, the effect of topping-up is inequitable and
  146
  impossible to justify as some polytechnics receive generous contributions from their local education authority and others receive little or nothing. That is not helped by the attitude of the Government and NAB which is, in effect, to pretend that topping-up does not exist.
  The Green Paper on higher education said that universities and polytechnics should increasingly look for private sources of funding. I wholly agree with that proposition with which the polytechnic also concurs. The polytechnic has met with increasing success obtaining private funding through research and consultancy. However, the Confederation of British Industry and Engineering Employers Federation has confirmed in its responses to the Green Paper, as my hon. Friend the Minister is well aware, that industry cannot be expected to subsidise mainstream courses on any significant scale beyond their present level of subsidy.
  I shall attempt to put the financial problems of polytechnics in a broader national context. Recently my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew attention to the fact that under this Government, the number of students in polytechnics and colleges had grown by 40 per cent. Thanks to the efficiency of the institutions, however, that has been achieved by a much less than commensurate increase in resources. For example, between 1980–1981 and 1984–1985 polytechnic expenditure fell from £3,600 per student to £2,800 per student, which is a reduction of 22 per cent. in real terms.
  In the same period, university expenditure per student fell by a few percentage points. Indeed, the stark differences between the universities and the polytechnics were recently brought out in a paper published by the Department of Education and Science entitled, "Comparison of Funding across Sectors". It shows that even after discounting 30 per cent. of the universities' budgets for research, the polytechnics and colleges received 20 per cent. less per student. I fail to see how a Government who have often reinforced their support for polytechnics and for the particular courses that they offer can justify that disparity.
  Oxford polytechnic's difficulties are compounded by the inadequacies of its capital budget. This year, the amount earmarked by the Department for 1986–1987 is £776,000. That is a hopelessly inadequate sum for a major higher education institution that is attempting to cope with large teaching groups, changes in the balance of work, and the introduction of new technology into its science, engineering and vocational courses. It is less than the amount required solely for replacing outdated and broken-down equipment, which at Oxford polytechnic is estimated to amount to about £1 million per annum.
  The situation has become so serious that the dean of technology is now having to consider complete withdrawal from a subject area, since the polytechnic cannot hope to maintain standards in all areas of science and technology on the Government's present capital budget. It is interesting to note that a university of similar size to Oxford polytechnic would receive from the University Grants Committee three or four times the amount earmarked for the polytechnic by the Department.
  One result of the inadequacy of the capital programme is the severe pressure on accommodation. The polytechnic in Oxford is now accommodating 30 per cent. more students than the Department's space standards indicate should be accommodated. That means severe wear and

  147
  tear, which is exceptionally heavy and which puts pressure on the maintenance and cleaning revenue budgets. It is a vicious circle of the most unappetising sort.
  I turn briefly to the future. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, the NAB's officers have recently issued plans for the 1987–88 year as a basis for consultation. The NAB officers have had to make assumptions about the resources likely to be available, and they have quite reasonably assumed that, after all the economies made by polytechnics and colleges in the past six years, the amount spent per student must be protected. The result of protecting the amount per student is a planned reduction in intakes of 9,500 students. That figure has, not surprisingly, attracted much publicity, and I welcome the recent statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he hopes that those cuts in places can be avoided. But I must warn my hon. Friend the Minister that the 9,500 students cannot be accommodated unless matching resouces are provided. The loss of student opportunity if those places were not to be provided would be very sad indeed. At Oxford polytechnic, the NAB plans would perforce include cuts in computing, construction, mathematics, business studies, catering, modern languages and the in-service training of teachers. All of these are applied courses of central importance to our country's economic success. How can it make sense to cut them?
  I conclude on this note. In a recent television interview my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would be willing to make extra money available for purposes where he could be satisfied that they would be used wisely. If that is so, I urge my right hon. Friend to support extra funding for polytechnics. Understandably, they feel undervalued by the Government. My right hon. Friend claims to value higher education, which is closely linked to industry and commerce. That is exactly what the polytechnics are providing and they are doing so with great efficiency. They deserve our material, as well as our moral support.
  12.25 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Norris) for giving the House this opportunity to debate the affairs of Oxford polytechnic. The distinctive role and formidable achievements of the polytechnics are not always as well known as they should be. The popular perception of the polytechnics is too frequently as the poor relations of the universities. In fact they are at the head of a thriving and successful collateral branch of the higher education family with their own independent household, means and interests. They merit a better and more extensive press.
  I am particularly glad that it should be in relation to Oxford polytechnic that this opportunity arises, because it epitomises many of the typical virtues. My hon. Friend, who of course knows the polytechnic more intimately than I, has alluded to many of its achievements already this evening. But perhaps I, who know it more by its national reputation, although I have visited it informally, could single out three which refer back to the intentions which led to the creation of the polytechnics in 1966 and which are the hallmark of their distinctiveness today.
  148
  First, Oxford polytechnic is comprehensive in its intake and breadth of provision. Roughly a quarter of its advanced students are studying for qualifications below degree level. Over 10 per cent. of its advanced students are part-timers, a substantial proportion of whom are local mature students.
  Secondly, the polytechnic's emphasis is on technical and vocational work—on application rather than pure abstraction. Over 85 per cent. of its advanced students are on technical, scientific and other vocational courses. Many courses have been devised in collaboration with, and in response to the needs of local employers.
  Thirdly, the polytechnic is the valued collaborator of local industry, not just as a supplier of training needs, but as a consultant with practical expertise to contribute in its own right. It provides everything from a consultancy service on catering management, to energy studies for local schools, to the development of computer-aided management systems.
  Therefore, I am happy to accept and to endorse my hon. Friend's high estimation of Oxford polytechnic. It is an institution of many qualities and with an important contribution to make to local and national needs.
  The kernel of the case made by my hon. Friend is that these qualities are now perceived to be threatened by financial stringency. In particular the polytechnic faces a deficit on its budget for 1986–87 which may necessitate the finding of substantial savings to the detriment of existing provision. The moral which my hon. Friend draws from this is that the resources planned for the public sector of higher education as a whole in 1986–87 are inadequate and are being spread too thinly, both in that respect and for equipment.
  My hon. Friend will, I hope, understand if I do not attempt a detailed analysis of the management and financial circumstances of Oxford polytechnic. They are matters beyond my Ministerial responsibility. I certainly do not wish to challenge my hon. Friend's judgment that it is a well-run institution, nor the judgment of those within the institution itself and the maintaining authority who have managerial responsibilities, that the budget for 1986–87 is a tight one.
  However, I cannot refrain from quibbling with one small detail of my hon. Friend's presentation. I notice that he did not quote from the letter from the local education authority which suggested that there was a possible saving of £100,000—a third of the shortfall—on catering and cleaning. However, I know that the polytechnic governors had serious doubts about the effectiveness of privatisation. I note that for the record, but I do not want to get involved in this local issue.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is, however, responsible within the context of the Government's plans for local authority expenditure generally for the annual determination of the advanced further education pool, which shares the cost of local authority higher education between authorities. My right hon. Friend is also responsible, in the light of advice that he receives from the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education, for determining allocations from the pool to local authorities in respect of their institutions providing advanced education.
  Against that background it is pertinent to record that the allocation from the pool in respect of Oxford polytechnic in 1986–87—just over £11·5 million—represents a 6 per cent. increase on that for 1985–86. That is in line with the

  149
  increase in the advanced further education pool as a whole between those two years and ahead of the Government's forecast of inflation. It yields a level of funding per student at the polytechnic at exactly the overall polytechnic average. Since 1983–84, Oxford polytechnic's allocation from the pool as risen by 18 per cent., roughly in line with inflation. That is not ungenerous.
  If, nevertheless, Oxford polytechnic anticipates difficulties in living within its budget in 1986–87, I suspect that two particular factors may be playing a part. The first, which is also general to public sector higher education, is the inflationary cost—7 per cent. in a full year—of the 1985–86 further education lecturers, pay settlement. There are many who would argue that the public funding of the system should keep pace with its component costs, including its salary costs, even if they exceed the rate of inflation in the economy as a whole. I do not accept that argument. The award was made on the understanding that the lecturers' union would discuss changes in working practice that would lead to significant efficiency gains. Although they are the subject of current negotiation, those gains have yet to materialise. In the meantime, I do not think that higher education—and I stress that I am talking about higher education overall, rather than polytechnics in particular—can reasonably expect to be compensated by the taxpayer for additional costs which were incurred with open eyes and full knowledge of the funding consequences. The onus must be on higher education itself to contain the increased cost.
  Oxford polytechnic, as my hon. Friend said, has also recently lost its topping up the amount by which the maintaining authority had in the past supplemented the polytechnics allocation from the advanced further education pool.
  I noted my hon. Friend's arguments about the whole philosophy of topping up but it would take much longer than we have available at this early hour of the morning to go into that. This is entirely a matter for the authority, which must decide in the light of its available resources and of local priorities whether to divert additional funds to the support of advanced further education.
  I recognise, of course, that the diminution of income consequential on the loss of topping up may take a little time to assimilate and may entail some redeployment of resources within the polytechnic itself. But the Government, basing themselves on the advice of the National Advisory Body, are clear that the advanced further education pool is adequate to fund the advanced provision planned for in 1986–87.
  More generally, it is clear that the polytechnics as a group are now operating a tight ship. the background to that is the sustained expansion of student numbers that has occurred in the first half of this decade to which my hon. Friend referred. Since 1979, the polytechnics have absorbed a 37 per cent. increase in student numbers and in consequence have achieved a substantial and very creditable gain in efficiency. Their improved efficiency has been reflected in a sustained tightening of the student-staff ratio until, in 1984–85, it stood at 11·5:1, just short of the 12:1 target for the public sector as a whole established by the National Advisory Body as a basis for its planning. There has also been a commensurate fall in polytechnic unit costs of just over 18 per cent.
  Oxford polytechnic has followed that trend. As my hon. Friend observed, it has also achieved a student staff ratio of 11·5:1, which, because of its subject mix, is consistent
  150
  with th 12:1 target for the sector as a whole. Unit costs at Oxford polytechnic are below the overall polytechnic average.
  My hon. Friend deduces a threat to quality from this substantial fall in unit costs. He cites as evidence an unpublished research paper—although I understand from him that it will soon be published—tracing a correlation between student performance and resources at Oxford polytechnic over the period 1980 to 1984. I have not seen the paper, but I welcome work in this area. This is a complex question on which the evidence is so far scanty. The more evidence the better. What evidence I have seen, however, does not lend support to any simple formulation of the relationship between resources and quality. I am more inclined to sympathise with the observation of a recent paper on the same subject by the Council for National Academic Awards, submitted as evidence to the National Advisory Body, which was careful to stipulate that the relationship was not a mechanical one.
  It depends crucially, for example, on the extent to which resources are being exploited to the full. In the case of advanced further education at the beginning of the decade, they were clearly not. There was substantial under-used capacity—in part because student demand which was anticipated in the 1970s and for which provision of accommodation and resources had been made did not materialise, or materialised at a slower rate than expected. The decline in unit costs is largely a measure of the greater intensity with which resources have been used since. Thus the National Advisory Body, in its strategy advice to the Secretary of State about higher education in the late 1980s and beyond, published in September 1984, judged in the light of the views of Her Majesty's inspectorate and the validating bodies, that the fall in unit costs was not in itself a ground on which it could argue for an increase in the funding per student then obtaining, although it did recommend that there should be no further planned reduction.
  My hon. Friend has argued that the spare capacity is now filled up and that, in the case of Oxford polytechnic, the bottle is full to overflowing. He concludes accordingly that the Government should allow no further deterioration in the unit of resource in 1987–88. In so doing, he echoes the views of the National Advisory Body.
  I should stress at once that no decisions have been taken about the level of funding available for public sector higher education, nor will they be taken until the autumn. That said, I have to record my scepticism of the unit of resource argument embraced by the National Advisory Body and the relationship it predicates between funding and student numbers—that to add a student costs the same wherever added, and to remove a student saves the same wherever substracted. Common sense suggests that the real world is not like that. How can it be when a proportion of the system's costs are attributable to its buildings and other facilities, which are relatively inelastic to demand?
  Only if the system, in each and every one of its constituent parts, was operating at full capacity would an approach based on maintaining a particular level of funding per student make sense. Even that supposes—and it seems to me fraught with difficulty—that it is possible to discern what level marks the Rubicon of acceptable quality. But the system is not operating at full capacity. By contrast with the tight efficient polytechnic ship, the student-staff ratio elsewhere in the local authority

  151
  higher education sector stood at 9·6 : 1 in 1984–85. That is indicative of substantial spare teaching capacity. Prima facie, therefore, there must be scope for redeploying resources towards the polytechnics.
  I dwell on this point, which Ministers have repeatedly made in the light of the National Advisory Body secretariat consultative proposals, because it seems to me that the efficient allocation of places and resources is the key to orderly planning. It could almost describe the National Advisory Body's raison d'être. To place undue emphasis on the average level of funding per student diverts attention away from the effectiveness of the system. By assuming that the system is disposed to best effect now, it effectively excludes consideration of how it might be better organised to make resources go further and to sustain quality.
  This is no service to Oxford polytechnic nor to other institutions of similarly high quality. It is axiomatic that we should fund such institutions at a level consistent with
  152
  preservation of quality and so as to build on existing strengths. I do not see how that purpose would be fulfilled by the National Advisory Body secretariat consultative proposals which would instead divert money away from Oxford polytechnic by curtailing the planned number of students for which it is funded, in the way that my hon. Friend has mentioned. It would be a folly to do so when there are unused resources elsewhere in the system. For that reason the Government look to the National Advisory Body to bear these factors in mind as it continues its planning for 1987–88, culminating in the submission of advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this December.
  These considerations have ranged more broadly, perhaps, than the immediate problems which my hon. Friend has raised in the case of Oxford polytechnic, but I hope that they have helped to place them in a rather more comprehensible context.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o' clock.